XPost: alt.politics.british, misc.legal, talk.politics.misc   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
   >>Jon C wrote:   
   >   
   >>>There are so many great arguments against Bush and company, it amazes me   
   >>>that this guy needs to make shit up and mislead people over and over to   
   >>>get his point across.   
      
   >>Moore sees the world through his lens,   
   >   
   > Moore lies.   
      
      Bush lies.  Bush lies by commission, and by omission.  He told us   
   that his little W-ar would pay for itself, and that the Iraqi people   
   would be more inclined to throw flowers than RPGs at our troops.   
      
      If Moore's alleged "lies" bother you (the book I read was fairly well   
   researched, especially when compared to Michael Weiner's tripe), Bush's   
   lies should INFURIATE you.   
      
      But we both know that they don't, because you are a religious nutter   
   on a crusade.   
      
   > Personally, I think he's the ideal spokesman for the left,   
   > because he's so over the top with his mendacity and prevarication that even   
   > some of his fellow leftists want to keep him at a distance.   
      
      You mean, like Drugs "Abu Ghraib's just a fraternity prank"   
   Limburger? Or Bill "I never spin" OhReally?  I can tune out the spin on   
   both sides, and let the residual truth shine through.  Obviously, you can't.   
      
   > But let's be forthright about who he is ...   
   >   
   > ... Oh, that's right ... you're Ken Smith ... standing up for mendacity and   
   > prevarication ... as usual.   
      
      I don't support the Bush Junta's shameful lies for a moment.  And I   
   AM an active Republican.   
      
   > Ken, get help, please.  Before it's too late.   
      
      If you are prepared to pay for Geoffrey Fieger to represent me, I'll   
   take that offer in a heartbeat.  But it appears that your free cash is   
   tied up in another legal venture.... :)   
   >   
   >>but that is no different than the drivel troweled out by Roger Ailes and   
   >>FAUX News.  If anything, MM is far more "fair and balanced."   
   >   
   >>>I don't blame Disney at all.  I think this has less to do with upsetting   
   >>>Bush than it does not wanting to produce and distribute a film that is   
   >>>slanderous and grossly misleading.  That's smart business, IMO.   
   >>   
   >>When they fire Hannity at WABC, they can talk that talk.   
   >   
   > I doubt that Hannity is an employee of WABC.  He probably has an arrangement   
   > where he owns his own production company which provides a product (The Sean   
   > Hannity Show) to WABC in exchange for the use of their production facilities.   
      
      Okay, then disassociate themselves with him.  At any rate, they can't   
   claim to be "apolitical" and associate themselves with Hannity, but not   
   Moore.  That's so hypocritical that even you should be able to see it.   
      
   > There's probably also a barter arrangement there where they can fill break   
   > time with some of their own local spots, while agreeing to carry the national   
   > spots provided by Hannity (that all syndicates of the show must air along   
   > with the show).   
      
      Fine.  Break the arrangement.  If you want to be apolitical, then BE   
   apolitical.  Otherwise, let's just realize that under Eisner, the Mouse   
   has been given a new pair of jack-boots.   
      
   >>Beyond that, they should honor their commitment (as evidenced by the ~$6M   
   >>they threw at the movie) to distribute it, on time and as originally   
   >>contemplated.   
   >   
   > What was originally contemplated was a documentary, one that didn't contain   
   > any lies.   
      
      Everyone knew what to expect from Moore.  He does his homework pretty   
   well -- certainly, far better than Ann Coulter -- but everyone knew that   
   his piece would have a left-ward slant.  That someone sees the facts in   
   another light than you does not make him or her a liar.   
      
      And it may well be that there aren't any in there.  Inside Edition is   
   amazingly good at fact-checking; Christianity Today is gross negligence   
   institutionalized.  I would take Moore's facts over CTi's any day of the   
   week.   
      
   >>Moore's movie, regardless of what you think of the guy, has a shelf life   
   >>and needs to be distributed now.   
   >   
   > Tough noogies on Michael Moore.  My heart bleeds.   
      
      And you'd be screaming bloody murder if it was Sean Hannity.  That is   
   the fundamental difference between us: I actually walk my talk.  I will   
   even defend my ideological enemies' right to speak.   
   >   
   >>Basic contract law.   
   >   
   > Do you know what "contract law" means in Hollywood?  Sh*t, my sister wrote   
   > the basic story line to the recent NBC epic "10.5" over a decade ago.  She   
   > registered it with the Writer's Guild, but let her registration lapse.   
      
      Yours is a copyright law case.  Tort, not contract.  Alleged theft of   
   intellectual property.   
      
   > So it seems that someone picked it up, added a few minor embillishments, and   
   > sold it.  And she's seen squat from it.  I tell her that she should sue --   
   > her rights under copyright law are not surrendered just because her Writer's   
   > Guild registration lapsed -- but she says that sort of thing happens all the   
   > time in Hollywood.  And the suit would probably cost more than it's worth.   
   > But I'm not so sure.   
      
      Infringement cases are a matter of proof.  If you can prove access,   
   then you only have to show substantial similarity.  If you can't, you   
   have to prove an almost precise duplication (implying that there was   
   access).  This is the kind of case a Hollywood shyster should be able   
   to take on contingency, provided that it has any merit at all.  Deep   
   pockets and all....   
      
      Remember Art Buchwald and "Coming to America."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)