Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 06:46 am EST 11/22/20 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 06:44 am EST 11/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - pcot 07:43 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I’m no expert and haven’t digested it to the degree you have. But it seems they’re using the phase “replacement for” as another way of saying “alternative to.” Perhaps that wording might have been clearer. Seems like the spirit of the argument is about cases where a streaming presentation replaces what ordinarily would have been done on stage, rather than a literal replacement of a particular production. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: pcot 10:56 am EST 11/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - writerkev 06:44 am EST 11/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| Hm. Well, I hope you're right. AEA might cite the difference from the proposed waiver language as outside proof of that reading. But these understandings have to stand up to the other person's rational reading of the deal, and the deal doesn't become less binding if the other's reading prevails. Fingers crossed. Again, uninformed speculation on my part, no real expertise to offer on it. Just a union member struck by the plain terms of the deal that seems to concede a fair swathe of jurisdiction to the moving-picture & talkies types. ~pcot |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:20 pm EST 11/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - pcot 10:56 am EST 11/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| re "concede," the starting point is that AEA has no jurisdiction over any of this. The deal was an accommodation to AEA in the nature of comity. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.010850 seconds.