Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

Steve:

Is your argument that since CO only knows 25% of the audience then hot-reading is impossible? If so, I disagree.

Is there any way to find out two things:

1) The average percentage of a given CO audience that is 'read'.

2) The number/percentage of those who are read who are also among the known 25% as opposed to the unknown 75%.

Further, your 25/75 breakdown rests on the assumption that every ticket is purchased as a bundle of four.

So it would also be interesting to know how many tickets are bought individually, how many in pairs, in triplets, and so forth.

I suspect that the breakdown would result in a larger percentage than 25% being known prior to the show.
 
I don't believe that you can enter into a contract if you are under 18. Many web sites now ask for a DOB when you register.

I really don't think that the release is nefarious in any way. It is simply what a lawyer would construct to protect his client.

I really don't get why the "entertainment" thingie raises red flags. From a purely legal standpoint it just covers the client more.
 
Ed said:
I don't believe that you can enter into a contract if you are under 18. Many web sites now ask for a DOB when you register.
Click to expand...

Most I have seen ask you if you are under 18 or not. It is both easier for the user as well as for the programmer.

Take it from me, I've been designing interfaces for decades now... :)

If, however, the DOB means anything within the system, e.g. a clothes store, which can then conform the pages you see according to your age, then it makes sense.

Asking for DOB on CO? Big Red Flag. I haven't seen many young people on CO anyway. Most seem to be middle-aged women.
 
SteveGrenard said:
All copies can be signed in advance but they are handed in at the door on arrival. Nobody is required to return it in advance of taping date.
Click to expand...


I'll accept that nobody IS required to return it in advance of the taping date but this doesn't mean they don't. Does the distribution to the ticket holders include a return address? Does it include a return envelope even, possibly a pre-paid postage one?


Hence 75% of the persons handing in their forms at the door are unknown to CO until that point which can be anywhere from 1.5 to 2 hrs before the taping begins .....a time frame in order for everyone to get their water/sugar fix and bathroom breaks in.
Click to expand...

Which makes your assumptions above, coupled with Claus's comments, all the more unlikely.

Did I miss a comment somewhere above that nobody sees this document until they get to the front door? this is patently incorrect based on my own attendance at a CO taping. The agreements were in hand in advance, having been sent in the package to the identified ticket holder.
Click to expand...

Why do they send them out in advance? Somewhat dodgy.
 
SteveGrenard said:
All copies can be signed in advance but they are handed in at the door on arrival. Nobody is required to return it in advance of taping date.
Click to expand...

Or looked another way, JE has the name , address, date of birth and telephone number of 100% of the studio audience hours before he steps out to begin the show.

Some argument against hot reading.

:i:

:id:
 
I'd just like to clarify one point quickly as Claus has got it wrong twice now, and seems to not understand what "Producer" means in this document.

Look at page 1. In the very first sentence, "Producer" is defined as SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. That means that whenever you read the word Producer (capital "P") in the document it means the company - and no one else.

That is what I meant by capital "P" producer in this document. Clear now?
 
Thanz said:
I'd just like to clarify one point quickly as Claus has got it wrong twice now, and seems to not understand what "Producer" means in this document.

Look at page 1. In the very first sentence, "Producer" is defined as SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. That means that whenever you read the word Producer (capital "P") in the document it means the company - and no one else.

That is what I meant by capital "P" producer in this document. Clear now?
Click to expand...

JE is not an executive producer? What is he a producer of, then?

Please explain this.
 
CFLarsen said:


JE is not an executive producer? What is he a producer of, then?

Please explain this.
Click to expand...
I don't know and don't really care (for the purposes of this document) what JE is an executive producer of. I am just pointing out that "Producer" is a defined term in the agreement, and it is defined as SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. Using the term "Producer" just allows the drafter to avoid writing "SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC." over and over. If instead of using "Producer" they used "SIXTH AVENUE" it would mean the same thing.

In this document, when you see "Producer" it means SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. and nothing more.
 
Thanz,

If you don't know, how can you flat-out state that I am wrong???

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
 
CFLarsen said:
Thanz,

If you don't know, how can you flat-out state that I am wrong???

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
Click to expand...
You need to get off the word "Producer". In this document, it has NO MEANING other than SICTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. Whether someone is a "producer" as that term is commonly meant makes no difference. It is a defined term of the document. The defining of the term means that you can take out the word "Producer" every time it appears and put in "SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIPONS,INC." and the document has the exact same meaning. Using a defined term just makes the document a little easier to read.

I am not sure how much more plain I can make it. In this document "Producer" does not mean anyone who may be a producer of the program - it means a specific company, and that is all.
 
Thanz,

I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
 
CFLarsen said:
Thanz,

I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
Click to expand...
I am trying to explain to you that your questions are irrelevant. The word "Producer" in the document does not have the ordinary meaning of producer that we use every day. It is a special defined term, a short hand way of referring to Sixth Avenue Productions Inc. They could have used the word "Sixth" and it would have been the same thing.

You are getting confused because you want to use the normal meaning of "producer" when you see "Producer". I am telling you that the normal meaning does not apply once it has been defined as "Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc." in the first sentence of the document. It is nothing but a short hand.
 
Thanz,

Let's try again: I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?

Are you a NY lawyer?

Please either:
  • address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
  • state that you refuse to answer.
 
Thanz is correct. "Producer" as used in that particular document is defined within the document itself.

Definitions of what a producer is or who a producer might be -- in other circumstances or 'in real life' -- are irrelevant to the terms of the document. "Producer" -- within the document itself -- means only what the term is defined to mean within the document. The document's term excludes JE as "Producer" for the statements made in the document.

This is a non-point for both sides -- the only relevant language (IIRC) says that the opinions of JE are not necessarily those of the "Producer" -- i.e., they don't want you suing the business for things that he says.

It really has nothing to do with anything -- since the rest of that sentence says that the opinions are not necessarily factual and are for entertainment purposes only.

So the person signs off that the opinions:

(1) Are from JE,
(2) Are not from the "Producer" [the business],
(3) Are not meant to represent anything factual, and
(4) Are for entertainment purposes only.

Is this clearer?

NA

PS Yes, you're wrong on this, Claus.
 
CFLarsen said:
Thanz,

Let's try again: I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?
Click to expand...
I imagine that they do.

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter for this document.

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
Click to expand...
I have explained this several times already. The word "Producer" (capital "P") does not have the oridnary meaning of "producer" in this document. It is only a short hand reference for SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Are you a NY lawyer?
Click to expand...
Not a NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer.
 
Thanz,

Thank you for your answers.

NoZed Avenger,

Why does the document's term excludes JE as "Producer" for the statements made in the document? I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know why.
 
Thanz said:

I imagine that they do.


It doesn't matter for this document.


I have explained this several times already. The word "Producer" (capital "P") does not have the oridnary meaning of "producer" in this document. It is only a short hand reference for SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC.


Not a NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer.
Click to expand...


Thanz, I did not know you were a lawyer! I might have argued less voiceferously yesterday! I still stand by my uneducated view of the indemnity language and "arising out of". You spend 5 years discussing additional insured claims and then talk to me what is and is not "arising out of":D

As to "Producers" The word is clearly definded in the document, you are right. But is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at- I think he is confusing JE's job as executive producer and usage of "Producer" in the contract (amateurs! ;) ) , but it is possible he is not too far off in his questioning on that issue.


Oh, and Thanz- you can get a T Shirt made: I survived a mini Larsen list!:p
 
CFLarsen said:
NoZed Avenger,

Why does the document's term excludes JE as "Producer" for the statements made in the document? I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know why.
Click to expand...


The document has no effect on his status as a producer (little 'p') of the show.

For purposes of the obligations in the document itself, the author wants to separate -- in a legal snse -- JE the person from Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc.

The document is set up using the word "Producer" to refer to the business, only. This is merely a shorthand reference to the company so that the phrase "Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc." does not have to be written out every time that the company is referred to. They could have equally well chosen "Company" or "Sixth Avenue" or "Party of the First Part." The only reason for using the word is convenience in drafting the document -- it is easier to write and know precisely which person or entity is being referred to.

Under the law, JE is a separate legal entity from Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc. However, because he would be viewed as a representative or agent of the company, his statements and actions could cause the company to be liable for what he says/does. (Generally, a business is held responsible for the actions of its agents. Even if the person is not an actual employee, the business can be held responsible for the actions of a person if they create the impression that the person is speaking/acting for the business.)

In this case, the business (Sixth Avenue) is attempting to limit the liability of the company. They therefore state that the statements being made by JE are not those of the company itself.

If their disclaimer is valid (no opinion on that at the moment - not enough facts about the business relationship), then a person who sued JE for statements he made would -not- be able to successfully sue the company directly. While JE could be made to pay a judgment, this language is the company's attempt to keep its assets from being taken, as well, in such a suit.


Is that any clearer?

NA
 
renata, et al.

Feel free to educate me why JE is not encompassed by "Producer".

What I fail to understand is how anyone can be called "producer" - executive, even - at the end of the show and not be a producer of the show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom