MGM Class Action lawsuit in the USA

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Reader, Jan 28, 2005.

  1. Reader

    Reader Guest

    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."

    Interesting! Wonder if it affects R4 discs?
     
    Reader, Jan 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "The law firms representing the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class intend
    to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and for approval of
    reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation costs not to exceed $2,700,000.
    The Court will decide on the amount of attorneys' fees and costs, if any,
    which will be paid to counsel for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class."

    Looks like the attorneys want to do a bit of cropping to MGM.

    It's a Pan & Scam I tells ya !!



    "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."
    >
    > Interesting! Wonder if it affects R4 discs?
    >
    >
     
    Chad Sexington, Jan 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:25:57 +1100, Reader wrote:

    > 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."
    >
    > Interesting! Wonder if it affects R4 discs?


    They're talking about the packaging, not the discs.

    One of the stupidest excuses for a lawsuit ever. But then, it *is* the
    USA...
     
    Anthony Horan, Jan 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Stupid maybe, but he won.

    "Anthony Horan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:25:57 +1100, Reader wrote:
    >
    >> 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."
    >>
    >> Interesting! Wonder if it affects R4 discs?

    >
    > They're talking about the packaging, not the discs.
    >
    > One of the stupidest excuses for a lawsuit ever. But then, it *is* the
    > USA...
     
    Chad Sexington, Jan 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Reader

    Reader Guest

    Anthony Horan wrote:

    > They're talking about the packaging, not the discs.


    So what? It's called misleading advertising.
     
    Reader, Jan 28, 2005
    #5
  6. Reader

    ShadowRaptor Guest

    "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)
     
    ShadowRaptor, Jan 28, 2005
    #6
  7. Reader

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Chad Sexington wrote:
    > Stupid maybe, but he won.


    He didn't win; MGM settled. They admit no wrongdoing.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    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, Jan 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Reader

    Mike Kohary Guest

    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%..."

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    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, Jan 29, 2005
    #8
  9. A settlement is a win

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:cten3q$u3j$...
    > Chad Sexington wrote:
    >> Stupid maybe, but he won.

    >
    > He didn't win; MGM settled. They admit no wrongdoing.
    >
    > --
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > 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
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
     
    Chad Sexington, Jan 29, 2005
    #9
  10. Reader

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Chad Sexington wrote:
    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:cten3q$u3j$...
    >> Chad Sexington wrote:
    >>> Stupid maybe, but he won.

    >>
    >> He didn't win; MGM settled. They admit no wrongdoing.
    >>

    > A settlement is a win


    Not the kind of "win" you're referring to.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    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, Jan 29, 2005
    #10
  11. Reader

    Jay G. Guest

    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., Jan 29, 2005
    #11
  12. Reader

    Mark W Guest

    "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, Jan 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Reader

    Mark W Guest

    "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, Jan 30, 2005
    #13
  14. Reader

    Mark W Guest

    "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, Jan 30, 2005
    #14
  15. Reader

    Mike Kohary Guest

    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, Feb 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Reader

    Jay G. Guest

    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., Feb 2, 2005
    #16
  17. Reader

    Mike Kohary Guest

    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, Feb 2, 2005
    #17
  18. Reader

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "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, Feb 2, 2005
    #18
  19. Reader

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Joshua Zyber" <> wrote in message
    news:MJ3Md.7078$...
    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:ctpjfu$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., Feb 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Reader

    Rodney James Guest

    "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, Feb 8, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. olympussuit

    Olympus class action lawsuit

    olympussuit, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    672
    Chuck Gadd
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,985
    RichA
    Apr 25, 2005
  3. Replies:
    68
    Views:
    1,670
    Justin
    Jul 7, 2006
  4. - Bobb -
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    484
    bmoag
    Nov 4, 2006
  5. DiViNcI cOdE

    Re: Class Action Lawsuit Against Phase One / Capture One

    DiViNcI cOdE, Apr 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    385
    Bill Hilton
    Apr 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page