MGM DVD class action settlement - is anyone participating?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Gerry, Mar 14, 2005.

  1. Gerry

    Gerry Guest

    I have several DVD eligible for the MGM class action settlement which
    is supposed to be $7.10 cash per DVD I send in. I understand all the
    issues behind this, and I know there is nothing wrong with the framing
    of the movies (well, except for Back to School). However, $7.10 each
    is a lot more than I can get selling these obsoleted DVDs on Ebay or
    trading them in to stores, so I want to send in a bunch.

    Has anyone participated in this and already sent in your DVDs?

    My questions and worries are these:

    - The DVDs have to be postmarked by March 31, 2005, but I read
    somewhere else that the final settlement won't be decided until May.
    What if they change their mind in court? There is nothing saying I
    will get my DVDs back if that happens. I've never heard of people
    having to submit a claim on any such suit until after everything is

    - The poorly written settlement wording says "for films shot in the
    aspect ratio of 1.85 to 1 or 1.66 to 1 from December 1998 to September
    8, 2003". If they use that literally it means that only movies FILMED
    in those years are eligible, in which case this whole thing might be a
    scam to get people to send in their DVDs.

    - If I use the postage prepaid label I have no proof that I mailed my
    DVDs in case they say they never received my package. Is there any way
    to pay extra at the post office to get tracking/insurance on something
    shipped with a prepaid postage label?

    - Does anyone have a better contact number so I can ask these
    questions or get some reassurance from a human being at this
    "Eallonardo V MGM Claims Administrator"? The 1-800-285-2168 I called
    is automated and I could find no option to reach an operator.

    If this works, it could be a good deal for me to get rid of old MGM
    DVDs I no longer want, even though it's a lot less than I paid for
    most of them. But it seems very risky the way they've structured this.
    Basically they insist we trust them 100% with our DVDs without
    spelling out any of the what-ifs, and then they provide no way to
    contact them if there are problems.
    Gerry, Mar 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gerry

    Rob Guest

    Let me guess ... you're American, right?
    Rob, Mar 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gerry

    kaydigi Guest

    You want to rip off MGM but you are worried you'll be?
    kaydigi, Mar 14, 2005
  4. Gerry

    Biz Guest

    I have sent your header info to the appropriate parties for possible
    fraudulent actions. Dumping the dvds is not what this settlement is
    about...any other abuse of this frivelous lawsuit is downright criminal.
    Biz, Mar 14, 2005
  5. Gerry

    mimus Guest

    No idea what this is all about, but is there any way we can sue 'em to
    make 'em release Makaveyev's _Manifesto_ (orig. dist. Cannon)?
    mimus, Mar 14, 2005
  6. Gerry

    FAQmeister Guest

    Get a grip. He said:

    He has a right to return them whatever the reason.
    FAQmeister, Mar 14, 2005
  7. Gerry

    Jay G. Guest

    You can sue them for whatever you feel like. Doesn't mean you'll win.

    Jay G., Mar 14, 2005
  8. Gerry

    frankb Guest

    } I have sent your header info to the appropriate parties for possible
    } fraudulent actions. Dumping the dvds is not what this settlement is
    } about...any other abuse of this frivelous lawsuit is downright criminal.

    The real criminals here are the lawyers who are getting $2,700,000
    because the insert INSIDE the DVD case was incorrect about the
    difference between widescreen and fullscreen movies. Nobody got ripped
    off, there was no false advertizing, and the widescreen DVDs are all
    mastered correctly.

    I have one DVD I got from the $4.88 bin at Walmart that I'm going to
    swap for something better. Not much risk, so we'll see what happens.
    frankb, Mar 15, 2005
  9. Gerry

    Doonie Guest

    You're not worried about whether or not it's ok to take advantage of
    Doonie, Mar 15, 2005
  10. Gerry

    Rob Guest

    The real criminals here are the lawyers who are getting $2,700,000
    Hear! Hear!

    But, if you guys weren't so eager to sue each other for any and every little
    thing, the lawyers would go away ...
    Rob, Mar 15, 2005
  11. Gerry

    Anthony Guest

    I'd like to sue MGM for not releasing Hitchcock's 'To Catch a Thief' on DVD.
    My Paramount copy is one of the worst transfers of a great movie I've ever seen.
    Anybody want to join in a group action?
    Anthony, Mar 15, 2005
  12. Gerry

    Gerry Guest

    It's not taking advantage of them in my opinion. They made an offer
    and by sending these DVDs in, I would be following the legal terms of
    it to the letter. I didn't see anywhere in the terms that the
    MOTIVATION for the returns counts!

    Other people have said they are doing the same thing here and on
    different web sites because they were tired of their old DVDs, so why
    are people only giving me grief?

    There is a legitimate error on Back to School, so I've read. If there
    is nothing wrong with the other titles, then why did MGM (or whoever
    made the settlement) include them in the eligible list? Don't blame me
    for that. My understanding is there is nothing wrong with the framing
    of most of the DVDs, but the inserts are still wrong and misleading.

    I didn't even say I was certain I was going to do this because I was
    afraid of losing the DVDs. I simply had posted for some help with this
    (and it is entirely legal and legitimate), and all I got was grief. If
    I had thought it was illegal or dishonest in any way, I surely
    wouldn't be doing it or posting about it.

    I can't even get valid questions answered here. Judging by the
    responses I've got, anyone who uses this settlement and follows the
    legal language in it is defrauding MGM and being criminal. That's not
    how I read it. I may not even bother with it as it's not worth the
    trouble, but it is informative to see what kind of hypersensitive,
    trouble-making people are in this newsgroup now. It'll be a long time
    before I ever ask for help here again (or contribute any answers).

    These are my opinions.
    Gerry, Mar 15, 2005
  13. Gerry

    Gerry Guest

    How is following the legal language in the settlement paperwork and
    sending in eligible titles on their list, all purchased within the
    appropriate time frames and for a lot more money than the $7.10 cash
    they are offering, considered ripping off MGM?

    The fact that most of the titles don't have any framing issues (based
    on what I've read on other sites like the one linked) but were offered
    in the settlement is not my fault, but those who put those titles in
    the settlement. You seem to be implying that anyone participating in
    this is ripping off MGM. Taking a several dollar loss on every DVD
    does not feel like ripping off MGM, but it's better than store
    trade-in credit. However, I may not even do it because I don't have
    that many DVDs. I was just contemplating it and had asked for help,
    but instead all I got were insults and threats.

    These are my opinions.
    Gerry, Mar 15, 2005
  14. Gerry

    Gerry Guest

    Uhoh. You'd better be careful this "biz" doesn't try to report you "to
    the proper authorities" too. I didn't appreciate his threat and he
    seemed to imply that the fact I wanted to return some DVDs that are
    ELIGIBLE and VALID for this settlement and meet all terms and
    requirements in the settlement is somehow criminal. I obey the law,
    and I wouldn't do anything like this if I thought it were illegal.

    There was no wording in the settlement saying that my motivation
    mattered, i.e. the fact I believe there is nothing wrong with the
    framing on most of these DVDs (based on info at the link I provided)
    doesn't change the fact they had incorrect framing info on the inserts
    and have offered to exchange certain DVDs or offer cash. I didn't ask
    them to do this. They made the settlement offer, and all I did was
    dare contemplate returning several titles on the eligible list because
    I no longer wanted them. I didn't know the motiviation mattered when
    following the terms of an agreement.

    I see this as completely legitimate and legal. If they don't want
    people who simply no longer want their eligible DVDs that are on the
    list to return them, they should make some stipulation that motivation
    counts. Frankb also said he wanted something better, so does his
    motivation now disqualify him? Not in my opinion, but apparently it
    would in others' opinoins.

    It doesn't surprise me a bit that I ask legitimate, valid questions
    for help and instead of getting any help I get threatened for no
    reason when I have done nothing wrong. No wonder I don't post very
    often and no wonder I'm so reluctant to help others on Usenet when
    things like this happen.

    These are my opinions.
    Gerry, Mar 15, 2005
  15. Gerry

    pin-medic Guest

    Let me guess, you're an asshole, right?
    pin-medic, Mar 15, 2005
  16. Gerry

    Biz Guest

    You trying to join his club then?

    Biz, Mar 15, 2005
  17. Gerry

    kaydigi Guest

    You seem to be implying that anyone participating in

    Where did I say that? I'm talking directly to you.

    Anyway do what you got to do boy boy.....
    kaydigi, Mar 15, 2005
  18. Gerry

    frankb Guest

    } You're not worried about whether or not it's ok to take advantage of
    } MGM?

    With macrovision, broadcast flags, DVD players that won't let you skip
    things and can't have analog upconverted outputs, and all the other DRM
    bullshit I have to deal with I don't have any sympathy left for the
    movie companies.

    When I bought my first DVD player I didn't have a AV receiver yet and my
    TV only had one video input, so I wanted to daisy chain the video thru
    my VCR to the TV. But macrovision prevented me from doing that and I
    had to get a separate switch. Since then it's been all downhill.
    frankb, Mar 15, 2005
  19. Gerry

    pin-medic Guest

    I'd guess I'd need your permission for membership. Judging by your posts,
    your just as big an asshole as the Anti-American ass.
    pin-medic, Mar 16, 2005
  20. Gerry

    Doonie Guest

    Hey! Adds up, to someone with no conscience.
    Because there's a limit, that's why.
    Prying for legal ways to take advantage of someone's misfortune and
    you don't expect to get some flak? You make all your countrymen look
    bad. Any excuse for a feeding frenzy, eh?
    "Immoral" is the correct term. I'm no angel but, like I said,
    there's a limit and no need for some behavior.
    Doonie, Mar 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.