MGM Class Action lawsuit in the USA

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:01:07 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:

> Reader wrote:
>> Anthony Horan wrote:
>>> They're talking about the packaging, not the discs.
>>
>> So what? It's called misleading advertising.
>
> There was nothing misleading about it. Note the language, "...up to 50%..."

So "up to 50%" includes -20% ?

-Jay

Jay G.

"ShadowRaptor" <> wrote in message
news:rUvKd.16530$...
> "Chad Sexington" <> wrote in message
> news:41fa1a58$0$2625$ ...
>> Stupid maybe, but he won.
>
> Yep, and they kept the sleaze lawyers away from real criminal stuff which
> they usually screw up
>
> Rob
> Canada (thankfully, in this case)
>
>

....and just in time for them to start on M.Jackson's case.

Mark W

"ShadowRaptor" <> wrote in message
news:rUvKd.16530$...
> "Chad Sexington" <> wrote in message
> news:41fa1a58$0$2625$ ...
>> Stupid maybe, but he won.
>
> Yep, and they kept the sleaze lawyers away from real criminal stuff which
> they usually screw up
>
> Rob
> Canada (thankfully, in this case)
>
>

....and just in time for them to start on M.Jackson's case.

Mark W

"ShadowRaptor" <> wrote in message
news:rUvKd.16530$...
> "Chad Sexington" <> wrote in message
> news:41fa1a58$0$2625$ ...
>> Stupid maybe, but he won.
>
> Yep, and they kept the sleaze lawyers away from real criminal stuff which
> they usually screw up
>
> Rob
> Canada (thankfully, in this case)
>
>

....and just in time for them to start on M.Jackson's case.

Mark W

Jay G. wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:01:07 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
>
>> Reader wrote:
>>> Anthony Horan wrote:
>>>> They're talking about the packaging, not the discs.
>>>
>>> So what? It's called misleading advertising.
>>
>> There was nothing misleading about it. Note the language, "...up to
>> 50%..."
>
> So "up to 50%" includes -20% ?

They could have been more verbose in explaining the entire process, but the
statement does assume some amount of education on the consumer's part. The
"-20%" you refer to is not relative to OAR, and therefore isn't relevant.
With respect to OAR, their statement is correct.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:04:49 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
> Jay G. wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:01:07 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
>>>
>>> There was nothing misleading about it. Note the language, "...up to
>>> 50%..."
>>
>> So "up to 50%" includes -20% ?
>
> They could have been more verbose in explaining the entire process, but the
> statement does assume some amount of education on the consumer's part.

Isn't that a bit of a fallacy though? In this day and age of warnings and
disclaimers, manufacturers have to assume absolute ignorance on the part of
the consumers.

> The
> "-20%" you refer to is not relative to OAR, and therefore isn't relevant.
> With respect to OAR, their statement is correct.

With respect to OAR, their statement never mentioned it. Even taking into
account OAR, open-matte films don't cut anything out of it, so the
statement that part of the image is cut out is still false.

-Jay

Jay G.

Jay G. wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:04:49 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
>> Jay G. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:01:07 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There was nothing misleading about it. Note the language, "...up
>>>> to 50%..."
>>>
>>> So "up to 50%" includes -20% ?
>>
>> They could have been more verbose in explaining the entire process,
>> but the statement does assume some amount of education on the
>> consumer's part.
>
> Isn't that a bit of a fallacy though? In this day and age of
> warnings and disclaimers, manufacturers have to assume absolute
> ignorance on the part of the consumers.

<shrug> They might have been better off not saying anything at all,
legally. But I for one appreciate the small effort to educate the consumer.

>> The
>> "-20%" you refer to is not relative to OAR, and therefore isn't
>> relevant. With respect to OAR, their statement is correct.
>
> With respect to OAR, their statement never mentioned it. Even taking
> into account OAR, open-matte films don't cut anything out of it, so
> the statement that part of the image is cut out is still false.

They didn't make that statement - they said "up to x% more picture". "Up
to" could be anything from zero to x.

Come on, what are you saying? That the lawsuit wasn't frivolous, and that
you disagree with MGM? Do you think they did a bad thing?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary

"Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
news:ctpjfu$u33$...
> Come on, what are you saying? That the lawsuit wasn't frivolous, and
> that you disagree with MGM? Do you think they did a bad thing?

I think their marketing materials are definitely misleading. Do I think
the lawsuit has any merit? No. Do I think MGM brought this upon
themselves by providing inaccurate information that will confuse
uneducated consumers? Absolutely.

Joshua Zyber

X-No-archive: yes

"Joshua Zyber" <> wrote in message
news:MJ3Md.7078$ nk.net...
> "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
> news:ctpjfu$u33$...
>> Come on, what are you saying? That the lawsuit wasn't frivolous, and
>> that you disagree with MGM? Do you think they did a bad thing?
>
> I think their marketing materials are definitely misleading. Do I think
> the lawsuit has any merit? No. Do I think MGM brought this upon themselves
> by providing inaccurate information that will confuse uneducated
> consumers? Absolutely.
==================================
And they are STILL misleading (I am not in support of this lawsuit.)!

I am boycotting most of their releases because their information is not even
understandable.

What would you think is the format of a movie that says "1.85:1 widescreen
DVD screen format".
Is it anamorphic? Is it OAR?

They also are releasing MANY movies in WS non-anamorphic.
Their product is becomming CRAP and I have given up pn them.
Too many returns.............it is easier to just buy the foreign releases
(when I can).

Their unclear labeling and their non-anamorphic releasing should be the
focus of the "consumer advocates".

Richard C.

"Reader" <> wrote in message
news:41fa051c$...
> http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/
>
> Reason for it: "The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that certain
> representations on the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen
> DVDs are false and misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films
> shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's
> standard screen format DVDs."
>

This is the greatest case of False Advertising I've seen since I sued the
movie The Neverending Story

Rodney James