On 02 Feb 97, Kit Ballantyne wrote to Rich Koster:
 KB> You ASSUME that I have not called Disney
Well, if he *had* called Disney, and spoken to Carla or any other person in 
customer services or Disney's legal department, then he probably heard for 
himself that his position was wrong.  That said, I have only 2 questions.  1. 
If he took the word of Dinsey and accepted he was wrong, why didn't he come 
onto the echo, disclose the fact he called, and apologize for his earlier 
misconception?  2. I am wondering if he called and ended up *not* accepting 
the word of Disney Legal.   Perhaps he felt that whoever he talked to at 
Disney was only a pencil pusher or something, and they weren't qualified to 
know the facts about the law.  If Kit talked to a Disney *attorney* in the 
legal department, perhaps he felt that even that *attonrey* may have been 
wrong in indicating Kit was wrong in his interpretation.  Perhaps Kit may 
have encouraged a Disney attorney to themselves contact the Copyright Office.
In any case, it would have made an interesting conversation, hering Kit go 
head to head with Disney.
A personal note to Rich:  I find it unfair that Kit criticized you for 
assuming he had not called Disney.  You were totally right to assume that he 
had not called, becuase Kit has never posted anything to the contrary saying 
he *had* contacted Disney.  And of course, we're not mind readers.  The fact 
that Kit could criticize you for an assumption made in light of the fact he 
has never given a *clue* to the contrary, goes to show just how self-oriented 
his thinking was.  His resignation, as he calls it, will not harm the echo. 
His thinking was never clear to begin with, so I think the echo may be 
substantiatively better off.
 KB> and you tell others in this public forum that my videotape is likely
 KB> not legal. You never gave me the benefit of the doubt.
There is no way a "terrible copy" of a movie never released by Disney in any 
form could be legal.  The ONLY legal copies of Black Cualdron ever released 
were to a small handful of prominent film critics for televison and newspaper 
media (Siskel & Ebert, Lenoard Maltin, Nancy Glass, Michael Medved and Jeffry 
Lions, Bill Harris, etc) and the tapes are clearly marked both on the 
packaging for the tapes and on the video iteslf that the copies are for 
review only, and not to be sold.  Generally, even to secure reviewer copies, 
a paper or TV producer or critic must sign a contract with Disney
agreeing to destroy or erase the tape after it's use is concluded.  Any copy 
labeled like Kit said his was, from "archives" would have been illegally 
dubbed by a Disney employee and smuggled out of the studio, and would be 
totally illegal.  Anyhow, nuff said on this.
Well, I am going to go hibernate for a spell.  Later...
--- GoldED 2.50
---------------