SCREEN-L Archives

July 2005, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:58:20 -0500
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Subject:
From:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Scott,

Certainly, you are within your rights to let others know about incompatibility 
issues -- it's simply a matter of consumer awareness.  But you should probably 
refrain from calling Tudor and Rowand "incompetent"; that strikes me as 
overstating your case and inappropriate.  Hopefully, you tried other ways to 
resolve the issue (exchanging the DVD, calling the disc manufacturer, etc) 
before resorting to such a blanket statement about the authors -- and even 
then, you should probably keep your statements focused on the particular 
qualities of the specific product at hand.  (For instance, you recognized that 
the problems with the Disney disc were not a matter of Disney's incompetence 
but, rather, a specific problem with that film on disc).  

But nothing here seems to satisfy to requirements for libel (especially Tudor's 
assertion that what you want is a different version of the film).  Libel is a 
very specific kind of offense that carries a heavy burden of proof.  Where your 
own statments might seem close to libel is in their potential damaging effects 
on Tudor and Rowand's business (nobody really wants to do business with a 
person whom others claim to be "incompetent").  But libel typically requires 
that the statements in question be stated as facts, not opinions (which your 
claims seem to be). 

J. Nichols-Pethick
  

Quoting Scott Hutchins <[log in to unmask]>:

> Miles Tudor, one of the authors of Decca's DVD of _The Death of Klinghoffer_,
> claimed that my assertion of his and Philip Rowands's incompetence authoring
> this DVD is libel.  He also claimed that what I desire is a pan and scan
> version of the film, which I turned around abd told him was libellous, since
> all I want is the film to play in its correct ratio, rather than squeezing. 
> The settings of my player have been checked and double checked, but I've
> never gotten the disc, which has a SRP of $29.99, to play properly.  I had
> the same problem with _Monsters, Inc._ and a Disney technician admitted that
> the problem was incompatibility.  As far as I'm concerned, if compatibility
> is an issue, it should state as such on the box.  The vast majority of 16x9
> enhanced discs play properly on my player.  I can only conclude that the few
> that do not are incompetent.
> 
> Am I in the wrong wrong for broadcasting this incompatibility?  I believe
> it's important for consumers to be informed of it so they don't waste money
> on an unwatchable DVD like I did.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Sent via the WebMail system at cix.csi.cuny.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
> 

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2