From:	SMTP%"[removed]@[removed]" 16-NOV-1995 10:13[removed]
To:	otr@[removed]
CC:	
Subj:	[removed] Digest V95 #395

 
	********************************************************
                      ------   # NOTE #   -------
SEE INFO SECTION AT END OF THIS DIGEST FOR UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER INFORMATION. 
		====  INFO SECTION UPDATED 8/19/95  ====
	********************************************************

	    [removed]   Volume 95 : Issue 395


Articles in this issue of [removed]:

	  Sighs & sheeshes
	  Tom Mix and Personal Property
	 RE:Tom Mix and flames
	 RE: Wanta trade? & Scariest Show
	 OTR in Cyberspace
	 SQUEAKY TAPE - HELP!!!
	 Re: Sighs & sheeses
	 To the private property guy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 06:38:00 GMT
From: [removed]@[removed] (Marty Tabnik)
To: otr@[removed]
Subject:  Sighs & sheeshes
Message-Id: <95111600113411269@[removed]>

BR> From: Bruce Rudesill <lranger@[removed]>
BR> Message-Id: <[removed]@[removed]>

BR> I know how Charlie McCarthy must have felt.

[See, Lou, I *can* ignore a straight line! <BFGWVST!>]


BR> Only I have Marty Tabnik instead of Edgar Bergen putting
BR> words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say I wanted anybody to
BR> give ME anything. To the hobby, yes, to me personally,
BR> that's my problem to work out.

Uh, Bruce, are you gonna REALLY try to convince ANYone that
        You didn't want these episodes so that
                YOU can hear them? <scoff scoff>


BR> I don't have a problem with the concept of personal property.
BR> I have a problem with mindless selfishness.  I have a problem
BR> with a corporate mindset that would rather see part of our
BR> cultural heritage lost to the ages rather than share it with
BR> the handful of hobbyists who care about it.

Do you KNOW this or is this merely your inference?
Have you contacted R-P and asked????
[Until you have done so, you really should refrain from replying.]


BR> This is in cantrast to your "the collector be damned,
BR> it's private property, so who cares if they throw it
BR> in the garbage".

'scusi, but I *never* said THAT!
I think that it would be a shame if they trashed'em.
However,
        1.  I recognize that they ARE R-P's property.
        2.  No one else has a "right" to them.
        3.  If I cared THAT much about Tom Mix, then
                I'd phone/write R-P instead of marty tabnik.


BR> "Without Ralson-Purina" there would have been NO shows
BR> for ME to complain about" - True, but the people who
BR> created and maintained those shows are long gone.  Their
BR> successors are a bunch of stuffed suits who could care less
BR> about Tom Mix, OTR and us. So what's their point? Besides,
BR> "It's ours, we have it and you can't". A juvenille concept
BR> if ever I saw one.

With an attitude like that, I wouldn't blame R-P if they
        Trashed'em just for spite!
The f-a-c-t is that you have NO idea what R-P's reasons are.
For example, it COULD be [and this is sheer speculation by
way of example] that there are copyright tangles that prevent
R-P from releasing these shows.  Before you scoff,
        Ask RED DWARF fans about Season 5 tapes in the USofA!


BR> Yes, I am aware that P & G has an 800 number.  If I ever
BR> get the urge to chat with someone about Crest or Tide or
BR> Cheer I'll give it a spin.  If I want to talk about Vic &
BR> Sade I'll call one of my OTR buddies.

Yeah, but if P&G has some more V&S shows in their vaults, then
        You'd *better* call'em
(and when you do, ask n-i-c-e-ly.)


BR> "Mox nix" - I take it that is rather poorly spelled German

It's circa WWII.
[Hey, this IS an OldTR list, right?]


BR> If R-P can't make money off Tom Mix what's wrong with allowing
BR> their precious 'private proberty' to be shared with people
BR> who do care? Nothing that I can see.

1.  That's RP's decision to make NOT yours (or mine).
2.  Ever seen/heard/read A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS?  If so, then you
might recall More's little chat with Rich.  He got Rich to admit
that he'd "chop down all the laws in England" to get at Satan.
Ah, said More, "but all the laws being chopped down, then
        Where then WOULD YOU HIDE?"
Similarly, if you trash private property rights of Big Corps, then
what will be left of such rights for you (and the rest of us)?


BR> How does my concern for the hobby tranlate into
BR> "I wannit, I wannit, I wannit"?

Because you are DEMANDing that R-P give you (and the rest of us
hobbyists) access to their property whether they wish to or not.

It is to your DEMAND that they do what YOU want that I object.


BR> And I seriously doubt that you speak for the hobby

I speak for myself.


BR> ....your "corporations can do anything they want 'cause
BR> "it's ours, ours, ours" attitude.

See?  You really DON'T understand/like private property . . . .
when it's not used as YOU wish it to be.  {sigh}


RP> But according to you it's perfectly OK for R-P to sit on
RP> thousands of shows and allow nobody to enjoy them because
RP> ........well, for no good reason that I can ascertain.

I believe that they are probably misguided, but LIKE YOU
        I have ZERO idea why they won't release'em!

                Does ANYone here know why Ralston
                Purina won't release the old Tom
                Mix shows??????

Until we get some facts [Lou?  Bill?  Bobb Lynes?],
        We are ALL just guessing.

Hey, Bruce, YOU want the Tom Mix shows.
YOU send R-P a 20 cent postcard.
Then let us all know.
---
 * SLMR [removed] * "And Vir -- don't give away the homeworld." - Londo

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 06:34:00 GMT
From: [removed]@[removed] (Marty Tabnik)
To: otr@[removed]
Subject:  Tom Mix and Personal Property
Message-Id: <95111600113311268@[removed]>

AA> from: aa993@[removed]
AA> Message-Id: <[removed]@[removed]>

AA> Bruce wrote:

AA> BR> As for R-P, as owner,being allowed to do whatever they want
AA> BR> with their property, including nothing. I consider that a
AA> BR> crap attitude.  If they don't want to do anything with it,
AA> BR> why can't collectors?


AA> To which Marty wrote:

AA> >Or do you have difficulty with that concept? {sigh}

AA> In this case, yes.

So, private property is hokay in SOME cases but not others?

Lest we forget
        MOST OTR only existed *because* it was
                Some company's private property!
Yup, Kellogg's and Ralston and Ovaltine and P&G and "a host
of others" backed what we now call OTR because
        It was THEIR property.

Now, instead of
        First, THANKING these folks (which might help a LOT!)
        Then, asking them to help preserve a hunk of
                THEIR *OWN* history  <#>
we are supposed to weep and excoriate and
damn the concept of private property?

Sorry, but this ain't the VENTING list, it's the OTR list.
And complaining about a company's "crap attitude" is just
not gonna "win friends and influence people".
[No, my purpose here is NOT to do that, so don't bother
censuring MY attitude. <g>]


AA> Just because it's legal for copyright owners to bury
AA> their properties, doesn't mean it is right.

In order to preserve these gems, we must ACKNOWLEDGE their
owners and then persuade them how much good it will do them
to allow fans to preserve'em.


AA> The vast majority of "civilised" cities and counties has
AA> some sort of "historical landmark" law which translates to
AA> even though you may own a building (etc.) you CAN'T demolish
AA> it, or in many cases even make alterations to it.  Perhaps
AA> this kind of protection needs to be extended to other works.

It won't surprise you to learn this
        I consider such "landmark" laws to be t-h-e-f-t.
I say, if YOU want to "preserve this building as a landmark",
then buy it.  Or p-e-r-s-u-a-d-e the owner to do so.

Using the awful power of Government to do this is sheer bullying.


AA> Perhaps there needs to be an ammendment to existing
AA> "intellectual property laws" not only outlining rights
AA> but ALSO responsibilities. Perhaps something similar to
AA> trademark law where if a trademark is abandoned and unused
AA> for long enough it is no longer valid and becomes void.
AA> Perhaps the same should apply to copyrighted work that
AA> is "withdrawn for the public eye" for an undue period.

Let me guess
        You do not (aspire to) create "intellectual property".
[It's always enlightening to watch someone offer to pay for
something with SOMEONE ELSE's credit card.]


AA> Couple that with some kind of "historical landmark" law
AA> [removed] unique items like transcriptions and we're all [removed]

to steal.

[sorry, Bill, but that IS what he's proposing. {sigh}]



As an aspiring writer, I find it amazin'/amusin'/saddenin' that
EVERY time the question of "intellectual property is raised
        SOMEONE is willing to take what they don't own.
Shame.



# -- Some companies actually employ (or DID employ) a corporate
HISTORIAN! That worthy (or PR or Community Relations) would be a
good place to begin a quest for release of more OTR shows.
---
 * SLMR [removed] * Bring back Jesse White: The *REAL* Maytag Repairman!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:07:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Randy Minnehan <rminneha@[removed]>
To: otr@[removed]
Subject: RE:Tom Mix and flames
Message-ID: <[removed]@acme>

Hello again [removed]

   I have to agree with Christopher Tumber's comments about saving some of
these old radio shows as national treasures.  Chris, you voiced my
feelings exactly! I don't want to get started again on how and why the
government through the Library of Congress is "protecting" us from getting
our hands on their holdings.  

   And Marty, I don't think you should shoot down Bruce Rudesill for
bringing this up and voicing his opinion on this.  Take a chill pill and
relax, Marty!  We don't need hateful flames [removed] this is a friendly forum!

--------------------------------------------------
|Randy Minnehan - rminneha@[removed]|
--------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 18:52:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Randy Minnehan <rminneha@[removed]>
To: otr@[removed]
Subject: RE: Wanta trade? & Scariest Show
Message-ID: <[removed]@acme>

Hello [removed]

   Just wanted to mention again that my offer to trade the six shows that
I offered a couple of digests ago is still open to anyone interested.
About three people have responded so far, so there is still room if you
want to trade.  E-mail me directly if interested.

   Thanks too to everyone sharing their opinion on what their scariest,
most spine-tingling, creepy otr show is with us here on the digest. I know
there are still more of you out there we haven't heard from on this, so
why not add your two cents worth also! We'd love to hear from you!

--------------------------------------------------
|Randy Minnehan - rminneha@[removed]|
--------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 07:07:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: WMACKEY@[removed]
To: otr <otr@[removed]>
Subject: OTR in Cyberspace
Message-id: <[removed]@[removed]>

I have recieved e-mail from Walter Beaupre, author of the Radiogram 
article on OTR in Cyberspace.  He had written about my post to this group 
and explained he didn't know about it.  He also suggested I write a note 
to the Radiogram letting others know, which I will do this weekend.

He was very polite and cordial and really felt honoured he took a few 
minutes to write.  He also said he would be unable to join due to a busy 
schedule.  Maybe someday in the future he might show up.

Joe Mackey (back to lurk mode.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 08:28:10 -0500
From: NOSTALGIA1@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: SQUEAKY TAPE - HELP!!!
Message-ID: <951116082809_107925118@[removed]>

Last night I interviewed Paige O'Hara (Belle of Beauty and the Beast) and I
used some old (1975-80) reel tape to record it. Well I now have a real
squeaky tape. I know that the FAQ has a paragraph about fixing this problem
by putting this tape in an oven for 8 hours. Could someone give me exact
details on how to do this? Do you put the reel in too? Should you rest it on
something? Does it really work? Is there any other way? 

I have to edit this thing for next week so a quick reply would be very
helpful!

[removed]

Bruce Kalver
NOSTALGIA1@[removed]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:20:20 -0600
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg@[removed]>
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: Sighs & sheeses
Message-Id: <[removed]@dlogics>

Bruce Rudesill <lranger@[removed]> writes:
>I don't have a problem with the concept of personal property. I have a
>problem with mindless selfishness. I have a problem with a corporate mindset
>that would rather see part of our cultural heritage lost to the ages rather
>than share it with the handful of hobbyists who care about it.

While Ralson-Purina themselves have been conspicuously not heard from,
I find it hard to believe that they are somehow jealously guarding the
material for Mysterious Reasons. I think it's more likely that one or
more of the following is true:

1) No one's ever asked them. No, I don't mean, "I heard from my brother's
dentist's cousin that they told his friend in 1964 that he couldn't have
anything"; I mean that no one recently has played telephone tag in a
determined fashion until they got an authoritative answer from someone at
R-P who knew of the programs' status.

2) R-P doesn't know they have them in the first place. This is somewhat
related to option (1), in that the company is populated by people like
you and me who punch in at 9:00 and go home at 5:00. Unless there is
someone with a job title of Old-Time Radio Programs, Filing Division,
the storage of OTR programs in a box in the basement is not the number
one topic of conversation around the water cooler in a company that
makes animal feed.

3) I have not heard a clear reason why R-P would want to sit on them
anyway. All companies run on money, and motivation for how to get more
of it. Releasing these programs could indeed generate a source of income,
albeit a small one, and even with the requisite lawyers up front to get
the paperwork straightened out, or muddled up, they'd still have what's
basically free money from a product they've already developed and produced.
Again we return to options (1) and (2); no one's prodded them to bring the
topic to the front burner (Joe in Customer Relations isn't going to be the
one able to do that; it would somebody like Bob the corporate [removed]), and
they aren't going to think of this on their own when they're busy shipping
Cat Chow out the door.

Now, if people have already established a dialogue with R-P that I'm not
aware of, great; we will have to continue that until everything is sorted
out. But bickering amongst the group here seems unlikely to result in any
forward progress.

Andrew C. Green            (312) 266-4431
Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology)
Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: acg@[removed]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: (312) 266-4473

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 07:48:27 PST
From: "Bates, Robert" <rbates@[removed]>
To: otr@[removed]
Subject: To the private property guy
Message-Id: <[removed]@[removed]>

To the corporate toady who has no problem with Ralston-Purina throwing part of 
our collective memory in the river:

Sure, Tom Mix is R-P's "private property," and legally they can do with they 
want with it. Just as a guy can buy a Picasso at an auction and put his foot 
through it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. 

Ralston-Purina may own "Tom Mix," but the show is also part of our national 
cultural heritage, and that ultimately belongs to all of us. To destroy that is 
pretty thoughtless, and I have no problem saying so.

Rob

------------------------------

    


    ****  END OF ARTICLE SECTION - INFORMATION BOILERPLATE FOLLOWS ****

1) Contacting the list administrator.
2) Unsubscribing from this list
3) Receive a DIGEST READING TIPS file
4) AIRWAVES web page
5) Shareware Notice 
6) Redistribution of [removed]

1)  The [removed] maintainer can be reached at EDITOR@[removed]

2) To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send email to
[removed]@[removed] and place the word UNSUBSCRIBE
alone on the Subject: line of your request.  The body of
request mail is ignored by the server.  If you are unable to
unsubscribe using this method, and you are SURE you are doing
everything right, then (and only then) contact the administrator
(wdp@[removed]) for assistance.  Please send along the headers of
any problem mail for diagnostics.  

	* PLEASE Never send unsub messages to the list! *

3) If reading email digests like this one is difficult or time
consuming,  write for a file called *The Fine Art Of Reading and
Replying To Email Digests*  It contains tips on scanning digests and
making replies easier and more concise.  To recieve this file, send
email to digest-tips@[removed] and use the subject line of *Digest
Tips*.  

4) AIRWAVES  maintains a very busy web page containing many media-related 
links and files. Our URL is:  [removed]~rrb/

5) [removed] is brought to you as shareware.  Net 
connectivity and other expenses are paid out of personal funds of the
list maintainer.  If this list is of value to you, please support it
by sending in whatever amount you can afford, to help defray costs.
Suggested amount is [removed] a year (less than [removed] a month), but any
amount (more or less) is fine. This is a free-will donation and nobody
will be removed from the list because they cannot, or choose not to,
pay.

Our mailing address is PO Box 8746 Springfield Mo 65801. Make any
checks out to William Pfeiffer. 

6) If you are redistributing [removed] in any form, you must
contact the list owner for permission.  Generally permission is given,
free of charge, for non-commercial electronic distribution.
Commercial distribution rights are available under very reasonable
terms.



---- 
End of [removed] Digest V95 Issue #395
================== RFC 822 Headers ==================
Received: (from rrb@localhost) by [removed] ([removed]) id QAA11134 for victrola; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:23:31 GMT
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:23:31 GMT
Message-Id: <[removed]@[removed]>
From: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: [removed] Digest V95 #395
X-Loop: otr@[removed]
Precedence: list
To: otr@[removed]
Reply-To: [removed]@[removed]
