Dark Force Entertainment Discussion Thread

[nitin]

Well I am not an autistic genius but I am a lawyer so just a little law 101 refresher:

- Bill says a lot of stuff on these live feeds, and btw a lot of which you yourself have said people shouldn’t take at face value (another reminder, it’s usually all his insults). Either way, for obvious reasons, that does not make any of it a fact despite you (selectively) claiming it as so

- a claim for damages is not based on what someone else was able to make, it is based on your own demonstrable loss, especially if you are not comparable to that someone else. Which for a label that according to its own owner only sells 300 (must be fact yeah?), has an established history of a business practice that is not anywhere comparable to VS’s and that has never sold anywhere near the same numbers (before you bring up SOAWN, even by DeFalco’s own ‘facts’ they have literally sold about a 1000 and guess what that is still not comparable to VS), is hardly debatable

- it could be that instead of the same rights owner double selling rights, two separate parties claim the rights and have separately sold them to both parties (reminder, see Pit Stop). In which case there would be nothing stopping Bill from releasing his own version of the disc and making his 300 sales

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

I’m sorry Miribeau, but you have just made some fairly damning charges against Vinegar Syndrome, and presented them as facts while providing zero evidence, meandering speculation aside. Bill saying something does not make it true, certainly this does not need elaboration, because well, what a power to possess.

No one has laid charges against anyone at VS. Bill was initially angry over their handling of a terrible situation but he never claimed they double sold the rights. He did initially claim they put out a release with no rights contract but, then, quickly stopped saying that. For the record, there's nothing bad about what I said about VS that I would even described as "charges", let alone "damning". They bought rights, which they do all the time, otherwise I wouldn't have a bunch of lovely VS shelves in my home, but buying rights is not a crime nor should it be. If someone sold rights twice, which is what has happened in this unfortunate case, VS could not possibly be held accountable for having been duped, as one of the buyers, when they, themselves, were victims of the same entity that sold them to two separate companies. When Bill got so angry at them, he wasn't thinking in those terms, looking to the entity selling in the first place. He was looking to the other buyer to lay blame. That is common enough but, at some point, he'll move on to blaming the seller. For a couple of months now, he has been responding more to what was said to him after the fact, feelings over conversations more than the initial swindle which, again, was not perpetrated by anyone at VS. They did not sell the rights themselves nor are they responsible for any other party opting to do that.

Originally Posted by nitin

Well I am not an autistic genius but I am a lawyer so just a little law 101 refresher:

- Bill says a lot of stuff on these live feeds, and btw a lot of which you yourself have said people shouldn’t take at face value (another reminder, it’s usually all his insults). Either way, for obvious reasons, that does not make any of it a fact despite you (selectively) claiming it as so

To Nitin...

[Show spoiler]
When Bill relays facts and I quote them, they don't cease to be facts because I quoted them. When he relays feelings, they don't become facts because I quoted them. Enough information has trickled out about this that some of us know what's going on and some don't. I'll leave it at that.

- a claim for damages is not based on what someone else was able to make, it is based on your own demonstrable loss, especially if you are not comparable to that someone else. Which for a label that according to its own owner only sells 300 (must be fact yeah?), has an established history of a business practice that is not anywhere comparable to VS’s and that has never sold anywhere near the same numbers (before you bring up SOAWN, even by DeFalco’s own ‘facts’ they have literally sold about a 1000 and guess what that is still not comparable to VS), is hardly debatable

To Nitin...

[Show spoiler]
I won't question whether you are a lawyer, although I would question whether you specialized in contract law. I will say you are wrong on some of this, probably owing to a lesser knowledge of some of the facts or specifics, or possibly crafting the case scenario in more general terms, forgetting important factors. Damages of lost revenue are calculated daily in this country and, under our current system, when handling a case where exclusive rights have been sold to two parties, making them non-exclusive, the party that ends up with all the revenue and sales will often see their figures used to calculate damages to the party who lost out. Now, what you say is true in a non-exclusive scenario, where someone has bought the rights but failed to include language governing exclusivity, a mistake neither Bill Olsen nor anyone at VS would make at this point, but that situation doesn't apply here.

As to what Bill could have sold, we still go by the common law standard, that existing demand is demand, fantasy demand may as well not exist. By a set legal standard, where exclusivity is a factor, as it is here, you lose out on precisely the number of sales that have occurred, not sales that could have occurred, and, then, projected sales are often, but not always, included, if there is ongoing production and the market has been cornered. There could be debate on that but, from what I've seen, VS has the market cornered on this title. I don't think it would be difficult to establish for a judge that they have dominated the market and most buyers who will buy have already bought.

As to their record, the fact that VS has sold other titles in high numbers is not relevant to how many copies of Mausoleum they sold, again by a legal standard. It may seem relevant that they sell so many of their titles in high numbers but, when calculating lost revenue, all other sources of revenue are not considered. It isn't a rape case, looking for prior bad acts, or in this case prior awesomeness. The only title's sales that can be considered in calculating Bill Olsen's specific lost revenue, due to the double rights issue and breach of exclusivity, would be Mausoleum's specific sales, and only the first-buyer or primary sales, via VS and Amazon, on new copies. That extends to his own sales. Demonstrating that he has sold out titles with 1000 or 2000 copies would be considered as evidence but, even if he could not show that such a thing had ever occurred, the legal standard for demonstrating demand is not proving that you have had such demand on another title. The actual primary sales figures for Mausoleum in this case, where exclusivity has been violated, by the original rights holder, would be dispositive. My hope is that VS will aid Bill in his lawsuit, and help him put the issue to rest.

- it could be that instead of the same rights owner double selling rights, two separate parties claim the rights and have separately sold them to both parties (reminder, see Pit Stop). In which case there would be nothing stopping Bill from releasing his own version of the disc and making his 300 sales

To Nitin...

[Show spoiler]
There is nothing stopping him now, except that the bulk of the sales on the title have already been made to the vast majority of potential buyers. As to the issue of separate parties selling rights, that does not appear to have happened but, again, these things trickle out at their own pace. They'll certainly tell us if a second owner ends up in the mix. Right now, there is only one of which I am aware. The fact that they aren't talking about it the way they were tells me a gag order is probably in effect at this point.

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by miribeau

There's nothing bad about what I said about VS that I would even described as "charges", let alone "damning". They bought rights, which they do all the time, otherwise I wouldn't have a bunch of lovely VS shelves in my home. If someone sold rights twice, which is what has happened in this unfortunate case, VS could not possibly be held accountable for having been duped, as one of the buyers, when they, themselves, were victims of the same entity that sold them to two separate companies. When Bill got so angry at them, he wasn't thinking in those terms, looking to the entity selling in the first place. He was looking to the other buyer to lay blame. That is common enough but, at some point, he'll move on to blaming the seller. For a couple of months now, he has been responding more to what was said to him after the fact, feelings over conversations more than the initial swindle which, again, was not perpetrated by anyone at VS. They did not sell the rights themselves nor are they responsible for any other party opting to do that.

If someone accused me of engaging in an unethical business practice then I would find the expression I used fitting. You may not, but that doesn’t absolve you of providing not a quark sized bit of evidence for your claims, much less for your ability to occupy Bill’s mind.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

If someone accused me of engaging in an unethical business practice then I would find the expression I used fitting. You may not, but that doesn’t absolve you of providing not a quark sized bit of evidence for your claims, much less for your ability to occupy Bill’s mind.

You have every right to consider what VS did unethical. Bill certainly felt it was. I just don't see it that way. While I would not have done what they did, opting instead for a joint lawsuit with Bill, to simply recover the cost of the rights and damages for time, effort, restoration, etc., what they chose to do was no less ethical than taking that course. Both avenues are, in fact, perfectly acceptable.

As to providing you with evidence, I have no interest in citing sources, recounting dates and comments or any of that. I've never been into the whole "mother of the world" idea, where women all have some kind of requirement that they constantly care about everyone knowing everything and having as much information as possible. I'm a "say what you feel like saying" person. I'd give you water if you were thirsty, food if you were hungry, but I'm sorry to have to say I don't care whether you feel like you have a solid, proven knowledge base for what's going on with Mausoleum and the rights issue. I'm not a journalist and never wanted to be. I just remember everything people say, which is not always a good thing. If only I could do the same with everything I read, I'd probably have more money.

Anyway, to each his own, as to your feelings on ethics.

[nitin]

Lol well thanks for teaching me the law miribeau. I won’t torture others by responding to your amazing points (which you will no doubt respond to with more tangential statements that are not actually anywhere near on point) but I will leave these pearlers for those that wish to see the highlights:

When Bill relays facts and I quote them, they don't cease to be facts because I quoted them.

I will say you are wrong on some of this, probably owing to a lesser knowledge of some of the facts or specifics, or possibly crafting the case scenario in more general terms, forgetting important factors.

It isn't a rape case, looking for prior bad acts, or in this case prior awesomeness.

“It isnt a rape case” should go on the next bingo card.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by nitin

Lol well thanks for teaching me the law miribeau. I won’t torture others by responding to your amazing points (which you will no doubt respond to with more tangential statements that are not actually anywhere near on point) but I will leave these pearlers for those that wish to see the highlights:

“It isnt a rape case” should go on the next bingo card.

I doubt I taught you anything you didn't already know and know well. You just hadn't applied it to this scenario. Not sure if your fun-times rundown means you missed the point or I jogged your memory of how they calculate damages in a case where exclusive rights have been double sold and that somehow made you ornery. As to the other, I admit, "It isn't a rape case" is a bit colorful, but it does drive home the point on not looking to sales stats on anything other than the current release. Funny though, how you quoted to make it look like I said nothing of substance, and then called my statements tangential and not on point, almost as though you wanted to rewrite history for those who have me on ignore. Reminds me of a guy I know who bought an insanely expensive but too small automobile when he hit a certain age. Interesting cherry-picking.

[WillieMLF]

Originally Posted by nitin

Well I am not an autistic genius but I am a lawyer so just a little law 101 refresher:

- Bill says a lot of stuff on these live feeds, and btw a lot of which you yourself have said people shouldn’t take at face value (another reminder, it’s usually all his insults). Either way, for obvious reasons, that does not make any of it a fact despite you (selectively) claiming it as so

- a claim for damages is not based on what someone else was able to make, it is based on your own demonstrable loss, especially if you are not comparable to that someone else. Which for a label that according to its own owner only sells 300 (must be fact yeah?), has an established history of a business practice that is not anywhere comparable to VS’s and that has never sold anywhere near the same numbers (before you bring up SOAWN, even by DeFalco’s own ‘facts’ they have literally sold about a 1000 and guess what that is still not comparable to VS), is hardly debatable

- it could be that instead of the same rights owner double selling rights, two separate parties claim the rights and have separately sold them to both parties (reminder, see Pit Stop). In which case there would be nothing stopping Bill from releasing his own version of the disc and making his 300 sales

I was under the impression this was the case. Someone involved mentioned this multiple times.

[Blu2u]

In the Django situation, for comparison, what good what come out of Arrow suing Surf film for double selling rights? They would be cutting off future licenses, which in this case has been at least 4-5 more titles. It seems like a rock and a hard place situation.

[kraven]

miribeau was also a lawyer guys. It was right after she stopped being a chef, but before she ran her family business, but also after she stopped practicing medicine, but again before becoming a writer.

Kissing Dave and Bill's asses is only a hobby...for now!

[Member-222782]

miribeau posts so often in this thread they should make her a moderator. Or is there a policy against being both a mod and full-time cheerleader?

[babybreese]

Originally Posted by whedon

View PostUnread Today, 08:13 AM
Remove user from ignore listmiribeau
This message is hidden because miribeau is on your ignore list.

Let me guess, a rambling and incoherent post in which our resident shill once again defends df and CR shoddy business practices and has a go at VS for not being kind enough to the poor pet Bill. At this stage you don't even have to see the shills posts to know where they are trying to take the conversation, if I was a betting man I would wager that is equating the Mausoleum situation to the time when they purchased an amazing thing that someone else claimed they owned and that they are such a good person that they let the other person have it because when they were watching the Farmer on TV in the company of their family and US generals they saw the president of the United States in the room being kind and took that to heart when they speak at big churches.

Genius!

Originally Posted by miribeau

Someone please tell Whedon this just makes him look silly. If you aren't going to read a thing, responding is pointless.

lol
It makes him look like a mix of Einstein, Kreskin & Nostradamus.

He did not read your post yet he 100 % encapsulated it in his post.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by kraven

miribeau was also a lawyer guys. It was right after she stopped being a chef, but before she ran her family business, but also after she stopped practicing medicine, but again before becoming a writer.

Kissing Dave and Bill's asses is only a hobby...for now!

To Kraven...

[Show spoiler]
1) Going to law school doesn't make someone a lawyer. It makes someone a fool who spent a lot of money to realize they didn't want to finish because the idea of spending a life in that career made them physically ill. For the record, that fool is me and the money hurts to think about.

2) I was never a chef, although I can cook, but not as well as a chef. Would I be thinner? Yes. Would I be prettier? Also yes. I should have been a chef.

3) I ran a family member's business for a time, when I was needed. However, in general, my "family business" is more appropriately titled "the business of my family" and is run by the President, a job I'd never qualify for, under any circumstances, even the Idiocracy circumstances. (I'd vote keep using the Gatorade and then hop a boat and leave everyone behind. Okay, maybe I'd take my family. Maybe.)

4) I stopped consulting in cancer cases, but consulting for doctors is not practicing medicine. It is helping others to practice it better, to the ends of saving lives, without all the mess. I stopped because I became disillusioned, after saving some who were terrible people and one who I found out hurts people. As though you would have done any different, kraven, under identical circumstances. I'm sure you have a soul and a conscience, at least you seem to me like you do.

5) As to writing, I did that first, although it was academic writing. How do you think I paid for two houses before becoming a person on a horribly fixed income returning to the career that made me money. This time, however, I'm not studying and then writing about Criminology. (Thank God.)

6) I don't kiss anyone's behind. I simply show appreciation when I feel it is needed. If Bill were not suffering and being constantly hounded and criticized, both of which greatly speed death in cases of significant illness, I would not be on here reminding him that he matters and telling him I appreciate him. I'd be spending that time on another board where people know who I am and tell me they appreciate me.

Trying to make sure someone knows that they are cared about and appreciated for their contribution shouldn't be seen as kissing up or brown nosing. For the record, I have equal affection for Walt Olsen, a completely different person with a very different business sense but who has made huge contributions to the industry via Code Red and then Scorpion. But Walt doesn't get crapped on all the time. He doesn't need a cheerleader. As to David DeFalco, he has other ways to make money and I don't want him to quit releasing films because of the constant needling he gets on these boards and on Facebook. (Really, some of the stuff posted on Facebook is worse than anything you see here, in the worst fights people have.)

Boy did you cram a lot of points into that little slander. Gotta give you credit. You pack a punch.

Originally Posted by babybreese

Genius!



lol
It makes him look like a mix of Einstein, Kreskin & Nostradamus.

He did not read your post yet he 100 % encapsulated it in his post.

From another who clearly didn't read it. Fun.

Here's a question: Why is everyone so consumed with Mausoleum over the last day or two? I can't be the only one who hops on here looking for information on the release dates of MMI, Point Doom and even Blackout, though Blackout should really be announced on the CR board. (I'm not looking for LV/FE because he's just finalizing everything with that one. Nor am I looking for details on the store, because that announcement was already made, but those others are in the ether, as it were.) So, what gives?

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Cinema84

miribeau posts so often in this thread they should make her a moderator. Or is there a policy against being both a mod and full-time cheerleader?

Why is it that most shills are so garrulous?

Thankfully, there's an ignore list.

[splintersan]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Why is it that most shills are so garrulous?

Thankfully, there's an ignore list.

Yeah, thankful for the ignore option, it's made this thread almost tolerable.

[AKNewbie]

Originally Posted by Cinema84

miribeau posts so often in this thread they should make her a moderator. Or is there a policy against being both a mod and full-time cheerleader?

Nah, not a moderator. Just needs their own thread called "Dear Abby Miribeau".

[Marsupial Werewolf]

I'd still love to see Dark Force implement a pre-order option.

This has proven very successful for Mondo Macabro where they routinely move 600-1000 copies in a few days or weeks (except for Symptoms for some reason).

And of course, one doesn't have to reference the infamous Mausoleum incident that send Bill into overdrive.

Still, please consider it, Dave.

[frakking toaster]

Originally Posted by Marsupial Werewolf

I'd still love to see Dark Force implement a pre-order option.

This has proven very successful for Mondo Macabro where they routinely move 66-1000 copies in a few days or weeks (except for Symptoms for some reason).

And of course, one doesn't have to reference the infamous Mausoleum incident that send Bill into overdrive.

Still, please consider it, Dave.

Mondo is also a one man show in the shipping department. They don't even have any minions to help ship.

[WillieMLF]

Originally Posted by frakking toaster

Mondo is also a one man show in the shipping department. They don't even have any minions to help ship.

I see where you're going with this.... And Mondo keeps their store open 2 mystery hours a week too?

[rdodolak]

Well, it looks like the DF decided to reopen the store.

[cloudnine]

FORCED ENTRY aka THE LAST VICTIM is up at the DF store.