Re: Off Vidolib topic--Odd copyright question...

Jessica Rosner (
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:40:05 -0800 (PST)

Ok Mike now that I know you are one of them NO MORE KINO PRODUCT.
FYI I actually feel sorry for the Tribune because oddly enough they
are suffering here because they have continued to hound the corrupt
administration of Mayor Daley. Had they just "played the game" like most
companies they could easily have expanded Wrigley and cut out the rooftop
guys. They also refused to by the local alderman who was promptly bought off
by the same rooftop guys. The Wrigley neighborhood LOATHS the building
owners but they are also opposed to expansion
More than videolib needs to know as I am sure Gary will tell us
BUT as for that OTHER distributor posting on this issue I want you
all to be my witnesses that a certain Central Division Baseball team
will have a better record than a certain Eastern Division Team.
Loser to by Winner Lunch


Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018

> From: Mike Tribby <> > Reply-To: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:11:26 -0800 (PST) > To: Multiple recipients of list <> > Subject: RE: Off Vidolib topic--Odd copyright question... > > Re: the Chicago Cubs ownership (the Chicago Tribune Corp. They also own WGN, > the cable "superstation," and bundles of other stuff) and their ongoing > battle with the Wrigley Field neighbors who rent out their rooftops during > Cubs games > >> -If the owners of the rooftop bleachers are advertising their location for > the GAME, they would have a problem, but we can >>>>assume that they have > considered those semantics. > > The rooftop owners have ideed been careful about this. On their ads on the > Chicago sports radio stations, they refer to their facilities as a good > place to watch the "Northsiders," not the Cubs. It should be noted that > many of these same rooftop owners/entrepreneurs are active in neighborhood > groups trying to keep the Cubs from expanding the bleacher seating at > Wrigley Field. It's also interesting to note that many, if not most, of > these same rooftop owners are not folks who have lived in these picturesque > dwellings for decades. According to various sources, most of the buildings > affected have changed hands recently--and at least one of them was acquired > by the owner of a neighborhood sports bar; sort of an addition to his empire > of ancillary Cubs attractions. None of the preceding should be considered > an argument by me against the rooftop owners availing themselves of > something that sits in plain sight from their rooftops, but it's hardly the > big bad Cubs ownership vs. a bunch of neighborhood folks. Money is the main > motivator on both sides of this issue, and, being in Chicago, the > vituperation and name-calling are rampant. And entertaining. The mayor is > even involved to an extent, since, according to the Chicago Tribune (again, > owned by the same bunch of moneychangers who own the Cubs), he is said to be > holding up the expansion of Wrigley Field for a variety of reasons, possibly > including the rooftop situation. Are any of the charges or countercharges > true? Again, it's Chicago. There's probably a simple explanation, but it's > hard to know what it is. > > For my part, I prefer to point out that White Sox fans don't have any of > these selfish issues to press. We're just in it for the grandeur of the > sport. Remember the billboard that Chairman Reinsdorf put up outside > Wrigley a few years ago: "Major League Baseball: Nine Miles South." > > Go Sox > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > > > >