Wal-Mart's movie download plan: pay and pay again

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Modemac, Dec 6, 2006.

  1. Modemac

    Modemac Guest

    Wal-Mart's plan for legal movie downloads: buy a DVD, then pay some
    more to "legally" download it to your iPod:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/technology/29bitt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Let's see if I understand this right: you pay for a DVD, and *then* you
    pay a fee of $1.97 or something to download that DVD to your iPod.
    This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.
    Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    iPod.

    Gosh darn those awful Internet movie pirates!

    --
    The High Weirdness Project
    http://www.modemac.com
     
    Modemac, Dec 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Modemac

    Rich Clark Guest

    Modemac wrote:

    > This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    > DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.


    Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
    computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
    it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
    number of things.

    > Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    > iPod.


    This is not evidence of that. It's evidence that Walmart thinks they
    can make money selling this service.
    >
    > Gosh darn those awful Internet movie pirates!


    You sound like Chicken Little.

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Dec 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Modemac

    Guest

    Modemac wrote:
    > Wal-Mart's plan for legal movie downloads: buy a DVD, then pay some
    > more to "legally" download it to your iPod:
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/technology/29bitt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
    >
    > Let's see if I understand this right: you pay for a DVD, and *then* you
    > pay a fee of $1.97 or something to download that DVD to your iPod.
    > This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    > DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.
    > Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    > iPod.
    >
    > Gosh darn those awful Internet movie pirates!
    >
    > --


    Once upon a time, if you wanted to watch something, here's what you
    did. First, you looked in the TV Guide or your newspaper's TV listings
    and found out when it was on. Then you made plans to be home when it
    was on and be sitting in front of the TV set when the program started.
    At the appointed time, you pressed a button on your TV set and the
    screen slowly lit up and you turned the channel dial to the correct
    channel and then you sat down and watched it. When it was over, you
    could choose between watching the next program that was on or turning
    the TV off to go do something else. If you liked what you saw and felt
    a desire to see it again, you would have to wait until the TV station
    which showed it decided to rerun it, hopefully within six months to a
    year.

    Life was so much simpler then (and TV was so much more enjoyable).
     
    , Dec 6, 2006
    #3
  4. Modemac

    Quanta Guest

    "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Modemac wrote:
    >
    >> This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    >> DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.

    >
    > Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
    > computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
    > it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
    > number of things.
    >
    >> Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    >> iPod.

    >
    > This is not evidence of that.



    Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that: Consumers
    have no rights other than playing on the device the media was licensed for.
    You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.
     
    Quanta, Dec 6, 2006
    #4
  5. Modemac

    Quanta Guest

    "Quanta" <> wrote in message
    news:el7fcl$vno$...
    >
    > "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Modemac wrote:
    >>
    >>> This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    >>> DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.

    >>
    >> Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
    >> computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
    >> it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
    >> number of things.
    >>
    >>> Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    >>> iPod.

    >>
    >> This is not evidence of that.

    >
    >
    > Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that:
    > Consumers have no rights other than playing on the device the media was
    > licensed for. You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    PS

    It is EXPLICITLY stated that ripping a DVD by anyone other than an educator
    for teaching or a library for archive purposes is ILLEGAL.

    This was confirmed in the most recent ruling I mentioned.
     
    Quanta, Dec 6, 2006
    #5
  6. Quanta wrote:
    > "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Modemac wrote:
    >>
    >>>This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    >>>DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.

    >>
    >>Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
    >>computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
    >>it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
    >>number of things.
    >>
    >>>Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    >>>iPod.


    No, the downloads are still security-coded up the keister, and, in fact,
    you have to pay $3.97 if you want "both" the PC and the "portable device".

    (Which still hasn't been positively identified as iPod, ie. MP4, yet,
    and could be another one of those dopey .WMV "Plays For Sure" wannabes.
    Somehow, with Wal-Mart, I have some suspicious guesses.)

    >>This is not evidence of that.

    >
    > Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that: Consumers
    > have no rights other than playing on the device the media was licensed for.
    > You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.


    And as to whether Wal-Mart's commercial rips have been cleared with the
    studio, or whether they got a little too personally hubris'ed about "We
    can sell ANY kind of DVD, we know how!" without looking at the fine
    print, may be tested in courts soon.

    If they are, however, it should be an interesting "middleman" to the
    fact that none of the other studios wanted to play with Steve Jobs and
    his iTunes Store because of his flat-prices (which's why they all jumped
    over to Amazon for that download thing...SUC-KERS!!), and iPod users may
    finally be able to store other licensed .M4V movies besides
    Disney/Miramax ones.

    (As to the "future of DVD's", however, as we ritually get in articles
    like these...sorry, analysts, that's ALL they'll do.)

    Derek Janssen (remember "High School Musical"!)
     
    Derek Janssen, Dec 6, 2006
    #6
  7. Modemac

    Steve Guest

    Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
    > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:16:26 -0800, "Quanta" <> wrote:
    >
    > >>> This is not evidence of that.

    >
    > >> Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that:
    > >> Consumers have no rights other than playing on the device the media was
    > >> licensed for. You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.

    >
    > >PS
    > >
    > >It is EXPLICITLY stated that ripping a DVD by anyone other than an educator
    > >for teaching or a library for archive purposes is ILLEGAL.
    > >
    > >This was confirmed in the most recent ruling I mentioned.

    >
    > Sorry Dribbles, but it's not a black and white issue, never will be
    > and there is plenty of case precedence on both sides of the copyrights
    > vs fair use laws. Mostly it all boils down to how well you can argue
    > your case and what the judge's personal feelings are about it. Of
    > course even then you can appeal and appeal again, hell you might even
    > be able to get it all the way to the supreme court.
    >
    > I doubt ANY copyright holder suing you would let it get that far
    > though, after all, they don't want to risk losing their precious DMCA.
    > They would drop the case or try and settle before letting it get that
    > far. In fact they'll drop any case in which it looks like they might
    > not win, just because they want to try and control the level of case
    > precedence.
    >
    > Regarding the original poster...yer a fuckwitted moron. A measly buck
    > ninety five a pop is more than fair for the conversion process. If
    > your stupid ass doesn't want to pay it, get the **** off your retarded
    > and learn how to encode video yer damn self, then you won't need to
    > pay that buck ninety five to get it onto yer iPod.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Onideus Mad Hatter
    > mhm ¹ x ¹
    > http://www.backwater-productions.net
    > http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
    >
    >
    > Hatter Quotes
    > -------------
    > "You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
    > best."
    >
    > "I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
    > with it."
    >
    > "I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
    >
    > "Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
    >
    > "Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"
    >
    > "Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
    > bad."
    >
    > "There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
    >
    > "The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
    >
    > "Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
    > of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
    >
    > "Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
    > that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
    > of its relevancy."
    >
    > "Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
    > creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
    >
    > "Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
    >
    > "People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
    > they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
    > givin em out for free."
    >
    > "Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
    > So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
    > to their merry little mess."
    >
    > "There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
    > horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
    > their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
    > sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
    > images burned into their tiny little minds'."
    >
    > "How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
    > properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
    >
    > "Those who record history are those who control history."
    >
    > "I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
    > endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
    > don't get sent to me...I come for you."
    >
    > "Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
    > tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
    >
    > "Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
    > function?"
    >
    > "Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
    > Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
    > indicates an increase in Webtv users."
    >
    > "Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
    > gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )



    Wow. You must be my bestest friend in the whole world.


    Regards,

    Steve
     
    Steve, Dec 7, 2006
    #7
  8. Modemac

    JoeBloe Guest

    On 6 Dec 2006 08:09:47 -0800, Gave us:

    >Life was so much simpler then (and TV was so much more enjoyable).



    You ain't real bright. That's what DVD collections are for!

    Then there's VOD.

    AND DVR!

    You appear as a horse with blinders on.
     
    JoeBloe, Dec 7, 2006
    #8
  9. Modemac

    JoeBloe Guest

    On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:49:36 -0500, Derek Janssen
    <> Gave us:

    > and iPod users may
    >finally be able to store other licensed .M4V movies besides
    >Disney/Miramax ones.



    iPod users and owners are fucking retards. Who wants to pay $400 for
    a POS As Usual Overpriced Apple Product (AUOAP) and then PAY for the
    content, then PAY for the flic file, then PAY for the access club to
    get it, Then PAY for... and THEN watch it on that piddly widdle thing
    they want you to believe is a "screen".

    I have a PSP.

    I play MY MP3s, I play MY DVD rips of MY OWNED library.

    I look at MY jpeg library.

    I get on MY wireless connections, and store MANY of them for
    selection.

    I play MY Sony UMD form factor movies.

    I watch my videos in WIDE formats where applicable.

    I use MY USB connection to move files back and forth from a PC to my
    PSP.

    Hell, the damned thing even plays some pretty radical games.

    $250 with a 1GB memory stick.

    iPod... no fucking comparison... not even close.

    I call it the iPud, cause all it's owners are pounding their pud.
    Mental masturbation. Macs are the same way. So fucking what it's a
    LITTLE bit better from a hardware architecture POV. It is NOT worth
    so much more for that Hdw, NOR is the software for the fucking thing
    worth so much more. It really is sad that there are so many dolts
    that pay more to get the same thing, or even less as most of the
    softwares I have seen do not carry the same feature set as PC
    softwares.

    Then there is that retarded one button mouse mentality shit.
     
    JoeBloe, Dec 7, 2006
    #9
  10. JoeBloe wrote:

    > I have a PSP.
    > >

    > I play MY Sony UMD form factor movies.
    > $250 with a 1GB memory stick.


    And then you try to buy more UMD movies and Memory Sticks in 2006. :)

    Derek Janssen (umm...can't help you there!)
     
    Derek Janssen, Dec 7, 2006
    #10
  11. Quanta wrote:
    > On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that:
    > Consumers have no rights other than playing on the device the media was
    > licensed for. You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.


    As a wise man once said, "They can make it illegal to take a shit on
    Sunday, that doesn't mean there's a cop in your crapper."

    /Roy
     
    Roy. Just Roy., Dec 7, 2006
    #11
  12. Modemac

    JoeBloe Guest

    On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:27:09 -0500, Derek Janssen
    <> Gave us:

    >And then you try to buy more UMD movies and Memory Sticks in 2006. :)


    Nope. Why buy a UMD form factor flic when it can only be played in a
    few devices?

    I said I make files from MY DVD library. If I want to watch a flic
    in WS on the bus without actually having the disc, I can. I have a
    mem stick that have photos and MP3s and such on it, and I have a stick
    just for movies, 'cause I rip 'em to that file size to maximize the
    resolution of the crunch down.

    The downloaded previews of Spiderman 3 and such are cool and at
    really high resolution for such a small display (to me).
     
    JoeBloe, Dec 7, 2006
    #12
  13. Modemac

    JoeBloe Guest

    On 6 Dec 2006 17:30:14 -0800, "Roy. Just Roy." <>
    Gave us:

    >
    >Quanta wrote:
    >> On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that:
    >> Consumers have no rights other than playing on the device the media was
    >> licensed for. You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.

    >
    >As a wise man once said, "They can make it illegal to take a shit on
    >Sunday, that doesn't mean there's a cop in your crapper."
    >


    If there was that retarded bastard would eat shit!

    In Paramus, MJ one could not buy a skillet or broom on Sunday.

    They even stopped the whores from buying panty hose!

    Little mini bible belt up there.
     
    JoeBloe, Dec 7, 2006
    #13
  14. Modemac

    Bill's News Guest

    JoeBloe wrote:
    > On 6 Dec 2006 08:09:47 -0800, Gave us:
    >
    >> Life was so much simpler then (and TV was so much more
    >> enjoyable).

    >
    >
    > You ain't real bright. That's what DVD collections are for!
    >
    > Then there's VOD.
    >
    > AND DVR!
    >
    > You appear as a horse with blinders on.


    ALANIS MORISSETTE can't distinguish irony from misfortune
    either!

    And in case you think there's a difference between irony and
    sarcasm, look up satire!

    Any way, somebody missed the point, JoeBloe. Or were you being
    ironically satirical in a sarcastic way?
     
    Bill's News, Dec 7, 2006
    #14
  15. Modemac

    Rich Clark Guest

    Quanta wrote:
    > "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Modemac wrote:
    > >
    > >> This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    > >> DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.

    > >
    > > Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
    > > computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
    > > it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
    > > number of things.
    > >
    > >> Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    > >> iPod.

    > >
    > > This is not evidence of that.

    >
    >
    > Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that: Consumers
    > have no rights other than playing on the device the media was licensed for.
    > You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.


    That people charge you to paint your house is not evidence that it is
    illegal for you to paint your own house. It may be illegal, or it may
    not be illegal, but the existence of painters doesn't prove anything.
    That Walmart is charging for an iPod-loading service is not evidence
    that ripping is illegal. Ripping may be illegal, but WalMart's service
    isn't evidence that it is.

    It's logic, see?

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Dec 7, 2006
    #15
  16. Rich Clark wrote:
    > Quanta wrote:
    >
    >>"Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>Modemac wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>This effectively means that you're accepting the line that ripping a
    >>>>DVD that you purchased, to play on your own iPod, is illegal.
    >>>
    >>>Why does it have to mean that? Maybe it means that you don't have a
    >>>computer, or don't want to bother ripping your own DVDs, or just think
    >>>it's more convenient to get the movie on your iPod *right now*, or any
    >>>number of things.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Evidently the Sony-Betamax decision doesn't cover copying movies to an
    >>>>iPod.
    >>>
    >>>This is not evidence of that.

    >>
    >>
    >>Yes it is evidence of that. On Nov. 27 a judge ruled just that: Consumers
    >>have no rights other than playing on the device the media was licensed for.
    >>You cannot copy to iPod without paying. Simple.

    >
    >
    > That people charge you to paint your house is not evidence that it is
    > illegal for you to paint your own house. It may be illegal, or it may
    > not be illegal, but the existence of painters doesn't prove anything.
    > That Walmart is charging for an iPod-loading service is not evidence
    > that ripping is illegal. Ripping may be illegal, but WalMart's service
    > isn't evidence that it is.


    A house, however, has a piece of paper, called a Deed, that says it's
    Yours, until you sell it. You can fix it, rebuild it, or paint it lil'
    pink for you and me.

    A DVD, similarly, also comes with a statement, on the front of it while
    you're waiting for the darn menu to load--That one says it ISN'T yours,
    it technically belongs to the studio, but they were gracious enough to
    loan one copy to watch in your own home, or else Interpol is going to
    send Detective Zenigata after you.
    ....It's nice when these issues are spelled out. :)

    Personally, I have my suspicions about whether Wal-mart has been doing
    any housepainting of their own, seeing as if they had licensed from the
    studio, the studios would be charging a heck of a lot MORE rent than
    $1.97 (qv. Amazon's Unbox).
    And Wal-mart does have a history of getting a little too psychologicaly
    caught up in their own DVD-sales saturation.

    Derek Janssen
    ejanss
     
    Derek Janssen, Dec 7, 2006
    #16
  17. Modemac

    Rich Clark Guest

    Derek Janssen wrote:

    [stuff]

    All you people are proving is that you can't read for content.

    I never said anything about whether ripping DVDs is legal or not.

    I only said that Walmart's service is not evidence of ripping being
    illegal, or of anything but their desire to make a profit offering a
    service.

    One might make a case that it's evidence that DVD ripping is difficult
    and complicated enough that people who shop at Walmart will pay to have
    somebody else do it. The legality of it is not even an issue in this
    context. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the offer that says
    "it's illegal for you to do it yourself, so let us do it for you." The
    offer is simply "Let us do it for you."

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Dec 7, 2006
    #17
  18. Modemac

    FrozenNorth Guest

    Rich Clark tossed the following at the wall, and it stuck:

    >
    > Derek Janssen wrote:
    >
    > [stuff]
    >
    > All you people are proving is that you can't read for content.
    >
    > I never said anything about whether ripping DVDs is legal or not.
    >
    > I only said that Walmart's service is not evidence of ripping being
    > illegal, or of anything but their desire to make a profit offering a
    > service.
    >
    > One might make a case that it's evidence that DVD ripping is difficult
    > and complicated enough that people who shop at Walmart will pay to have
    > somebody else do it. The legality of it is not even an issue in this
    > context. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the offer that says
    > "it's illegal for you to do it yourself, so let us do it for you." The
    > offer is simply "Let us do it for you."
    >

    The OP posted $2 per disc, I know that there is no way that I could rip and
    then burn a DVD fast enough at $2 per that I could make any money using a
    normal computer with a good burner, or rip and upload to an iPod.

    Obviously they must have invested in some more specialized equipment so that
    this is feasible to do at this cost, and turn a profit, even if the
    operator is only paid minimum Wally World wages.

    It would need to be done in less than 5 minutes to have a hope of being
    profitable.

    --
    Q: How many journalists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    A: Three. One to report it as an inspired government program to bring
    light to the people, one to report it as a diabolical government plot to
    deprive the poor of darkness, and one to win a Pulitzer prize for reporting
    that Electric Company hired a light bulb-assassin to break the bulb in the
    first place.

    Froz...
     
    FrozenNorth, Dec 7, 2006
    #18
  19. FrozenNorth wrote:

    > Rich Clark tossed the following at the wall, and it stuck:
    >
    >
    >>Derek Janssen wrote:
    >>
    >>[stuff]
    >>
    >>All you people are proving is that you can't read for content.
    >>
    >>I never said anything about whether ripping DVDs is legal or not.
    >>
    >>I only said that Walmart's service is not evidence of ripping being
    >>illegal, or of anything but their desire to make a profit offering a
    >>service.
    >>
    >>One might make a case that it's evidence that DVD ripping is difficult
    >>and complicated enough that people who shop at Walmart will pay to have
    >>somebody else do it. The legality of it is not even an issue in this
    >>context. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the offer that says
    >>"it's illegal for you to do it yourself, so let us do it for you." The
    >>offer is simply "Let us do it for you."
    >>

    > The OP posted $2 per disc, I know that there is no way that I could rip and
    > then burn a DVD fast enough at $2 per that I could make any money using a
    > normal computer with a good burner, or rip and upload to an iPod.
    >
    > Obviously they must have invested in some more specialized equipment so that
    > this is feasible to do at this cost, and turn a profit, even if the
    > operator is only paid minimum Wally World wages.


    ....Uh, THAT would be illegal. Which's why I'm holding out suspicions
    about the current service.
    What WM is planning is probably something through the website--But even
    though there's security all over, and a charge for each single device up
    to two (Apple gives you a five-device license for one download), $2 is
    just a *little* too darn cheap to be true. :/

    DO they plan to just "rip the disk the minute it comes in the store", as
    we're all fantasizing they are, or have they contracted deals with the
    studio that require you to purchase the disk first, with codes, 'n such?
    Studios are just a little too tight-fisted for the plan as it is now
    (and in primitive fear and awe of the Downloading Volcano God Whose Name
    Is Destruction)...And even Apple's service requires buying the entire
    file for $10, since no "rental plan" was technically possible.

    Derek Janssen
     
    Derek Janssen, Dec 7, 2006
    #19
  20. Modemac

    Tarkus Guest

    On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:32:19 -0500, Derek Janssen wrote:

    > DO they plan to just "rip the disk the minute it comes in the store", as
    > we're all fantasizing they are, or have they contracted deals with the
    > studio that require you to purchase the disk first, with codes, 'n such?


    Why does everyone assume they're ripping anything? More likely is they'd
    get the files in the proper format from the studios day and date with the
    DVDs. So they'd just make a quick copy.
    --
    I went to a 7-11 and asked for a 2x4 and a box of 3x5's. The clerk said,
    "ten-four." -- Steven Wright

    Now playing: "Emerson, Lake & Palmer - 21st Century Schizoid Man"
     
    Tarkus, Dec 7, 2006
    #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. Bernie Sykes

    Wal-Mart P's me off again

    Bernie Sykes, Sep 11, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,020
  2. buster
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
    buster
    Jun 1, 2006
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    542
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
  5. Lawrence Glickman

    Why I will never shop at Wal Mart again

    Lawrence Glickman, Dec 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    1,586
    Ron Hunter
    Jan 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page