🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:44:30 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:09:38 GMT, Bob Ward <bobward@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:37:08 -0700, Abe <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Walmart threatens studios over movie/video sales on iTunes:
>>>>>>> <http://www.nypost.com/business/retail_iation_business_tim_arango.htm>
>>>>>>just one more reason NOT to shop at Walmart 
>>>>>Agreed. That's disgusting behavior.
>>>>WalMart anticipates that they will sell fewer DVD's in the future, so
>>>>they are ordering less product.  What's disgusting about that?
>>>I couldn't care less that they anticipate selling fewer DVDs because
>>>of downloadable movie sales. That's not the point. You need to read
>>>between the lines a bit. The point is that are retaliating by sending
>>>back DVDs, and cutting future orders for DVDs way in excess of
>>>expected DVD sales shrinkage due to legal movie downloading.
>>>
>>>It's a strongarm tactic. In essence WM is saying, if you sell movies
>>>online, we'll cut your balls off at the retail level. Who the hell is
>>>WM to tell the studios how they can sell their product?
>>
>>
>>Why do you feel that it is morally superior for the studios to force
>>WalMart to order more DVDs than they expect to sell?
>>
>>WalMart isn't telling the studios how they can sell their product -
>>but they ARE telling the studios that they won't be selling as many
>>DVDs through WalMart.
>>
>Do you consider what you just said "spinning"?
>Or just plain old bullshit?
>
>--Vic


Have you stopped beating your wife?