[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Washington Post Article
- To: Tim Neu <tim(at)tneu.visi.com>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Washington Post Article
- From: Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:51:59 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202261501570.15569-100000@leo.tneu.visi.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Tim Neu wrote:
>
> Another Pro-IP article, by Jack Valenti himself:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62085-2002Feb24.html
>
> A draft of a response:
>
> http://www.visi.com/~tneu/wpvalenti.html
> (as usual, any suggested improvements can be posted)
`` only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing
investment from domestic theatrical exhibition.... Distributors
have to use other venues .... cable, satellite, TV stations,
videocassettes, DVDs, international markets.''
You should point out how heavily *each* one of these was fought against by
the same aforementioned distributers. They fought TV, they fought
videocassets. (And I'm sure they fought satellite and cable)
If it weren't for them *losing* those battles, they'd be out how many
billions a year in revenue and profit..
Scott