From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Varied Subjects
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:05:35 GMT

Warning to the excessively tolerant:  I'm about to drag Mr Newell along the
racetrack behind my horse a couple of times.


In article <19692@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:

>  My complaint is not with free-enterprise. Of course they have the *right* to
>do as they wish. My problem is what they choose to do. 

Um.  I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.  They have the right to
do as they wish, but not what they're actually doing?  Or. . .?

If you don't like a company's practices, don't do business with them.


>They choose to milk
>those of us who are in fact big Disney fans and who are willing to put out the
>$20 or so to purchase their tapes and cards and a variety of other products.

Hmmm.  My take on people who buy cards is simple.  Think PT Barnum. . . there's
one born every minute.  "A ______ and his _______ soon are _______," you know?
Anyone who *has* to buy all this _stuff_ because it relates to their favorite 
movie (or tv show or comic book or whatever) is a doormat, waiting to be walked
on.  Why not just wear a teeshirt that says "rob me?"


>They deceive the public as to their policies and intentionally mislead in
>an effort to maximize profits - do they have the right to do so? Of course, and
>I have the right to get angry about such policies.

What you do *not* have a right to do is to make wild, libellous (or is this
slanderous?  I'm not sure which would apply to netnews--) accusations against
a person or "corporate person."

You can get angry about their policies, and that's fine.  What you have *not*
established, and what, in the absence of such establishment, is libellous (or
slanderous), is the claim that they "decieve the public. . . and intentionally
mislead."  At that point, you're making accusations of fraud, and that, old
son, is actionable.  (In fact, under certain circumstances, it's actionable
even if it's _true_.)


> Which I did choose to do. I did not and will not pay to see Pinochio in the
>theatres when I can and have rented the tape on numerous occasions. I would
>have gladly purchased the tape from Disney for a reasonable price at many points
>over the past 2-3 years but alas in an effort to milk more money from the
>public they choose to artificially limit the supply of tapes and create an
>artificial demand for the product. 

Well, actually, no.

They released PINOCCHIO on tape at a time when the VTR market was 
*significantly* smaller, and sold what *at*that*time* seemed to be a saturation
level of the tape.  

They could have kept it on the market, but that would have been either only 
slightly profitable or actually a loss item -- because this country's incredibly
boneheaded tax laws no longer allow favorable depreciation of warehoused stock
of consumer goods.  (This is all due to something referred to as "the machine
tool decision," which is also why hardcover books get remaindered faster than 
they used to.  If you want details I can get the actual name of the case, but
you'll have to look it up yourself.)


>To top it off, they choose to lie about
>their re-release policy, implying that they would not re-release their tapes
>unless or until their was a significant change or improvement in technology.

Demonstrate that this is a lie.  In order to do so, you have to establish (1)
that they have actually violated the "policy," thus falsifying it *AND* (2) that
they have no right to *change* their policy.

In other words, if a policy made sense at the time it was made, but no longer
does, and the company changes -- does this constitute a lie?  In what way?  The
statement of policy was true *when* *it* *was* *stated*; are you saying that a
statement can ex post facto *become* a lie?

In the meanwhile, to demonstrate that they *have* violated the "policy," you 
have to demonstrate that there has been no significant change or improvement in
technology.  In order to do that, you have to give a working definition of
"significant" -- and you have to demonstrate that WEDCo is or should be bound
by that definition.  Similarly with "change" "improvement" and even 
"technology," though that one should be relatively trivial.

I haven't seen the re-release, and by your own statements neither have you.

Then HOW DO YOU KNOW THE IMPROVEMENT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT?

Nearly everyone I've talked to or read on the subject, states that the re-
release is a major improvement, both in sound and in image, over *both* the
previous release *and* the existing video releases.  Any statement on your part
that this is *not* the case is ex ignorantia *at* *best* and might conceivably
be construed (in the legal sense) as "misleading" -- that is to say, what you
have been referring to as a lie.


>Seeing
>a film in the theatre is the only way to fully appreciate it - that doesn't
>mean that you must manipulate your audiance in order to get this point
>across.

On the other hand:  presume that the motivation is to "preserve Walt's work and
the appreciation of the public for that work."  If the videos were still 
generally available -- do you honestly believe that a significant number of
moviegoers would go out to see the film?

If not, then how would that "experience" be conveyed?

And, if there is no way to do so, should WEDCo merely give up on releasing the
classic films to theaters?

My point here is that there is a plausible chain of reasoning which leads to
the company's current behavior without any malicious intent to "manipulate."
Lacking evidence that there *is* such intent, your claims are questionable at
best and, as I said above, possibly actionable.


>The animated musical is theirs now (face it you
>probably won't see another non-musical Disney animation for the next decade
>and a half at least). 

Actually, I gather "The Jungle King"/"The Lion's Tale" isn't intended to be a 
musical.

		He's got a mask that's black and white
		  Mine's just black but that's all right
		In silence and cunning he plies his trade
		  I ply mine in silence and shade
		[. . .]
		In the heart of the city it's murder time
		  It ain't no crime to kill a mime
			-- "Killing a Mime" by Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.