|
|
Posted by Richard C. on 04/10/07 20:08
Care to simplify your rant?
it makes no sense at all.
=================================
"------------" <scammedbyohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1176234945.619612.245840@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Congratulations Hollywood movie and dvd companies, you finally did it.
> I will never ever ever buy any Hollywood produced show or Hollywood
> produced dvd ever ever again.
>
> Yes, I read the posts in the dvd newsgroups by the pro-Hollywood
> shills saying that it's against the law in the U.S. to not buy
> Hollywood dvds when they come out and do without them instead of
> buying them when they come out.
>
> No it isn't. Lots of people can't afford to buy every single dvd that
> comes out and doing without them (not buying them) is NOT against the
> law in the U.S.
>
> Maybe in some communist countries, it might be, but not in the U.S.
>
> Although I'm sure the MPAA probably wants it to be against the law to
> not buy dvd's when they're put out for sale. (making everyone who goes
> without any dvd's at all simply because they can't afford them, a
> criminal).
>
> I bought a tv set from WQal-Mart. It was defective. It didn't play
> correctly on any of our several dvd players. It kept freezing in
> certain spots. So I exchanged it for another copy of the same title.
> This one did the exact same thing in the exact same spots, m eaning
> it's a manufacturing defec in all of the copies of the same title.
>
> The Wal-Mart I bought it from refused to exchange the defective discs
> for a different properly working title.
>
> And came up with a bunch of phony excuses.(the same excuses the movie
> companies use) And slandered or libeled me(one of the two. I forget
> which since I get those two mixed up sometimes) in the process and
> then freaudently claimed that they didn't.
>
> I did NOT make any copies of the dvd's, yet they claimed it was a
> copyright violation for me to return them and a copyright violation
> for them to exchange the defective title for a properly working title.
>
> I told them no copies were made by me.
>
> They told me that under Federal law, it's still a copyright violation
> even though no copies were made.
>
> I want to know how it's a copyright violation when no copies were
> made?
>
> I happen to know that it is NOT a copyright violation when there
> weren't any copies made. And I'm no longer going to support an
> industry that claims not making any copies is still a copyright
> violation.
>
> I'm no longer going to support an industry that tries and makes it
> against the law to return defective merchandise that is defective from
> the manufacturer.
>
> They told me it was against Federal law for them to exchange it.
>
> I said it wasn't because if it was, then used book stores wouldn't be
> allowed to legally buy them, yet they are, and I wouldn't be able to
> legally sell used dvds to used bookstores, but I can.
>
> Then they countered with selling used books and used dvds to used
> bookstores is legal because you're not getting as much money for them
> as when they're brand new and that it's against the law to sell your
> used books and used dvd's for more than the original price they sold
> for.
>
> No it isn't. If that were true, then the first issue of Action Comics
> would not be able to be sold for more than ten cents, yet it's legally
> selling for over a million dollars.
>
> Therefore, it was more phony excuses.
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't remember the part about used books and
> magazines sewlling for more than their cover price until after the
> clerk left. I would have liked to seen the clerk's face and hear the
> excuse the clerk would have tried to come up with after telling the
> clerk that (which I didn't, since the clerk left before I remembered
> that).
>
> However, since Wal-Mart was so insistent that it's against Federal
> trade rules for them to refund defective merchandise that they sold
> their customers, I think I'm going to write the Federal Trade
> Commission and ask the FTC why they made such a law when they're
> supposed to be doing the opposite of that law they made.
>
> I suspect that the FTC did not make any such law.
>
> I suspect that Wal-Mart is using the theory that they don't have to
> follow federal law just because they and the movie/dvd companies made
> a contract agreement prohibiting them to, and then when it suits them,
> claiming it's against federal law for them to break that contract.
>
> I don't believe that such a contract is legal.
>
> That's like the videogame software sold in the U.S. forcing U.S. users
> to agree that in case of any disputes, only Chinese courts have
> jurisdiction and any U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction at all.
>
> I don't believe such a contract is legal in the U.S.
>
> If it was, then it would have been legal under U.S. law for traitors
> to attack the U.S. during world war 2 just because the traitors and
> Nazi Germany agreed with each other to do so and agreed that U.S.
> courts don't have any so in te mattert.
>
> IF that kind of contract is legal under U.S. law, then it sets a very
> dangerous precedent in U.S. law, since that type of law is against
> everything the U.S. is supposed to stand for.
>
> If that kind of contract is legal, then it would be legal for me and
> my neighbor to make a contract agreement with each other that we can
> steal things from you and don't have to give them back, and make the
> contract say that U.S. courts don't have any jurisdiction to prevent
> us from doing so.
>
> Then if you try to get your stolen things back from us, we can claim
> that it's against federal law for us to give you them back because
> doing so would violate the contract agreement me and my neighbor made,
> and then claim it's a violation of U.S. federal law to break that
> contract,.
>
> And that's why I think that such a contract is not legal in the U.S.
>
> If it is legal, then it sets a very dangerous precedent in U.S. law,
> and I'm no longer going to support any company that promotes it,
>
> This was the last straw.
>
> I'm never ever ever buying another Hollywood/MPAA produced dvd ever
> ever again.
>
> I'm now sticking to either public domain dvds (which I've never had
> quality control trouble with yet, unlike frequent quality control
> problems with MPAA discs)
>
> or better yet, buying only legal region 0 non-MPAA produced dvds.
>
> Yes, I read the posts in the newsgroups saying that in the U.S., it's
> against the law to buy non-pirated legal region 0 dvds since most
> region 0 dvd's are pirated.
>
> NO, it isn't. In the U.S., it's perfectly legal to buy the legal
> region 0 dvd's. (not the pirates)
>
> Although I'm sure the MPAA companies probably want it to be against
> the law to buy legal region 0 dvds not made by the MPAA.
>
> Well too bad. This is the U.S., a government of the people, by the
> people, and for the people.
>
> I don't like being slandered or libeled, whichever of the two it is,
> and I resent being accused of copying the dvd's when I did NOT make
> any copies of it at all.
>
> They also claimed that it was a copyright violation of the dvd if I
> had downloaded the same show from a different source.
>
> Well, if I wanted to download it (which I didn't), I wouldn't have
> even bothered with buying the discs from the store and going through
> all that hassle and paying money then going through all that extra
> hassle just trying to get my money back for a defective dvd set that
> is defective on every copy of it manufactured that I tried so far.
>
> If I wanted to upload it,(which I also don't do) I could have just
> borrowed it from the library for free without going through all the
> hassle of driving out to Wal-Mart, spending money on it to get it,
> driving back home, finding out it's dfefective, driving all the way
> back to Wal Mart again, getting another set, driving all the way back
> home, finding out it's defective also, driving all the way back to Wal
> Mart a third and fourth time, going through all that hassle and them
> refusing to return it.
>
> Instead I bought it legally, and then get treated like a criminal for
> trying to legally return defective merchandise they sold me or trying
> to legally exchange defective merchandise they sold me.
>
> Congratulations. Hollywood movie/dvd companies. You finally lost a
> customer due to your policies.
>
> I will never ever ever buy anything from any of the major movie
> studios ever ever again. I'll do without first. I'll never ever ever
> shop at Wal-Mart ever ever again. I'll never ever ever shop at any
> store anywhere that is selling firsthand MPAA dvds,
>
> because as far as I'm concerned, you're stealing from me, and I'm sure
> that in my state, it's against the law to support thieves.
>
> If it's not against the law in my state, then it should be.
>
> I think I'm now even going to get rid of all of my store-bought dvd's
> and store-bought videotapes as I no longer even want anything that
> reminds me of or has to do with the MPAA or Hollywood movie companies.
>
> I'll even start watching only non-MPAA, non-Hollywood programs on tv,
> when possible.
>
> I was a huge buyer of the Hollywood dvd's, but no longer, so
> congratulations, you just lost one of your major buyers.
>
> And since I was a major buyer who is no longer buying, I'm sure you
> will now see a huge slump in your sales.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|