How Universal treats you, its customers by SebastianFelis

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Frem,

This fellow put this up on the table for discussion. That makes him and his ideas fair game for approval or disapproval. In this case, disapproval.

He also put into his letter that Universal had to get written consent from all Browncoats attending the Q&A.

That makes it appear as though he is representing those other browncoats.

I wonder how the browncoat community should feel about their assumed consent to have him represent us?

No, sir. He took his private war, made it public, and then included other people in his complaint to Universal. Other people who weren't consulted about being included in his fight.

He is wrong. He needs to be told that he is wrong.

If he can publicly proclaim his rightness, we can publicly proclaim his wrongness.

It's the best way we can get the message across that, despite his letter to the contrary, HE DOES NOT REPRESENT US.

--Anthony "I'm not with him" Toledo

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 1:02 PM

KELLAINA

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

You know, the irony of delivering huge amounts of flameage at someone cause one holds the opinion that someone else actions make them look bad, really should be pointed out here.

Where did he get flamed? Mass disagreement is not necessarily flameage.

And as has been said, most of us aren't responding to his opinion, but rather the presumption in the letter that he is speaking for more than himself.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 1:53 PM

KRYTEN3

I have to admit, I don't see the problem this guy has.

He got to see the movie.
He got to see Joss Whedon in person.
He may appear on a DVD extra.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a DAMN good deal for the price he paid. I would pay probably ten times that much for the same privilege.

Were the cameras hidden? Doubtful.
Did they film this guy picking his nose or something? Again, doubtful.

Then what's the gorram problem? You may not be a fan of corporations, etc, but corporations gave us Firefly, and they're giving us Serenity.

You gotta take the good with the bad, but from where I'm sitting, it's all good...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:19 PM

RHONIS

I'm surprised how long this thread has gotten. A standard disclaimer like this just covers their backs. I can't believe someone would get upset over something like this... You're sitting in a gorram movie theater watching Serenity, Joss is there, and you might even find immortality on a DVD. And you complain about the fine print? A pile of Gose, this is. Did I even spell that right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:38 PM

> You're basically crying and looking for a free handout

No, I'm not. I don't want money. OK?
I'm angry at their approach, and I want them to change it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by spikeandjezebel:
Oh, and I forgot to mention - he wants ONE PERCENT of the gross of the DVD sales?!! So if the DVD sells 1 million copies at $20 apiece, he would be demanding $200,000 for his participation?

Frankly, I doubt that even the main cast members will get one percent of the DVD gross sales!!

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

That's right: the demand is ludicrously large, quite unreasonable. I have no expectation or desire to get money out of this. That clause is purely there as a deterrent.
The reason I specified "gross" is that it's harder to manipulate gross figures than net, as is commonly done in the music industry.

I'll see your Avon quote and raise you this exchange...
Blake: Do you agree?
Avon: Do I have a choice?
Blake: Yes.
Avon: Then I agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:06 PM

Quote:
You work for 'em? The own you.

No, they don't. They have my services while they pay me, but I'm not a slave, indentured or otherwise.

Quote:
They're paying you? You're theirs.

I'm theirs while they're paying me to be, subject to the terms of the contract. A contract, let me emphasise, that I agreed to and signed beforehand.

Quote:
You don't buy their product. Whose product do you buy?

Lots of companies' products. I just don't buy the product of the company for which I work. It isn't ideological, it's just that the competition better suits my needs.

Quote:
(If you've never seen "The Corporation", you should check it out. It'll definitely give you an idea how The Alliance is pretty much already here.)

I'll have to give it a look.

Quote:
And as for people giving power to them?
You give "power" to the corporation when you buy their shit.
Buy a CD? Go to Mickey D's? Watch TV and see the commercials?
Open your wallet and you're giving power to the corps. That's the way it is.

That's exactly right. I'm not some braindead reactionary who thinks that large corporations are inherently evil; if I were, I'd be quite the hypocrite. But it's my choice not to eat at McDonalds, or to watch commercial television. I only rarely buy CDs these days; when I do, it's usually from Metropolis Records, who are not part of the RIAA (and who distribute the work of some great artists).
It's also my choice to buy from any given companies. I'm not the type to whine about "Them" as though "They" are some divine institution; I understand very clearly that the power of any given company is derived from the money they get from their customers, including me.

Quote:
Hey, I'm sorry you got a nasty shock at the end of the BDMovie with this waiver thing.
But as far as suing someone?
I hate to say it, but you'd be wasting your time and money. Unless you have it like that time and money wise, that is.

I probably would be wasting my time. As others have also pointed out, Universal can afford more and better lawyers than I can.

What I'm after is simply for them to take a reasonable approach; to ask, instead of telling us that we've already given.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:06 PM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Ah, you played on my Blakes 7 weakness, I cannot criticize you anymore!

How about this one:

Avon: Should we survive this, I am finished. Staying with you requires a degree of stupidity of which I no longer feel capable.
Blake: Now you're just being modest.

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:27 PM

BELASERA

Your desire not to be seen on DVD borders on desperation, so I must ask, are you some hideous batboy?
(I'm only teasing, and I refuse to use an emoticon to convey it, so please accept this as a legal and binding disclaimer)

"I'll be in my bunk."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:38 PM

NIXYGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
> You're basically crying and looking for a free handout

No, I'm not. I don't want money. OK?
I'm angry at their approach, and I want them to change it.

You SHOULD have walked to the side near the exit to not be filmed!

Not to have taken this to a public forum.

I'm quite annoyed at your approach and I would like you to change it!

You do not speak for me OR the other Australian Browncoats who were there. So please remove the request to get our permission from your letter.

I did ask questions and am happy to be put on the DVD if it happens!

I'm also honoured to have spent quite a bit of time with Joss and UIP this last week, they have been wonderful and courtious and an absolute pleasure to talk with.

luvs nix

p.s your the guy that made the snoring noise right? Are you afraid your reprimand from Joss might make it on the DVD?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:39 PM

> They aren't being jerks, they're protecting themselves against jerks.

I disagree. If they asked us to sign those forms, they would have been protecting themselves. By sneakily sort-of informing people that we've already handed over our rights, they're being jerks.

> Your suggestion doesn't work either. You want them to get notarized signatures from every member of the audience? Might as well kiss any future screenings goodbye. It's too much hassle for Universal.

It was easy enough for a couple of browncoats to wander up and down the line collecting messages to Joss. Substitute release forms for those, collect them at the door, and suddenly it doesn't look hard at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:53 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent from all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product, I request that any recordings of the event not be used for promotional, commercial or any other purpose."

If our aggrieved party here is as against 'implied consent' as he says, he will write to Universal and apologize, admitting that he did not have consent from 'all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product' to make a request that is bound to them.

Further, the aggrieved party here claims he was insulted by Universal's audacity. Yet, instead of writing a letter that says, "I think it was rude to give me an implied consent form after I'd already begun to participate in an activity. Please get my consent ahead of time in the future." He instead asks for 1% gross earnings if his likeness is used.

Since Universal can't be sure if this joker is serious or not, they have the choice to either Lawyer Up or not use any footage of the Q&A at all, in case his face shows up in the background somewhere.

Finally, our aggrieved party admits that he did read the implied consent form, and didn't leave or request a refund. Why? Because it didn't occur to him.

So now a DVD extra is threatened, and he's asking Universal for 1% gross, all because he didn't have the wit to figure out that if he didn't like the terms, he could leave.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:19 PM

NIXYGIRL

Yea and I am pretty shitted off about it too!
luvs nix

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:22 PM

LUCYFERSAM

I like how you've responed to many criticisms, but not the most important one which is your high handed assumption that you represent everyone. You are doing far worse to your fellow browncoats than universal did to you in not even giving them a chance to exclude themselves. You are responding to a slightly rude action that was necessary for legal reasons and expediency (a lot of people probably would have been annoyed to stand around and sign something that they thought was stupid), by being incredibly rude for no reason. I think you owe all of the others who were there an apology for having the audicity to claim you spoke for them and Universal an apology for pretending to speak for people you don't. You're letter, while coached in polite terms, is incredibly rude.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:30 PM

Quote:
You SHOULD have walked to the side near the exit to not be filmed!

Perhaps. But what about those who are unhappy about this, and didn't know at the time? Can they retroactively walk to one side as well?

Quote:
Not to have taken this to a public forum.

Or to have taken it directly to the appropriate person at Universal, which I've done?
My intention in taking it to a public form is to inform those who didn't know.

Quote:
I'm quite annoyed at your approach and I would like you to change it!

Fair comment.

Quote:
You do not speak for me OR the other Australian Browncoats who were there. So please remove the request to get our permission from your letter.
Quote:

Not sure of how to rephrase it, but I see your point and will think over how to cover that.

Quote:
I'm also honoured to have spent quite a bit of time with Joss and UIP this last week, they have been wonderful and courtious and an absolute pleasure to talk with.

That's definitely my perception of Joss; I was very impressed with him, especially given how tired he must have been.

Quote:
p.s your the guy that made the snoring noise right? Are you afraid your reprimand from Joss might make it on the DVD?

Afraid not. I wasn't impressed with that, either. I thought that the question was stretched into waffle, too, but that was just rude.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:35 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

No one cares. Stop whining.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:52 PM

BARCLAY

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
How Universal Treats You, It's Customers

You know, interestingly enough, I think I've been treated fine. Universal has created buzz for an upcoming film with a preexisting fan base by showing the finished film early. As such a fan who wants to see the film succeed, I think this is a brilliant idea.

Unfortunately, living and going to school in rural New York, I was unable to attend such a screening and am resigned to awaiting opening night. Therefore, if I get to see footage of a question and answer session with the creator of the film, I'm thrilled and would gladly pay to have it be an extra feature.

So, while your thread title implies Universal treats me, the customer, badly, I disagree wholeheartedly. I think by promoting the movie and giving me, the customer, goodies on the DVD (that I would buy anyways, so they're under no business obligation to do such a thing), I think I've been treated well.

To suggest both in your thread title and your letter to Universal that you represent any person other than yourself is just incorrect. And, for it, some might call you a "jerk." You do not represent me, nor, from the appearance of this thread, any other Browncoat who has spoken up. Maybe you should make an attempt to gain consent from other people before using them in your cause (irony intended... at least Universal made an effort). Would it be right of me to send Universal a letter praising them for having the screenings and Q&As and sign off every Browncoat as agreeing with me?

Finally, by your own account, you had a chance to read the disclaimer and voice and concerns before the Q&A began. You'd make it sound like you were unwillingly dragged into this (and the fact you paid double the ticket price is not a valid reason. That can be justified simply by saying you got to see the movie before the release date). The fact of the matter is, you went along with the Q&A, even after being handed the letter. That, right there, is consent.

I am sorry you are upset, and, in fact, you have a right to be. However, the way you have handled this situation is no better than the way Universal has.

"You are on the Global Frequency."
http://www.frequencysite.com
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:56 PM

DRDREDGE

Truthfully, Universal will probably just ignore your request. You may get a nice little response that says "we apologize if you feel inconvenienced.. or whatever"

But the simple truth is everything that has an audience that is filmed - has the same disclaimer.

Whether it's a sporting event, concert or Q&A.

How many times have people bought tickets to football games and not EVEN BEEN AWARE that they are consenting to the exact same forfeiture of rights to have thier likeness used in film, broadcast, home video and anything else in perpetuity throughout the Universe. Out of all the MILLIONS of people who have unknowingly given up their rights, I'm sure there have been several thousands of people who have complained about it or sued. But I personally am not aware of one single instance where I have ever heard of someone winning a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but are you aware of any?

The simple fact is
(regardless of paying for the ticket)
1.You attended a UNIVERSAL SPONSORED function
2.You SAW a professional camera crew filming
3. You did not choose to leave after noticing the camera crew started to film.

Whether or not you ever would have recieved the disclaimer is irrelevant.

It's just a sad fact of life. However, I do encourage you to call a civil trial attorney to get their perspective. Simply because at least then you would be provided with real information on what your legal rights were.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:19 PM

KAYLEEWANNABEE

Sebastianfelis, I can understand that you may have felt that a kind of "bait-and-switch" was happening when you got the legal notice from Universal. However, you were presented with an opportunity to be "made whole" by getting your money back and walking away with exclusive rights to your likeness intact.

Instead you made the choice that your rights to reproduction of your likeness et al were worth the price of admission, and you stayed in the room. So, as the notice says, your continued participation in the Q&A served as a waiver of those rights at that time, in that place.

Now, in retrospect, you've dramatically upped the sales price of the rights that you have already given away. Universal's lawyers will immediately see through this. If anything, they will simply pixellate your image or edit you out of any footage in which you may appear. So again...no harm, no foul, right? Your likeness won't be used without your permission.

Ideally you should have been informed of this rights waiver at the time you purchased your ticket. You weren't. That's a shame. Whoops, their bad. (But again, you were offered a remedy at the time.)

Also, I'd suggest that you be very careful what you wish for. Are you really, really sure that you want Universal to play hardball with all their intellectual property? Are you asking them to protect their rights with the same strenuous enthusiasm with which you're protecting yours? Do you really want them to file "cease and desist" orders with this site and all other sites that wantonly reproduce their intellectual property (Firefly/Serenity photos, names, locations, etc.)? Are you sure you want Universal to stop you or anyone else from re-creating Vera or Kaylee's Shindig dress or Mal's brown coat? Do you really want to have to learn how to use the ®, TM and SM symbols? Do you want Universal to sue everyone who has ever used a screen cap to create an avatar?

I would suggest that you just let this drop. Life's too short to pay lawyers with your blood, sweat and tears. And please don't presume to speak for others.

I don't want Universal to open a can of whoop-ass on people like me who went to DragonCon dressed in Kaylee's coveralls (or a close facsimile thereof). And no, I don't want venues like DragonCon to force its 26,000 attendees to get photo releases from each other before they post their digital pics to LiveJournal.

Jeez louise!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:05 PM

SEIZETHEFISH

Can I just say to the people complaining about the corporate Arse-reaming we all recieve, that the reason we have our BDM, and even Firefly at all, is because these huge corporations exist. Its a double-edged sword. If you think its not worth the price, don't watch Hollywood movies, don't want TV AT ALL unless you're talking about public access, and make a stand in a more realistic fashion, rather than popping your head up and shooting this out of nowhere.

Corporations are everywhere. This is an impotent and hypocritical, not to mention ungrateful way of fighting back.

Would you hit your mother for buying you an awesome toy, and then telling you couldn't use it whenever and however you felt like it?

Cry baby cry.
Make your mother sigh.
She’s old enough to know better. So cry baby cry

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

All the guy really wants is them to properly (as they are supposed to!, I found out yesterday) hand out said flyers BEFORE money is exchanged.

Is that really so much to ask?

I can see how he maybe didn't approach it in the best kinda way, but that's where polite suggestions trump flamage as a general rule.

I don't see nothin wrong with politely asking the theatres to hand out any stuff of this nature before money is exchanged, for appropriate legal reasons if nothing else.

The conduct of folk in this thread has kinda shamed me as a browncoat, it's really stupid to make oneself look worse by attempting to keep someone else from making them look bad...

Y'all wanna tar and feather someone, go do it to the f*x board of directors, at least they have it coming, argh.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:14 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
> They aren't being jerks, they're protecting themselves against jerks.

I disagree. If they asked us to sign those forms, they would have been protecting themselves. By sneakily sort-of informing people that we've already handed over our rights, they're being jerks.

> Your suggestion doesn't work either. You want them to get notarized signatures from every member of the audience? Might as well kiss any future screenings goodbye. It's too much hassle for Universal.

It was easy enough for a couple of browncoats to wander up and down the line collecting messages to Joss. Substitute release forms for those, collect them at the door, and suddenly it doesn't look hard at all.

Notes to Joss aren't the same as legal documents. What if I sign my name Ted Fraiser? I'm not Ted Fraiser. Do they know that? Heck no. All of a sudden I slap a lawsuit on them because they didn't get a consent form signed by me. They're hosed.

They were just covering their backs in an efficient manner. You obviously didn't have enough of a problem with it to leave the screening. You didn't put your money where your mouth is and you're making it very public that you didn't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:18 PM

Quote:
Notes to Joss aren't the same as legal documents. What if I sign my name Ted Fraiser? I'm not Ted Fraiser. Do they know that? Heck no. All of a sudden I slap a lawsuit on them because they didn't get a consent form signed by me. They're hosed.

Valid point, but then I'd expect them to defend on the basis of best efforts and countersue for fraud...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
All the guy really wants is them to properly (as they are supposed to!, I found out yesterday) hand out said flyers BEFORE money is exchanged.

Is that really so much to ask?

I can see how he maybe didn't approach it in the best kinda way, but that's where polite suggestions trump flamage as a general rule.

I don't see nothin wrong with politely asking the theatres to hand out any stuff of this nature before money is exchanged, for appropriate legal reasons if nothing else.

The conduct of folk in this thread has kinda shamed me as a browncoat, it's really stupid to make oneself look worse by attempting to keep someone else from making them look bad...

Y'all wanna tar and feather someone, go do it to the f*x board of directors, at least they have it coming, argh.

-Frem

Frem,

The aggrieved party in this case has earned his ire. At no point did he behave well.

He did not politely ask the theatres to hand out such waivers before money is exchanged in the future. He did not politely suggest to Universal that they do so. He skipped polite suggestions altogether and

A) Threatened to demand money from them and
B) Spoke on behalf of others who may not share his views.

The irony of his implied consent from fellow Browncoats to make demands on their behalf seems to be lost on you, Frem.

In addition, the aggrieved party
1) Did receive the waiver in time to do something about it and
2) Did nothing to remedy the situation at the time.

The aggrieved party had a right to be upset. But the aggrieved party handled his anger poorly, and thereby earned the anger of others.

How can you support his right to be upset at Universal, and yet deny our right to be upset at him?

As ye sow, Frem.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:39 PM

TUDYKRAWKS

ok i haven't read all the replies, but as an actor who's done some work in t.v. and indie films, this is a standard release form, and whenever a film/t.v. Co. is filming anything you should expect a release form. it's basically them covering there own ass.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:43 AM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by DrDredge:
Truthfully, Universal will probably just ignore your request. You may get a nice little response that says "we apologize if you feel inconvenienced.. or whatever"

But the simple truth is everything that has an audience that is filmed - has the same disclaimer.

Whether it's a sporting event, concert or Q&A.

How many times have people bought tickets to football games and not EVEN BEEN AWARE that they are consenting to the exact same forfeiture of rights to have thier likeness used in film, broadcast, home video and anything else in perpetuity throughout the Universe. Out of all the MILLIONS of people who have unknowingly given up their rights, I'm sure there have been several thousands of people who have complained about it or sued. But I personally am not aware of one single instance where I have ever heard of someone winning a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but are you aware of any?

Like I said, on the back of your ticket (they don't call it Small Print fer nothin'), and sometimes posted at the ticket office and around the exits, will be a caveat much like the one that someone posted here.
You have to believe there's more than one or two people who are in NFL Films that didn't expect or want to be. For perpetuity.
Actually we've gotten to the point (in this country where the people runnin the show USED to be for "smaller government") where no matter where you go, odds are you're being photographed.
The mall, the convenience store...hell, ANY store...driving down the street.
Welcome to the New World Order indeed.
*sigh*
Anyway...hey! BDMovie opens in FIFTEEN DAYS!!!!

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." - Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:54 AM

By reading this post you hereby irrevocably and unconditionally give and confirm to (me) and my successors licensees and assigns all consents and waivers (including a waiver of moral rights) required pursuant to any laws in any jurisdiction to enable (me) to exploit obtained Materials as intended (by me) in accordance with this agreement. You hereby release me from any and all claims and demands arising out of or in connection with such use including, without limitation, any and all claims for invasion of privacy, infringement of your right of publicity, defamation and any and other personal and/or property rights. You hereby indemnify and hold me fully indemnified from and against all actions, proceedings, costs, claims, damages and demands howsoever arising in respect of any actual or alleged breach or non-performance by you or your agreements contained herein.

This letter shall also serve to confirm that you have the authority to grant the right to use your name & likeness, email accounts, credit cards, bank accounts and funds containe therein and exercise of such rights shall not violate or infringe any rights of whatsoever nature of any third party.

Yours sincerely,

Wibbles

Nope, I dont see any problem with assuming that people have agreed to a contract....without having to sign anything...or even acknowledging its existance. Seems legit to me.
BTW...everyone you have all just agreed that I am allowed to use your credit cards...happy days.

Yes. The law is pretty screwy and big corporations with large pockets will tend to win....Especially if everyone accepts "well what did you expect" as a justification for downright rude and exploitative actions. In this instance Universal is just going through the motions in order to provide us with some good viewing...good on em...I will buy their DVD..and wouldnt want rediculous legal requirements getting in the way of giving us good features of events not all were lucky enough to attend.

But really, if they are going to do such a poor job of the disclaimer thing...they shouldnt have attempted it at all..because in Australian law they are allowed to use our image etc without express permission if said film was taken in public with no expectation of privacy or renumeration (I think. Dont quote me on it...consult a lawyer).The letter signs away more rights than this, however, and is thus rather objectionable.

I guess we are all victims of Lawyers and legal paranoia..even the corporations.

What is scary is just how happy people seem that we can so easily be assumed to have signed our rights away...and in fact would hack on someone who objects to such a system.

By walking past the ID scanners on Ariel...you probably surrendered all rights to privacy and freedom to the Blue Sun corp. I can see why some of Serenity's crew were a little less than keen to be setting foot on that rock..... most people would wonder what the heck their problem was.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:00 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
including a waiver of moral rights

Well, erm, in Britain at least, you can't sign away your Rights, moral or otherwise...
The inclusion of that sentence makes the entire post null and void (at least by British law) so look, heres my credit card and you can't have it, nah nah nah nah nah

...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:17 AM

DOCRAILGUN

Your point is taken. However... the point of most of the responses to the OP was that said poster could have walked out of the theatre and asked for his money back. But, no... the BDM screening and the Q&A with Joss were much more important than his precious rights. It wasn't until afterwards that he got indignant. If one doesn't want to be beholden to megacorps or "the system", one has to vote with one's feet. Otherwise, one has to put up with their rules and play the system. Life imitates art, huh? Mal and company (in Firefly) don't want to live within the sytem, so they're dirt-poor and living from job to job. That's their choice. They walked away. The OP could have done the same. Sure, he wouldn't have seen the movie or seen Joss... but that would have been his choice.

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
Yes. The law is pretty screwy and big corporations with large pockets will tend to win....Especially if everyone accepts "well what did you expect" as a justification for downright rude and exploitative actions. In this instance Universal is just going through the motions in order to provide us with some good viewing...good on em...I will buy their DVD..and wouldnt want rediculous legal requirements getting in the way of giving us good features of events not all were lucky enough to attend.

What is scary is just how happy you all seem to be that we can so easily be assumed to have signed our rights away...and in fact would hack on someone who objects to such as system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DocRailgun:
Life imitates art, huh? Mal and company (in Firefly) don't want to live within the sytem, so they're dirt-poor and living from job to job. That's their choice. They walked away. The OP could have done the same. Sure, he wouldn't have seen the movie or seen Joss... but that would have been his choice.

Sorry. I just dont buy into it. Are you suggesting that if you accept any aspect of civilisation (and theres much thats good)...you should (or have..by extension) agreed to all of it...to take whatever crap some rich corporation, government...or sick bastard with money and power dishes out...without thought or complaint?

No. That aint right,

Cant stop the signal....

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:42 AM

I suggest that's a poor comparison, by choice of scale. Abstaining from a single event to avoid buying into an implicit agreement is a far cry from eschewing all of civilization because you don't buy into how one small part of that civilization is being run. If an unscrupulous baron of a small community within a civilization assesses an implicit agreement on all who enter his area of control, you can vote with your feet without giving up your access to the rest of that civilization.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:23 AM

Well...lets look at it on this scale then. Via my post, above...you have waved all legal and financial rights to me...

and have obviously chosen, by continuing correspondance on this thread that you have not voted with your feet to avoid waving said rights.

Now...I would never seriously expect anyone to avoid the forum and the fun to be had on the forum in order to have to maintain their legal rights.

It would be silly. None of you would accept it from me...why accept it from universal...or anyone else?

Personally...if universal had said that I was to sign away my first born to see the movie...after turning up and buying a ticket..I wouldnt have walked away. Call me a radical...but personally I would have watched the movie (cause I enjoy the damn thing and took a trip to sydney to see it) and then have not complied with the silly agreement and complained about it to all that would listen...cause it was a silly requirement deserving that level of scorn and lack of compliance....and is worthy of complaint

Obviously my example..was extreem...but in response to another post that took a rather black and white approach...with those 2 colours...the shading really doesnt matter...nor does the scale.

Although if one were to object on a basis of scale...your petty baron controlling one spot of land...unlike a corporation...has limited reach. Universals agreement...while it almost certainly was not going to be used abusively, nevertheless signs away more rights than were necessary....and in the original posted example....provided insufficient notice to people....and they cant outrun it cept by moving to a country with substantially different corporate laws...

The problem isnt as simple as voting with ones feet...nice and blackNwhite...people will have watched that and still have no idea that they have, supposedly, signed away there credit cards (or whatever personal and legal rights were waved by universal). They were never given the choice to vote with their feet. And it is a fair call to suggest that something about that has a bit of an odour to it. Yes, he could have voted with his feet....but that dont fix the prob or address the real issue.

The vote with your feet argument is a classic one used to supress freedom of speech and people who are actively attempting to point out ligitimate problems....& I will never tend to agree with it.

It IS the same argument used on all scales. Well if you are going to complain about America...go somewhere else!....so much for democracy and freedom of speech....dont try to improve stuff...if you dont like the way it is go somewhere else!

Spose all thos ppl in New Orleans should have voted with their feet also? Oh no, wait...some of em couldnt! Maybe they should just shuddup or drown!

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

toDeath,

I think that most people on this board are not disputing the aggrieved party's rights to complain.

Rather, it is the method and execution of his opposition that is reviled.

I will again reiterate the supreme ironies at the core of this issue:

An opponent of implied consent went on to imply the consent of others to have his representation.

An opponent of rudeness was, himself, rude.

A person who wasn't seeking renumeration asked for quite a bit of it.

The aggrieved has no legs in my view. Had he handled things better, at any stage, he would have far greater support.

As it lies now, He had a good argument, then buggered it all to pieces.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:49 AM

In some areas I suspect that I agree with your main premise that Universal handled things badly. I just have some difficulty getting beyond the expressions being used. Attempts, for example, to tie in a cheezily-delivered (and worded) blanket release to civil rights, political dissent in America and the plight of people from New Orleans simply make no sense to me.

As for your posted "release" above, it meant nothing. You don't provide this forum, nor any of its services, nor is there a glimmer of expectation by anyone visiting it that you could ever have such power. Your attaching implicit conditions to people reading posts here, even one you authored, has no real substance, and illustrates nothing that I can see.

On the other hand, Universal has legal rights to the content they were presenting in a limited-access venue, and they held legal rights to control that access. They were completely in their rights to require some manner of consent in order to view the material; they just obtained that consent in a manner I find high-handed and of questionable straightforwardness.

Again, the only real recourse to people not wanting to grant that consent was/is to vote with their feet and not access the material. Pointing out that such recourse might not be appropriate in other contexts doesn't apply in this case.

Edited because some of the wording in my original post was too argumentative in my opinion.

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:04 AM

I have mostly been targeting my arguments at the...well..at the argument...not at the person.

That would be rude.

However, many respondants have not been doing so. Personally, i think you should all take a deep breath and read the original post again.

It may not nail the issues perfectly, but I can see nowhere in that post:

1) The author assumeing consent for others to be represented by him, rather he raised an issue he felt strongly about that happens to affect others (as do most issues selfless people feel strongly about). In so doing he in no way waved the legal (or moral!!!) rights of any individual. Really...no comparison to the universal disclaimer.

2)The author being in any way rude to anyone...he made a legit point, gave us a good and thorough example of the issue and the legal disclaimer in question.

Later...AFTER being attacked some, he had some follow up posts that may have been a tad hasty.But certainly at at least one stage...he made a good and valid point.

With all respect, Anthony. i think people on this thread should be attacking the argument...because that is the issue at hand...rather than the author. If he had a good argument and buggered it...you could show your great understanding by clarifying it for people...rather than by implying that he is a rude &/or greedy hypocrite.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
tie in a cheezily-delivered (and worded) blanket release to civil rights, political dissent in America and the plight of people from New Orleans simply make no sense to me.

As for your posted "release" above, it meant nothing. You don't provide this forum, nor any of its services, nor is there a glimmer of expectation by anyone visiting it that you could ever have such power. Your attaching implicit conditions to people reading posts here, even one you authored, has no real substance, and illustrates nothing that I can see.

On the other hand, Universal has legal rights to the content they were presenting in a limited-access venue, and they held legal rights to control that access. They were completely in their rights to require some manner of consent in order to view the material; they just obtained that consent in a manner I find high-handed and of questionable straightforwardness.

Again, the only real recourse to people not wanting to grant that consent was/is to vote with their feet and not access the material. Pointing out that such recourse might not be appropriate in other contexts doesn't apply in this case.

Edited because some of the wording in my original post was too argumentative in my opinion.

I see the issue at hand to be one of civil rights..albiet a rather unimportant example (the Universal disclaimer stripped people of rights without sufficient warning). But yes, I agree with you that it is a rather minor incident of high handed but essentially harmless legalise....my more cheesy examples were merely combating a conservative argument I rather dislike...vote with your feet is a roundabout way of telling someone to not have an opinion and I rather object to it on a forum that is, I would have thought, the entire point...to have opinions. My posted release was merely a parody of the universal one to illustrate a point...that point not being the power I have over the forum (for i have no authority here or anywhere else)....but rather how innapropriate it is to assume people have agreed to a contract b4 having had any real chance to see its content. Mostly, I agree with your last post.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:27 AM

Fair enough. Methinks this medium dilutes a lot of meaning and context, and sometimes that dilution extends into what I call "violent agreement."

---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:29 AM

ZEEK

How is voting with your feet saying that you can no longer voice your opinion? It's actually the first step in the process of voicing your opinion. Universal would take note if someone was actually so upset that they left the theater.

Instead you give examples of going along with the disclaimer only to get what you want and then contest it later. Do you often go to restaurants and order the most expensive item on the menu, eat the food, then contest the price after the fact? That's not the way to handle things. Not only are you in the wrong. You're not going to get anywhere that way. The company will get what they want (your money, your release of rights, your first born, whatever) and you are telling them that you just want to complain, because when given the choice you chose the product over your rights.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:48 AM

VISITINGMYINTENTIONS

It sounds like Universal was being underhanded legally, and whatsisface called them on it.

Those of you scared that Universal will say "I don't like you guys anymore!!1" and go sulk are paranoid. Universal will take this as it is intended: a criticism of the way they included the disclaimers, along with praise (remember the praise?) of all the good things they have provided.

Don't think Universal is a poor little victim. They're a huge corporation that receives volumes and volumes of mail, and they aren't going to keel over in shock when someone writes them and tells them they did something slightly objectionable at one of their screenings.

So those of you who disagree with this (wo)man's actions, don't worry; it's not going to affect you.

Personally, I do think corporations should notify us of what rights they want us to give up before they go ahead and take them. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they put such disclaimers on the back of their tickets (as someone pointed out ballparks do).

---------------------------------------------------
Early: Where'd she go?

Simon: I can't keep track of her when she's NOT incorporeally possessing a spaceship, don't look at me --

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:41 PM

Thank U, visitingmyintentions. You said it very well, I think.

AS for others:

Quote:

How is voting with your feet saying that you can no longer voice your opinion? It's actually the first step in the process of voicing your opinion. Universal would take note if someone was actually so upset that they left the theater.
[quoteInstead you give examples of going along with the disclaimer only to get what you want and then contest it later. Do you often go to restaurants and order the most expensive item on the menu, eat the food, then contest the price after the fact? That's not the way to handle things

Nope. I am sayin that...as a fan and customer, I feel somewhat entitled to see the movie(or whatever example I used last night)...but reserve the right to complain about being ambushed by a whole bunch of legal crap i didnt sign up to. If I were at a restaurant with a bunch of friends, had ordered my meal....and then someone ran up and handed me a legal disclaimer saying that eating here meant I had given up any moral & legal rights....Well....yes I would be stubborn and NOT exclude myself from the social outing...it probably isnt that big a deal....but I certainly would complain about being treated in such a high handed manner.

So, actually, what I do is chose the product AND my rights. Moreover, I chose to champion the rights of others who may otherwise have been ambushed/browbeaten/tricked into "consenting" to their rights being waved.

Tellin people to vote with their feet IS tellin em that they have to decide to either 1) Not participate, or 2) If they participate to not have an opinion (if they didnt like all of it, they should have walked)

And yet...somehow, the opinions of those who havnt participated in an event/activity or state are rarely given much credence.

Moreover, some are not given a viable choice to walk....so option no1 is out. For them, the "well you should have voted with your feet" argument IS telling them to shut up...accept crap without complaint.

Now, seriously, I am sure that NO ONE had truly consented to the full disclaimer with any real belief that all its measures would be used against them in full...if they did they are idiots....because participating in a Q&A with Joss...no matter how great a fan you are...really isnt worth forever signing away all moral and legal rights to a corporation. Essentially, most people there bought the meal...and if pressed, would contest the price after the fact. It is, in fact, how most things are done.

Tell me, do you read every software disclaimer before just clicking through to the installation stage? If so...do you truly agree to wave legal rights to compensation for any damage done by said software? You cant tell...before installation (or sometimes even after) if it contains a trojan that converts your computer into an illegal child porn server....or reports all your online banking details and passwords to a third party. If it did so...then, really...you probably should start hagglin over the price after having the meal...

and maybe the cap should turn around and return River...after all...he folks DID sign that consent form and River really wanted to go.....really. She is in the wrong..legally, not a leg to stand on.

Thus me complaining about silly legal wavers.

The interpretation that continuing an action automatically implies consent is incorrect. The legalise has got it wrong.

Mostly, people are not consenting, they are ignoring....and so they should, because the law is out of step with reality. Much better to ignore the law than reality.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:40 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Excerpts from the letter of the aggrieved:

"Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent from all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product, I request that any recordings of the event not be used for promotional, commercial or any other purpose."

Here the aggrieved is not objecting on behalf of himself. Rather, he is representing the interests of 'all people whose likeness would be used in any subsequent product' without their consultation or consent. Perhaps they do not share his feelings about the waiver or implied consent form. The aggrieved never asked.

"Should my likeness be used in defiance of this communication, I will invoice Universal Pictures for royalties of one percent of gross revenue from sales of the infringing product. Use of my likeness will be taken as agreement to those terms. If this seems unreasonable, I invite you to re-read the release form."

Here the aggrieved demands renumeration if his likeness is used. The target of his letter has three options. Either
A) ignore him: This is something that the aggrieved surely does not want. Else he'd not be writing the letter.

B) Take him seriously and assert their legal standpoint in opposition to his own, which will take time and money.

C) Take him seriously and either 1) not use any Q&A footage in case he appears in a background shot somewhere or 2) get his photograph and carefully screen all shots for his likeness, and then blur him out. The first is problematic to the consumer. The second costs a lot of time and money.

"I would like to re-iterate that Universal Pictures could have handled this in a much better manner, and would like to recommend that more consideration is taken in future. This heavy-handed approach is totally unnecessary when politeness is sufficient to get the desired results."

Here we have the appropriate response to the aggrieved individual's situation. He lets the target audience know that he dislikes their conduct, and asks them to change in the future. If only the entire letter was limited to this.

So, now you may understand my opinion on the letter.

I also have an opinion on the actions of the aggrieved.

The aggrieved was told via waiver that if he attended the Q&A he would forfeit his likeness for free on all recordings made there.

The aggrieved had a decision to make. As many parents have said many times, "As long as you're in my House, you will live by my Rules."

The implication is simple. Stay and Obey, or Disagree and Leave.

The aggrieved chose to Stay Now and Complain Later.

I'd have had much more respect for the aggrieved individual's position had he departed, requested a refund, and then wrote a letter to the host advising them that he disagreed with their policies.

I don't think I can state my opposition to his techniques any better.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:49 PM

OK...I grant U, he probably shouldnt have said some of that.

But isnt it curious how people will defend a big rich money hungry corporations right to push their legal bullcrap on us...

and yet will deride an individual for returning fire using the same kinda legalise...

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well, toDeath,

You have a point. It is interesting that we are defending the money grubbing corporation.

I think there are some reasons for this.

1) This particular money-grubbing corporation has done something recently that I appreciate. It backed the Big Damn Movie.

2) Ever since I was a child, I've been exposed to an increasing amount of inane warning labels. Coffee may be Hot is one of my least favorites. Now we have apparently descended to "Attendee may be filmed."

It's symptomatic of our age. Burglar falls through improperly installed skylight. Burglar sues home owners. Kid breaks into Sea World, swims with Killer Whales and dies. Parents sue Sea World because they ought to have had a sign that said, "Don't swim with Killer Whales. Killer Whales may be dangerous." Open manholes with barricades around them are insufficient. Someone must stand watch against interlopers who may harm themselves or construction crews.

When I was born, the human race was assumed to either have common sense, or be responsible for their stupidity.

It's gone now. When I see someone demand renumeration from a corporation nowadays, my first question is, "What could the aggrieved have been expected to do differently to avoid their grim fate?" You know, make the 'aggrieved' party responsible for their own actions? So, forgive me for looking at what the aggrieved did wrong... the 'aggrieved' annoys me in life much more frequently than the 'villain.'

I'll tell you something else that bothers me. Apparently, there is a law somewhere that says Universal has to give people this waiver. I don't know where that law comes from. I don't agree with it. I think Universal ought to be able to film at their own function and use the footage how they please, waiver free.

So, in my humble and likely legally wrong opinion, the waiver itself should never have been needed, so the verbiage or implications of the waiver are largely unimportant to me. The waiver waived rights I don't agree we should have.

That having been said, IF a waiver IS legally required, THEN to follow the INTENT if not the LETTER of the LAW, you probably ought to tell people about their waiving of rights BEFORE they enter an affected function.

So, there you have it. I think the waivers themselves are a stupidity that is symptomatic of our society's idiocy. I likewise think that if we're going to be stupid enough to require waivers for this sort of thing, they should be handled better.

And all of that being said, I still don't much like the way the aggrieved party handled any of this.

I guess our laws allow us to be stupid enough to require these waivers, and then also to be stupid enough to complain about them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:10 PM

I could not agree more.

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 4:39 AM

BLACKEYEDGIRL

Okay now don't get me wrong here but...

WHY IN THE FRACK ARE YOU BITCHING?

Personally I think you are just being nit-picky and pretentious.

I was at one of the Chicago advanced screenings (the last one). There were no warning signs, no disclaimers, nothing. But while we were watching the movie someone from Universal was using a night vision camera to record the audience's reaction. why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A GORRAM ADVANCED SCREENING IS FOR!! At that time they were still tweaking the film. I'm sure universal wanted to know how the fans were reacting to it.

Should I now sue Universal for possibly acquiring my likeness and possibly using it as an interpretive means of analyzing the film? Cos god forbid, they give a shit about my reaction!

At least in the United States when you attend certain events you forfeit your rights to sue. These forfeitures are not usually even clearly noted. For instance if you go to a basketball game, and while scanning the crowd they see you dressed up like the big damn fan you are, they can put you on TV without your permission. Or if you accidentally get your ehad smashed in with a basketball cos of some throw gone terribly awry, you can't sue as the team is not liable, as by being there you accepted the risk of having your head smashed in by said ball.

Most people don't get their panties in a bundle cos they think it's cool.

If Universal chose to use some question that I asked at a Q & A I'd be honored. That meant my question was interesting and well thought out enough that they thought it really did warrant the responce it recieved. If they scanned the crowd and caught me in it, I'd love it cos I could always show it to my friends and my kids and everyone I knew to show, "I was there, I supported this thing the whole way though"

As someone who read the warning before entering the Q & A you had a choice, enter that event and forfeit rights, OR go ask for your money back. You went in. Thus you forfeited your rights. Thus you have no right to bitch or complain. That's how forfeiting your rights works.

It's like being warned on a menu after you've gotten to the restauarant and ordered your drinks and appetizer that the entree you want is very spicy. Then ordering it anyways, eating it, burning your mouth and bitching that it was spicy. You were warned. Fucking deal with it.

What Universal has done for fans with this movie is UNPRECEDENTED. It is truely amazing. Why taint their good-will by bitching and moaning about some stupid little consent form.

Also, I don't think you had any right to speak from anyone but yourself in that letter you sent off to Universal. If you have their Fax number for the US I'd like to get my hands on it to let them know not everyone feels like you do, and as this thread has shown, most of us do not feel that way.

While the US has become an increasingly litigious society, it has only done so because people constantly feel 'violated,' and because the populace as a whole is pretty fucking stupid. Which to me is some puss ass way of saying, I was offended, and I think my opinion is more important than anyone elses. If no one will listen to me I'll sue. It also seems to stem from a lack of common sense. Coffee is hot, if you get burned you are a. too stupid to know what hot is, or b. just an idiot for thinking that the coffee would be cold. I don't understand why people think that they are so fucking important and that their feelings exclusively are so damn important, when most of them can't use the sense they were born with to get out of a paper bag (thus the paper bag company must be sued for not making the bag easier to get out of).

You had a choice to leave or stay, you decided to stay, your right to bitch about it was forfeited when you walked into that Q&A.

Sorry but there is no sympathy from this side of the pond from me.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Inara: "Do aliens live among us?"
Kaylee: "Yes. One of them's a doctor."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 6:40 AM

DOCRAILGUN

Actually, I'm not defending Universal at all. I'm suggesting that if the OP didn't like the legalese _which they knew about before the movie and Q&A began_, they could have left. It wasn't like they were told afterwards about the evil megacorp's rules.
I suppose I am saying that the OP has no right to complain if they weren't willing to leave when they knew full well what was going on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 16, 2005 6:45 AM