How Universal treats you, its customers
POSTED BY: SebastianFelis
UPDATED: Friday, September 16, 2005 19:32
VIEWED: 24499
PAGE 10 of 11
How is voting with your feet saying that you can no longer voice your opinion? It's actually the first step in the process of voicing your opinion. Universal would take note if someone was actually so upset that they left the theater.
Instead you give examples of going along with the disclaimer only to get what you want and then contest it later. Do you often go to restaurants and order the most expensive item on the menu, eat the food, then contest the price after the fact? That's not the way to handle things. Not only are you in the wrong. You're not going to get anywhere that way. The company will get what they want (your money, your release of rights, your first born, whatever) and you are telling them that you just want to complain, because when given the choice you chose the product over your rights.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It sounds like Universal was being underhanded legally, and whatsisface called them on it.
Those of you scared that Universal will say "I don't like you guys anymore!!1" and go sulk are paranoid. Universal will take this as it is intended: a criticism of the way they included the disclaimers, along with praise (remember the praise?) of all the good things they have provided.
Don't think Universal is a poor little victim. They're a huge corporation that receives volumes and volumes of mail, and they aren't going to keel over in shock when someone writes them and tells them they did something slightly objectionable at one of their screenings.
So those of you who disagree with this (wo)man's actions, don't worry; it's not going to affect you.
Personally, I do think corporations should notify us of what rights they want us to give up before they go ahead and take them. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they put such disclaimers on the back of their tickets (as someone pointed out ballparks do).
---------------------------------------------------
Early: Where'd she go?
Simon: I can't keep track of her when she's NOT incorporeally possessing a spaceship, don't look at me --
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank U, visitingmyintentions. You said it very well, I think.
AS for others:
Quote:
How is voting with your feet saying that you can no longer voice your opinion? It's actually the first step in the process of voicing your opinion. Universal would take note if someone was actually so upset that they left the theater.
[quoteInstead you give examples of going along with the disclaimer only to get what you want and then contest it later. Do you often go to restaurants and order the most expensive item on the menu, eat the food, then contest the price after the fact? That's not the way to handle things
Nope. I am sayin that...as a fan and customer, I feel somewhat entitled to see the movie(or whatever example I used last night)...but reserve the right to complain about being ambushed by a whole bunch of legal crap i didnt sign up to. If I were at a restaurant with a bunch of friends, had ordered my meal....and then someone ran up and handed me a legal disclaimer saying that eating here meant I had given up any moral & legal rights....Well....yes I would be stubborn and NOT exclude myself from the social outing...it probably isnt that big a deal....but I certainly would complain about being treated in such a high handed manner.
So, actually, what I do is chose the product AND my rights. Moreover, I chose to champion the rights of others who may otherwise have been ambushed/browbeaten/tricked into "consenting" to their rights being waved.
Tellin people to vote with their feet IS tellin em that they have to decide to either 1) Not participate, or 2) If they participate to not have an opinion (if they didnt like all of it, they should have walked)
And yet...somehow, the opinions of those who havnt participated in an event/activity or state are rarely given much credence.
Moreover, some are not given a viable choice to walk....so option no1 is out. For them, the "well you should have voted with your feet" argument IS telling them to shut up...accept crap without complaint.
Now, seriously, I am sure that NO ONE had truly consented to the full disclaimer with any real belief that all its measures would be used against them in full...if they did they are idiots....because participating in a Q&A with Joss...no matter how great a fan you are...really isnt worth forever signing away all moral and legal rights to a corporation. Essentially, most people there bought the meal...and if pressed, would contest the price after the fact. It is, in fact, how most things are done.
Tell me, do you read every software disclaimer before just clicking through to the installation stage? If so...do you truly agree to wave legal rights to compensation for any damage done by said software? You cant tell...before installation (or sometimes even after) if it contains a trojan that converts your computer into an illegal child porn server....or reports all your online banking details and passwords to a third party. If it did so...then, really...you probably should start hagglin over the price after having the meal...
and maybe the cap should turn around and return River...after all...he folks DID sign that consent form and River really wanted to go.....really. She is in the wrong..legally, not a leg to stand on.
Thus me complaining about silly legal wavers.
The interpretation that continuing an action automatically implies consent is incorrect. The legalise has got it wrong.
Mostly, people are not consenting, they are ignoring....and so they should, because the law is out of step with reality. Much better to ignore the law than reality.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excerpts from the letter of the aggrieved:
"Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent from all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product, I request that any recordings of the event not be used for promotional, commercial or any other purpose."
Here the aggrieved is not objecting on behalf of himself. Rather, he is representing the interests of 'all people whose likeness would be used in any subsequent product' without their consultation or consent. Perhaps they do not share his feelings about the waiver or implied consent form. The aggrieved never asked.
"Should my likeness be used in defiance of this communication, I will invoice Universal Pictures for royalties of one percent of gross revenue from sales of the infringing product. Use of my likeness will be taken as agreement to those terms. If this seems unreasonable, I invite you to re-read the release form."
Here the aggrieved demands renumeration if his likeness is used. The target of his letter has three options. Either
A) ignore him: This is something that the aggrieved surely does not want. Else he'd not be writing the letter.
B) Take him seriously and assert their legal standpoint in opposition to his own, which will take time and money.
C) Take him seriously and either 1) not use any Q&A footage in case he appears in a background shot somewhere or 2) get his photograph and carefully screen all shots for his likeness, and then blur him out. The first is problematic to the consumer. The second costs a lot of time and money.
"I would like to re-iterate that Universal Pictures could have handled this in a much better manner, and would like to recommend that more consideration is taken in future. This heavy-handed approach is totally unnecessary when politeness is sufficient to get the desired results."
Here we have the appropriate response to the aggrieved individual's situation. He lets the target audience know that he dislikes their conduct, and asks them to change in the future. If only the entire letter was limited to this.
So, now you may understand my opinion on the letter.
I also have an opinion on the actions of the aggrieved.
The aggrieved was told via waiver that if he attended the Q&A he would forfeit his likeness for free on all recordings made there.
The aggrieved had a decision to make. As many parents have said many times, "As long as you're in my House, you will live by my Rules."
The implication is simple. Stay and Obey, or Disagree and Leave.
The aggrieved chose to Stay Now and Complain Later.
I'd have had much more respect for the aggrieved individual's position had he departed, requested a refund, and then wrote a letter to the host advising them that he disagreed with their policies.
I don't think I can state my opposition to his techniques any better.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK...I grant U, he probably shouldnt have said some of that.
But isnt it curious how people will defend a big rich money hungry corporations right to push their legal bullcrap on us...
and yet will deride an individual for returning fire using the same kinda legalise...
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, toDeath,
You have a point. It is interesting that we are defending the money grubbing corporation.
I think there are some reasons for this.
1) This particular money-grubbing corporation has done something recently that I appreciate. It backed the Big Damn Movie.
2) Ever since I was a child, I've been exposed to an increasing amount of inane warning labels. Coffee may be Hot is one of my least favorites. Now we have apparently descended to "Attendee may be filmed."
It's symptomatic of our age. Burglar falls through improperly installed skylight. Burglar sues home owners. Kid breaks into Sea World, swims with Killer Whales and dies. Parents sue Sea World because they ought to have had a sign that said, "Don't swim with Killer Whales. Killer Whales may be dangerous." Open manholes with barricades around them are insufficient. Someone must stand watch against interlopers who may harm themselves or construction crews.
When I was born, the human race was assumed to either have common sense, or be responsible for their stupidity.
It's gone now. When I see someone demand renumeration from a corporation nowadays, my first question is, "What could the aggrieved have been expected to do differently to avoid their grim fate?" You know, make the 'aggrieved' party responsible for their own actions? So, forgive me for looking at what the aggrieved did wrong... the 'aggrieved' annoys me in life much more frequently than the 'villain.'
I'll tell you something else that bothers me. Apparently, there is a law somewhere that says Universal has to give people this waiver. I don't know where that law comes from. I don't agree with it. I think Universal ought to be able to film at their own function and use the footage how they please, waiver free.
So, in my humble and likely legally wrong opinion, the waiver itself should never have been needed, so the verbiage or implications of the waiver are largely unimportant to me. The waiver waived rights I don't agree we should have.
That having been said, IF a waiver IS legally required, THEN to follow the INTENT if not the LETTER of the LAW, you probably ought to tell people about their waiving of rights BEFORE they enter an affected function.
So, there you have it. I think the waivers themselves are a stupidity that is symptomatic of our society's idiocy. I likewise think that if we're going to be stupid enough to require waivers for this sort of thing, they should be handled better.
And all of that being said, I still don't much like the way the aggrieved party handled any of this.
I guess our laws allow us to be stupid enough to require these waivers, and then also to be stupid enough to complain about them.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I could not agree more.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay now don't get me wrong here but...
WHY IN THE FRACK ARE YOU BITCHING?
Personally I think you are just being nit-picky and pretentious.
I was at one of the Chicago advanced screenings (the last one). There were no warning signs, no disclaimers, nothing. But while we were watching the movie someone from Universal was using a night vision camera to record the audience's reaction. why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A GORRAM ADVANCED SCREENING IS FOR!! At that time they were still tweaking the film. I'm sure universal wanted to know how the fans were reacting to it.
Should I now sue Universal for possibly acquiring my likeness and possibly using it as an interpretive means of analyzing the film? Cos god forbid, they give a shit about my reaction!
At least in the United States when you attend certain events you forfeit your rights to sue. These forfeitures are not usually even clearly noted. For instance if you go to a basketball game, and while scanning the crowd they see you dressed up like the big damn fan you are, they can put you on TV without your permission. Or if you accidentally get your ehad smashed in with a basketball cos of some throw gone terribly awry, you can't sue as the team is not liable, as by being there you accepted the risk of having your head smashed in by said ball.
Most people don't get their panties in a bundle cos they think it's cool.
If Universal chose to use some question that I asked at a Q & A I'd be honored. That meant my question was interesting and well thought out enough that they thought it really did warrant the responce it recieved. If they scanned the crowd and caught me in it, I'd love it cos I could always show it to my friends and my kids and everyone I knew to show, "I was there, I supported this thing the whole way though"
As someone who read the warning before entering the Q & A you had a choice, enter that event and forfeit rights, OR go ask for your money back. You went in. Thus you forfeited your rights. Thus you have no right to bitch or complain. That's how forfeiting your rights works.
It's like being warned on a menu after you've gotten to the restauarant and ordered your drinks and appetizer that the entree you want is very spicy. Then ordering it anyways, eating it, burning your mouth and bitching that it was spicy. You were warned. Fucking deal with it.
What Universal has done for fans with this movie is UNPRECEDENTED. It is truely amazing. Why taint their good-will by bitching and moaning about some stupid little consent form.
Also, I don't think you had any right to speak from anyone but yourself in that letter you sent off to Universal. If you have their Fax number for the US I'd like to get my hands on it to let them know not everyone feels like you do, and as this thread has shown, most of us do not feel that way.
While the US has become an increasingly litigious society, it has only done so because people constantly feel 'violated,' and because the populace as a whole is pretty fucking stupid. Which to me is some puss ass way of saying, I was offended, and I think my opinion is more important than anyone elses. If no one will listen to me I'll sue. It also seems to stem from a lack of common sense. Coffee is hot, if you get burned you are a. too stupid to know what hot is, or b. just an idiot for thinking that the coffee would be cold. I don't understand why people think that they are so fucking important and that their feelings exclusively are so damn important, when most of them can't use the sense they were born with to get out of a paper bag (thus the paper bag company must be sued for not making the bag easier to get out of).
You had a choice to leave or stay, you decided to stay, your right to bitch about it was forfeited when you walked into that Q&A.
Sorry but there is no sympathy from this side of the pond from me.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Inara: "Do aliens live among us?"
Kaylee: "Yes. One of them's a doctor."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I'm not defending Universal at all. I'm suggesting that if the OP didn't like the legalese _which they knew about before the movie and Q&A began_, they could have left. It wasn't like they were told afterwards about the evil megacorp's rules.
I suppose I am saying that the OP has no right to complain if they weren't willing to leave when they knew full well what was going on.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlackEyedGirl:
... most of them can't use the sense they were born with to get out of a paper bag (thus the paper bag company must be sued for not making the bag easier to get out of).
I cheered out loud when I caught this line. I'm not sure exactly why, except that it struck me as a great summation of a lot of things. Cheers!
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME