Subject: [removed] Digest V01 #194
From: <[removed]@[removed]>
Date: 6/17/2001 3:00 PM

To: <[removed]@[removed];

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

                          The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                             Volume 01 : Issue 194
                       A Part of the [removed]!
                               ISSN: 1533-9289

                               Today's Topics:

     shadow                               ["Harold Zeigler" <hzeigler@charter-]
     Gunsmoke - Radio v. TV               ["Mike Kerezman" <philipmarlowe@eart]
     Am or Are I?                         ["Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@]
     TV Comparison Have Gun, Will Travel  ["Mike Kerezman" <philipmarlowe@eart]
     Re: An easier approach to copyright  ["Doug Leary" <dleary@[removed];    ]
     Sorry Wrong Number Response          [OTRChris@[removed]                   ]
     Gunsmoke                             [Harry Bartell <bartell@[removed]]
     Carl Amari and OTR                   ["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@[removed].]
     Gunsmoke radio scripts on tv         ["Ryan Osentowski" <rosentowski@neb.]
     Re: Baby Snooks                      [Fred Berney <berney@[removed];      ]

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:39:48 -0400
    From: "Harold Zeigler" <hzeigler@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  shadow

    	Hi gang,
       I think the actor in question who played villains on the"Shadow" was a
    ex-movie actor from the early thirtys who must have left hollywood for New
    York radio work . He had a kind of raspy voice which made him a good villian
    for radio.
       His name was Arthur Venton. We saw him last night in a movie with Sybil
    Jason and Robert Armstrong. Guess what kind of part he played? I have never
    read or heard anything about him all the years he was in New York radio.

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:21:32 -0400
    From: "Mike Kerezman" <philipmarlowe@[removed];
    To: "Old Time Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Gunsmoke - Radio v. TV

    bruce dettman wrote:

>     I do recall, however, that even on TV Matt didn't always give the other
>     guy(s) a fair chance when he thought the odds didn't favor it. In one
>     episode Chester and he hide outside a shack where Kitty has been
>     kidnapped by a trio of bad guys. When they wander outside Matt and
>     Chester, having given no warning,  simply mow them down. This probably
>     would never have happened in its later television history

    The episode you refer to is a favorite of mine entitled "Kitty Caught"
    originally broadcast on radio on October 16, 1954 almost a year before the
    TV show premiered. What I've always disliked is TV's Dillion always seemed
    too infallible Consider the Radio episode "The [removed]" from 1954 in which the
    Bad buys get away. Another really gritty episode which shows Conrad's depth
    is the episode "Bloody Hands" or "The Roundup" from the first season of the
    Radio show.

    A good example of this is detailed in the Gunsmoke: A Complete History by
    Barabas (McFarland: 1990) where the 1954 radio episode "Helping Hand" was
    changed when aired on  television. In the radio show Mr. Dillion tried help
    a kid "Steve Elser from becoming an outlaw" (RSI Collection I own) by
    encouraging him to find a job, while everyone including Ms. Kitty thinks he
    making mistake and ultimately Elser does "go bad" even though Mr. Dillion
    tried his best prevent it. In the TV version, Mr Dillion  doesn't want to
    help him, but Kitty and others think Matt ought give kid a chance. When
    Elser does go bad, Mr Dillion was in fact right about him and veryone else
    was wrong. To me this give the appearance an infalliable Mr. Dillion instead
    of Conrad portrayal of man with more character depth including making
    mistakes.

    sincerely,
    Mike Kerezman
    Oklahoma

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:21:29 -0400
    From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Am or Are I?

    Dan Panke, speaking of the RSI business and Mr. Amari, remarks,

> >     If a person were to 'really' care about Old Time Radio, why would they

    gain control of the rights and stop the 'free' circulation of said
    material?<<

    I can think of a lot of reasons that someone who might care about
    something might find it desirable to gain control of program series.  I
    have no idea whether RSI or Mr. Amari is motivated by any of these, but
    as an example, suppose someone loves OTR and wants to make sure that any
    talent involved is compensated for his or her efforts.  By gaining
    control of a program, if funds are derived from their sale, a percentage
    could be assigned to the talent.  _If that is the case_, then preventing
    a no-cost exchange of programs would ensure that the talent would be
    rewarded.

> >     The person who cares is the person who digs through their archives,

    pulls out an old broadcast,
    digitizes it and posts it so the recording lives on.  Not someone who
    claims rights to a product and sells it to you for [removed];<

    Yes, but ... again ... if the person posting the broadcast is infringing
    on someone's legitimate rights, then that's not right either, IMHO.

    John Mayer observes,

> >     I would suggest that acting first and waiting for copyright holders to

    make themselves and their rights known may have proven to be the most
    expedient way to acquire this [removed];<

    There's a "yes, but" here too.  The postings in this Digest have
    repeatedly claimed that dealers have received cease and desist letters
    that are sufficiently vague so that the recipients had no idea which of
    what shows they were offering were the protected ones.  This brings us
    back to the original dilemma.  Such a situation places an intolerable
    burden on a small dealer.  I'd noted,

    "...the dealer is in the position of having to shut down completely to
    comply, with no further input from the lawyers -- unless that dealer went
    through a lengthy and not inexpensive procedure of doing the same kind of
    copyright search that [Mr.] Amari did to be able to acquire the rights in
    the first place."

    If RSI or any other company or person holding rights to a program series
    (or even individual show) provides the relevant information to a specific
    dealer on a one-to-one basis, this is not the same as publishing a
    complete listing of copyright holdings for public dissemination.  It does
    not compromise corporate confidentiality since one dealer may have a
    significantly different program inventory than another.  Thus, there is
    no real reason involved with specific rights why a dealer shouldn't
    receive a detailed list from MediaBay.

    Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:21:27 -0400
    From: "Mike Kerezman" <philipmarlowe@[removed];
    To: "Old Time Digest" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  TV Comparison Have Gun, Will Travel

    I often have this discussion with my Dad regarding Radio and TV versions of
    Have Gun, Will Travel. John Dehner (radio) vs. Richard Boone (TV)
    respectively. My Dad who saw when it was originally on TV favors It while I,
    having heard Dehner who is one of my favorite radio actors, for years. .

    Yesterday I came across the following information on John Dehner on the web
    about the show. It was mini-biography of John Dehner at a film site
    [removed],+John which said Dehner was original choice
    for the TV show but he had contract conflict with WB that prevented, but
    nevertheless got to play it later on the radio. Anyway out there that knows,
    could possibly verify this?

    Sincerely,

    Mike Kerezman

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:50:00 -0400
    From: "Doug Leary" <dleary@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: An easier approach to copyright research?

    John Mayer wrote,

>     ...I would suggest that acting first and waiting for copyright holders to
>     make themselves and
>     their rights known may have proven to be the most expedient way to acquire
>     this information.

    Well said! To put it another way, a person shouldn't be shot (or even shot
    AT) for walking across unfenced property.

    Hiding your rights is like hiding your fences. You are going to get
    trespassers. And if you simply walk up to them on seemingly open land and
    say, "I own this land, and most of the other land around here, but I'm not
    going to tell you where, so to be on the safe side just go home and stay
    there," it's not unreasonable to expect some of them to tell you EXACTLY
    where you can stick it.

    Doug Leary

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:21:51 -0400
    From: OTRChris@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Sorry Wrong Number Response

    Martin Grams, Jr.   writes:

>     The early broadcasts were actually done twice,
>     once for the East Coast, and a second time (usually about two hours later)
>     for the West Coast.

    When SUSPESE aired in it's initial Wednesday night and then subsequent
    Tuesday Night  at 9:30PM EWT  slot 1942-43 I haven't found any evidence that
    there was in fact  a seperate  West Coast [removed] have provided evidence from
    radio logs as proof . At this time all the western stations were airing
    SUSPENSE at 6:30 PM PWT.
    What information can you offer that would suggest otherwise?

>     The initial airing is the one that had an error in it.
>     On the May 25, 1943 East Coast version

    I maintain that this fluff was heard  coast to coast and not just in the EAST.
    You only surmise that the  SUSPENSE announcer was referring only to an
    East Coast performance. He never once makes that claim .

>     There does exist both the East Coast and West Coast version of
>     the May 1943 broadcasts, which feature the different endings.

    I and others have suggested that someone has corrected the ending on one
    version by cleverly editing the ending . And unfortunately this has been
    passed off as a west coast version . Where there really isn't one.

    You had mentioned  that if we  listen to the 1957 and 1960 versions that iwe
    will discover that it is the exact same  show.
    If you do the same with the East and supposed West Coast versions of the May
    25, 1943 versions you will discover the exact same thing.

    I suppose I better rest my case before this runs as long as the copyright
    issue:   )

    -Chris

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

    Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:48:50 -0400
    From: Harry Bartell <bartell@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Gunsmoke

    A key to the difference between the radio and TV versions of Gunsmoke
    might be explained in a complaint by Jim Arness and Milburn Stone. The
    earlier black -and-white   1/2 hour versions of the TV show were almost
    all rewrites of the the radio scripts. Jim and Milburn were griping that
    the writer didn't understand the characters. The writer was John Meston
    who created the series.

    One thing is for sure. It was a lot more fun to do the radio shows.

    Harry Bartell

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

    Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:37:04 -0400
    From: "A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Carl Amari and OTR

>     Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:58:54 -0400
>     From: "Dan Panke" <dpanke@[removed];

    The person who cares

>     is the person who digs through their archives, pulls out an old broadcast,
>     digitizes it and posts it so the recording lives on.

    And violates the rights of the people who own the intellectual property
    involved.  Copyright infringement is theft.

    Not someone who claims

>     rights to a product and sells it to you for profit.  I'm sure Wal-Mart
>     'cares' about all the products they sell as well.

    Since he has to pay for the rights, and he spends money producing a
    quality product, why shouldn't he be paid for his costs?  And since he
    puts a lot of labor into it, why shouldn't he be paid for his work?  Why
    shouldn't someone be able to make a career out of what he enjoys?

    As George Burns said, "When you get up in the morning, it's very important
    to love what you're going to do that day.  I never could make any money in
    bed.  And I always envied my sister Goldie because she could."

    Come to think of it, do you begrudge the fact that George Burns made large
    sums of money doing what he liked to do?  Should the stars perform for
    free?

    I care about my clients, but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to be paid
    for representing them.

>     Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:29:34 -0400
>     From: "John <ayer" <mayer@[removed];

>     I would suggest that acting first and waiting for copyright holders to
>     make themselves and their rights known may have proven to be the most
>     expedient way to acquire this information.

    It's also a good way to get into a lot of costly legal trouble.

     A. Joseph Ross, [removed]                        [removed]
     15 Court Square                     lawyer@[removed]
     Boston, MA 02108-2503      [removed]~lawyer/

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

    Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:37:06 -0400
    From: "Ryan Osentowski" <rosentowski@[removed];
    To: "old time radio" <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Gunsmoke radio scripts on tv

    HI all:
    Bruce commented on the early, black and white half-hour versions of Gunsmoke
    on television.  Actually, many of these scripts were recycled from John
    Meston's radio scripts.  The episode you mentioned about Kitty being
    kidnapped was called, "Kitty Caught," and was broadcast in late 1954 on
    radio Gunsmoke.  It was the episode where Chester spits at a rattlesnake to
    make it go away.
    RyanO

    "It don't matter how a man [removed]'s how he lives that's important."
    CPT. Augustus McCrae "Lonesome Dove"

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

    Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:54:56 -0400
    From: Fred Berney <berney@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Re: Baby Snooks

    Tomorrow morning, Monday, I'm helping at a school that is teaching what OTR
    is all about. I have the script of Baby Snooks dated November 1, 1946. It
    is the Halloween story where Snooks and Daddy go out trick or treating
    together.

    At this late moment in time, I just thought it would be nice if I could
    play a portion of the show for the students to hear. We are then going to
    have them put on the show. This is a day program for kids. The course is a
    week long and the class is only about an hour. So, this is very short and
    sweet.

    By any chance does anyone have that show? If so, could you convert it to
    MP3 and email it to me, or if it is already on the net, just direct me to
    its location. Thanks.
    Fred
    For the best in Old Time Radio Shows [removed]
    New e-commerce page [removed]

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V01 Issue #194
    *******************************************

    Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
      including republication in any form.

    If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
       [removed]

    For Help: [removed]@[removed]
    To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]

    For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
      in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]

    To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]

    To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]