Class action settlement for MGM widescreen DVDs

http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/
--
"Ah. The searing kiss of hot lead; how I missed you.
I mean, I think I'm dying."

Now playing: the radio.

Tarkus

Thanks for the heads up. Somehow I hadn't heard of this. I'm no major
collector, but a cursory glance at their eligible list shows I have almost
40 of their titles. A couple of things confuse me--they have films from
the 40s on the list (e.g., the Sabu "Thief of Bagdad") that were never
released in widescreen to begin with (obviously). And they have more recent
features that I don't think were ever released in widescreen on DVD (e.g.,
All Dogs Go To Heaven). Can anybody give me more info on this? TIA.

--

The Truth About Frances Farmer:
http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
"Tarkus" <> wrote in message
news:...
> http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/
> --
> "Ah. The searing kiss of hot lead; how I missed you.
> I mean, I think I'm dying."
>
> Now playing: the radio.

JMK

JMK wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up. Somehow I hadn't heard of this. I'm no major
> collector, but a cursory glance at their eligible list shows I have almost
> 40 of their titles. A couple of things confuse me--they have films from
> the 40s on the list (e.g., the Sabu "Thief of Bagdad") that were never
> released in widescreen to begin with (obviously). And they have more recent
> features that I don't think were ever released in widescreen on DVD (e.g.,
> All Dogs Go To Heaven). Can anybody give me more info on this? TIA.
>

If I understand the lawsuit correctly it has nothing to do with the
actual discs themselves but the packaging. The wording on the packaging
is false or misleading in some way.

-Doc

docdude316

"docdude316" <> wrote in message
news:lYcLd.24780$. com
> JMK wrote:
>> Thanks for the heads up. Somehow I hadn't heard of this. I'm no
>> major collector, but a cursory glance at their eligible list shows I
>> have almost 40 of their titles. A couple of things confuse
>> me--they have films from the 40s on the list (e.g., the Sabu "Thief
>> of Bagdad") that were never released in widescreen to begin with
>> (obviously). And they have more recent features that I don't think
>> were ever released in widescreen on DVD (e.g., All Dogs Go To
>> Heaven). Can anybody give me more info on this? TIA.
>
> If I understand the lawsuit correctly it has nothing to do with the
> actual discs themselves but the packaging. The wording on the
> packaging is false or misleading in some way.
>
> -Doc

The packaging indicated that their widescreen DVDs showed more image
width than their "standard screen" DVDs. A couple of lawyers decided
they could cash in by making accusations of fraud on what was little
more than an unfortunate choice of wording, and MGM calculated that a
settlement of minimal value was cheaper than putting up a fight.
--
Buford T. Justice
The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
http://aww-faq.org/dvdfaq.html

FAQmeister

JMK wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up. Somehow I hadn't heard of this. I'm no
> major collector, but a cursory glance at their eligible list shows I
> have almost 40 of their titles. A couple of things confuse me--they
> have films from the 40s on the list (e.g., the Sabu "Thief of
> Bagdad") that were never released in widescreen to begin with
> (obviously). And they have more recent features that I don't think
> were ever released in widescreen on DVD (e.g., All Dogs Go To
> Heaven). Can anybody give me more info on this? TIA.

The lawsuit is based on semantics, though MGM could have used better
wording. There is nothing wrong with the discs - the lawsuit was based
entirely on the packaging.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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:ctmkuo$o69$...
>
> The lawsuit is based on semantics, though MGM could have used better
> wording. There is nothing wrong with the discs - the lawsuit was based
> entirely on the packaging.
>

SO a win for the plaintiff should just mean they need to fix their
packaging, correct? These class action lawsuits over BS things needs to
stop...there are too many MJ's out there that need to be in court much
more....

Biz

Biz wrote:
> "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
> news:ctmkuo$o69$...
>>
>> The lawsuit is based on semantics, though MGM could have used better
>> wording. There is nothing wrong with the discs - the lawsuit was
>> based entirely on the packaging.
>
> SO a win for the plaintiff should just mean they need to fix their
> packaging, correct? These class action lawsuits over BS things needs
> to stop...

Well, MGM decided to settle (note it's only proposed at this point, the
plaintiff hasn't accepted), probably because that was the cheapest route.
It certainly wasn't a "win" for the plaintiff, and MGM admits no wrongdoing.
But yeah, it was all about what they put on their packaging, combined with
the ignorance of the plaintiffs as to the widescreen process. The DVDs
themselves are perfectly fine, and nobody has been ripped off:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...t/mgmsuit.html

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

X-No-archive: yes

"Biz" <> wrote in message
news:vDDLd.717$...
>
> "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
> news:ctmkuo$o69$...
>>
>> The lawsuit is based on semantics, though MGM could have used better
>> wording. There is nothing wrong with the discs - the lawsuit was based
>> entirely on the packaging.
>>
>
> SO a win for the plaintiff should just mean they need to fix their
> packaging, correct? These class action lawsuits over BS things needs to
> stop...there are too many MJ's out there that need to be in court much
> more....

==============================
The lawsuit has only made things worse.
Now MGM movies say they are in "dvd screen format"........whatever the ****
that is................

Richard C.

What was the dickhea..I mean plaintiff's name again. I'd like to start a
slander campaign against him for taking up space on planet earth...


"Richard C." <post-> wrote in message
news:42002d75$0$11681$ m...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Biz" <> wrote in message
> news:vDDLd.717$...
> >
> > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
> > news:ctmkuo$o69$...
> >>
> >> The lawsuit is based on semantics, though MGM could have used better
> >> wording. There is nothing wrong with the discs - the lawsuit was based
> >> entirely on the packaging.
> >>
> >
> > SO a win for the plaintiff should just mean they need to fix their
> > packaging, correct? These class action lawsuits over BS things needs to
> > stop...there are too many MJ's out there that need to be in court much
> > more....
>
> ==============================
> The lawsuit has only made things worse.
> Now MGM movies say they are in "dvd screen format"........whatever the
****
> that is................
>
>

Biz