LG W1943TB-PF Black 18.5" 16:9 Widescreen LCD Monitor Review


This review was originally written on October 10, 2009 (completely rewritten on January 16, 2010, updated on March 13, 2010)
Dead Pixel On 2nd Use, Defects In 2 Replacements, Refurbs Sent As Replacements For New,BBB Helped Me Get Value Difference Refund

Since July 2007 I've owned an Acer AL1917WAbd 19" LCD Monitor. It works great and I've never had a problem with it. However, with the recent purchase of a Blu-ray drive, it no longer meets my needs as it's not in a 16:9 aspect ratio (it's 16:10) and it's not HDCP-compliant (a requirement for Blu-ray playback). So I went online and looked for an affordable monitor that met those two new requirements, and also has a DVI-D input and is physically no wider than 18 inches (the maximum amount of space I have available on my desk for a monitor). I found a monitor that met all four of my requirements, but I sure had a heap of trouble with it since practically day one. Here's a nice detailed timeline of the ordeal I went through.

09/30/2009 - Purchased the LG W1943TB-PF Black 18.5" 16:9 Widescreen LCD Monitor brand-new for 119.95 from Newegg, in spite of their horrendous Monitor Replacement Only Return Policy which states that "there must be a minimum of 8 dead pixels to declare an LCD display defective and eligible for return" within 30 days of purchase. Since the Acer LCD monitor never gave me a single problem in 2 1/2 years of use, I figured that I wouldn't have any with the LG monitor, and so that horrendous return policy didn't scare me away.

10/01/1009 - Received the monitor via UPS. On it's SECOND USE, in less than a week of ownership, I noticed a big ugly black spot in the screen! It was on the left side, where it got in the way of my work. I work frequently in word processing applications, which have a white background, so it very easy to see. Since I never experienced this phenomena with the Acer monitor, I went online to see what it was. I've learned that it's known as a "dead pixel", and apparently there's nothing that can fix it - as opposed to a "stuck pixel", which apparently CAN be fixed.

Newegg specifically mentioned that a minimum of eight dead pixels has to be present before they would take it back, so I didn't bother wasting my time trying to return it to them - though in retrospect maybe I should have lied about how many dead pixels there were and tried doing an exchange with them, because the alternative was much worse. Instead, I contacted LG customer service to see if they would honor the three year warranty. I originally made the mistake of using the newly-learned phrase "dead pixel" in my transmission to them, which resulted in an e-mail that read, "Unfortunately that is a standard that they [Newegg] use based off of all LCD monitor manufactures. We would have the same policy to have the repaired/replaced only if the unit had that many pixels out." I waited a week or two and tried contacting them again, this time only referring to the defect as a "black spot" (which is what I was calling it until I learned the proper terminology online). This time I had better luck, as they allowed me to exchange it for another monitor in a process that they call a "Standard Swap".

10/29/2009 - First Swap claim was initiated via e-mail, but would not get processed until I had the chance to call customer service two weeks later. I couldn't even file the claim through their online form as the monitor isn't even listed on their website!

11/16/2009 - First Swap claim was processed, monitor was shipped to LG on 11/19/2009.

Now before I go any further, I want to provide the complete parts list for the brand-new monitor:

-- W1943TB-PF Monitor.
-- W1943TB-PF Monitor Stand.
-- DVI-D Signal Cable.
-- 15-Pin D-Sub Signal Cable (standard VGA cable).
-- Power Cord.
-- W1943TB-PF Drivers/Users Guide disc (an actual factory-pressed disc, not a CD-R).
-- W1943TB-PF Easy Setup Guide paper.
-- Standard LG Monitor Warranty Information Sheet.

(image courtesy of NewEgg)

In the Swap instructions letter that I was e-mailed (along with a pre-paid FedEx label to print out), I was told in bold capital underlined letters, "PLEASE SEND ACCESSORIES (CABLES. CORDS, REMOTES. MANUALS ETC.)" So I included every single one of those items listed above in the package that I sent to LG. To this day I still have not received the last three items back. Granted, they're not required for the normal operation of the monitor (even though the Quick Start Guide says to use the drivers on the disc instead of the standard Windows plug & play driver), but they ARE something that I paid for - and I feel insulted that I was told in bold capital underlined letters to send everything back, only for LG to decide not to send it all back to me in return.

11/24/2009 - First replacement monitor was shipped from the LG warehouse to me.

11/27/2009 - Received first replacement REFURBISHED monitor. I was expecting a brand-new monitor like the one I purchased brand-new less than 60 days earlier. This monitor had a small defect in it, though not as noticeable as the one in the other monitor. There was a small thin black line in the lower right area of the screen, about an inch above the clock in the tray area of Windows.

Also, I didn't get back half of the items that I sent back with the original monitor. This replacement unit was missing the DVI-D Signal Cable, Drivers/Users Guide disc, Easy Setup Guide paper, and Standard LG Monitor Warranty Information Sheet. I've had to temporarily borrow the DVI-D cable from the Acer monitor in order to connect the replacement LG monitor to my computer. Instead of getting a real drivers disc, LG had sent me a CD-R which has no drivers on them at all (only user guides). Because (as I would later learn) the drivers I installed from the original monitor did NOT get fully uninstalled when I used the "uninstall driver" button in Windows, Windows kept looking for them at every boot, prompting me with this message: "Please insert the Compact Disc labeled 'LG Monitor Profiles Installation Disk' into your CD-ROM drive and then click OK." As the monitor is not listed on the LG support site, I couldn't even download drivers for it. So for a few weeks I was annoyed at every Windows boot-up by this message. (I eventually learned that pressing the "rollback driver" button would fix the problem by reverting back to the standard Windows plug & play driver. You know, the one that the Quick Start Guide said not to use.)

Anyway, I was willing to live with the small defect, though I e-mailed and phoned Jennie Ramey (SWAP Coordinator, RA Department) and customer service to get the missing accessories. Jennie told me that I shouldn't have to live with the defect and that I should send it back for another monitor. Jennie also told me over the phone (on 12/7/2009) that "customer service generally sends a reconditioned unit for units over 60 days old". That's all fine and dandy, except that the claim was initiated LESS THAN 30 DAYS after the original purchase, and the replacement was sent out LESS THAN 60 DAYS after the original purchase. She didn't know why I wasn't sent a brand new unit, but she was willing to send me one. The only problem is that she didn't have any brand new W1943TB-PF units in stock at the warehouse in Alabama (where she's located), and she wouldn't be able to order any for me. I don't know why she couldn't order any as she works for the company that makes the product, but so be it. However, none of the alternate models we discussed met my few qualifications: 16:9 aspect ratio, DVI input, HDCP compliant, and 19" in screen size (20" would be a stretch for the space I have, anything bigger definitely wouldn't fit). So I was in store for yet another refurbished unit.

12/08/2009 - Second Swap claim was processed, monitor was shipped to LG on 12/15/2009.

12/29/2009 - Second replacement monitor was shipped from the LG warehouse to me.

12/31/2009 - Received second replacement REFURBISHED monitor. Again the package was missing the Drivers/Users Guide disc, Easy Setup Guide paper, and Standard LG Monitor Warranty Information Sheet. At least this time it came with the DVI-D Signal Cable. At this point I've realized that I'm never getting those three items back, even though they are technically something I paid for when I bought the original monitor.

This second replacement monitor is, sadly, not 100% defect-free, though it contains the least annoying defect of the three monitors to date. About 2 1/4 inches from the right side of the screen, about half an inch from the bottom (a little above the tray area, in the status bar of most applications) is a very faint dark spot (probably a dead subpixel or half-pixel or whatever it's called). It's only noticeable if you know that it's there and you know where to look, which is a BIG improvement over the defects in the other two monitors. Still, this just proves to me that LG is incapable of manufacturing a 100% perfect defect-free monitor. Considering the poorly-designed LG Chocolate cell phone that left my mother with hundreds of dollars in unwanted charges a few years ago because it kept doing things other than what she was trying to do, I've come to the conclusion that LG stands for "like garbage".

I'll live with this most minor of defects, but a bigger injustice is present that LG would not correct on their own.

They would not give me a refund of the difference between the full retail price I paid for the brand-new monitor and the value of the refurbished monitor I received as the replacement so soon thereafter. Jennie Ramey told me via e-mail that she "can not refund [me] the difference in price", but she did not say why. She did say that "replacements that are sent out for units over 90 days old are reconditioned", which is a change from the "60 days" she mentioned over the phone on 12/7/2009 (I guess she can't keep her story straight). However, whether 60 or 90 days, I should have received a brand new unit. The first claim was initiated LESS THAN 30 DAYS after the original purchase, the first replacement was sent out LESS THAN 60 DAYS after the original purchase, and the second replacement was sent out LESS THAN 90 DAYS after the original purchase. So there's no reason that I should not be granted a refund for the difference.

On February 1st I sent a letter to the President and CEO of LG Electronics USA at the U.S. Corporate Headquarters (1000 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632). I figured as the head honcho, he'd be the single best person to contact about the matter. After waiting three weeks for a reply and not getting one, I contacted the Better Business Bureau on February 22nd for help.

Four days later on 2/26 I received an e-mail from Jennifer Adams-McKee, Asst. Manager of the Customer Resolution Team. She told me that "the warranty statements on our monitors do state that parts or units may be replaced with reconditioned units at LG's discretion. It does not specify any age of the unit at all. However, we at LG do try to make it a "good" practice to use new stock for any units less than 60 days old whenever stock is available." Okay, that explains the situation better than what I've been told over the past few months.

Jennifer was very willing to grant me a refund of the difference in cost between what I paid for the new monitor and the value of the refurbished monitor I received as the replacement. She told me that refurbished units sell online for 89.95 to 99.95, and that she would be able to offer me a refund of 30 dollars. I replied back to let her know that this would be quite acceptable to me. The check was cut on 3/5, and received by me on 3/8/2010.

Although I'm happy with the end result, after this experience, I certainly won't buy another LG product ever again, and certainly won't recommend LG to others.

Wrestlemania 25 PPV Review


The Corner Penthouse's first review will be a "retro review" that I wrote seven years ago. I've written hundreds of reviews on Amazon, GameFaqs, and IMDB, and I'm going to move a lot of them over here, updating them as need be. This is in addition to the new and exclusive reviews that I have planned.

This review was originally written on April 6, 2009, the day after the live Wrestlemania 25 event took place. It spurred a lively discussion when I posted it at Amazon


I have been a WWE fan for over 25 years. I've seen every Wrestlemania, been to three of them "live" (via closed circuit television in the arena in the late 1980s - before pay-per-view existed), and have ordered every single one on pay-per-view for the past 15 years. I have enjoyed each and every one that I've seen...until last night's 25th event.

For starters, it annoys me to no end that WWE kept promoting the event as the 25th anniversary. It was the 24th anniversary, not the 25th. The first Wrestlemania took place 24 years ago in 1985, not 25 years ago in 1984. Putting that aside, going into the event it looked like it was going to be a great show. The first sign of trouble was the night before Wrestlemania at the Hall of Fame ceremony. The televised portion of the ceremony was like one big ad for the Wrestlemania event and the Legends of Wrestlemania video game. WWE even had Jerry Lawler stop the awards show to present a clip from the game featuring Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker. So much for giving it the guise of being a "prestigious" event.

While I'm on the subject of the Hall of Fame ceremony, WWE needs to start showing the entire ceremony live and unedited on television, like the Academy Awards and every other major awards show does every year. There's no need to show part of it live online and tape the rest, only to show it edited a few hours later on television. It's not like the USA Network has anything more important to show. All they played last Saturday night were 5-10 year old movies that they've shown numerous times before.


Anyway, getting back to Wrestlemania 25...Things started off fairly well. Although I thought Nicole Scherzinger's performance of "America The Beautiful" was rather lackluster, it served its purpose nicely and was well done overall. The Money in the Bank ladder match was also very enjoyable, even though Christian should have been awarded the prize instead of C.M. Punk.


Then came the first of the event's many downfalls: Kid Rock. What the heck was he doing there? Nobody goes to Wrestlemania to see Kid Rock. If, like Motorhead or POD, he was there to perform a superstar's theme music, that would be fine. Instead he performed a 10-minute medley of his "greatest hits", concluding with his latest single - which an on-screen graphic was kind enough to let us know is available on his latest album. Geez, even the video game shilling on the Hall of Fame ceremony the night before wasn't this much of a time waster.

Kid Rock segued right into the event's second downfall: the 25 "woman" Diva Battle Royal to crown the first ever Miss Wrestlemania. It started off bad, continued to be bad, and ended bad. Why weren't any of the Divas given introductions so we'd know who they all are? Yes, I know WWE were trying to hide the fact that they had a man in drag (Santino Marella) in the match, but why bring back all these women from years past and give them absolutely no attention whatsoever? Sunny was in the match, but there was hardly a mention of her, and she was only fleetingly seen on screen. The same for the other past Divas - Molly Holly, Jackie Gayda, Joy Giovanni, and Torrie Wilson - some of whom were only mentioned when they went sailing over the top rope. Victoria was the only past Diva who got any bit of screen time, and it was just a brief few seconds. Having no introductions also hurts the current Divas, as it gives them no way to stand out from each other. Looking at all 25 women in the ring, without knowing who is who, it ends up being just a sea of generic blondes and brunettes.


It's absolutely ridiculous that the women, some of whom can really work, were given one worthless spot on the card, and a man in drag walks away with the victory. That says a lot about what WWE thinks of its women's division. But WWE didn't just insult the Divas, WWE also insulted the audience by NOT having "Santina" be revealed to be a man in drag. The fact that WWE had neither the women in the ring NOR the commentators notice that there was a man in there was absolutely moronic. It was completely obvious to anyone watching, yet the announcers (of course) didn't notice that he was even there until the match was almost over, and none of the Divas even touched or attacked him throughout the match. After he tossed out his girlfriend Beth Phoenix, why not have her go back into the ring and pull his wig off, and then kick his butt? That would have been a somewhat respectable way to salvage this debacle. Instead WWE continued on as if "Santina" were a real woman. This match was clearly the Wrestlecrap Match of the Night. That's not something WWE should be proud of.


The Chris Jericho vs. the Legends match started and ended with great disappointment. Roddy Piper was good, Jimmy Snuka was sad to see (he can hardly walk), but once Ricky Steamboat and Jericho were left to go at it one-on-one it was AMAZING! That part of the match was one of the few highlights of the whole night. Then it got really disappointing. Much ado was made of Ric Flair and Mickey Rourke, but they did little to nothing to effect the match. A run in or some interference during the match would be been appropriate (Flair briefly ran in and was quickly taken care of so that negated his presence at ringside).


After the match was over, THEN Rourke is brought into the spotlight, having been called out by Jericho. After an eternity of making his way into the ring, Rourke gets in two punches and Jericho is left holding his head. I know that the WWE likes to put celebrities over at Wrestlemania, but that just looked bad for both Jericho AND Rourke, and it was so anti-climatic for the audience. I suppose, looking back, there wasn't much more that he could have done, but WWE could have handled it with more excitement than THAT. Flair and Rourke might as well not have bothered to show up since they did nothing of importance.


The Matt Hardy vs. Jeff Hardy match was another one of the event's highlights, so there's really nothing bad to say about it. Well, other than the fact that for an "Extreme Rules" match, there sure was a distinct lack of blood (save for a small cut on Matt's head).

The Rey Mysterio vs. John Bradshaw Layfield match was barely that. From bell to bell it ran a mere 21 seconds. The match was a disgrace to all the great Intercontinental matches in Wrestlemania history. I didn't pay almost sixty dollars to see an event with a match that didn't even last half a minute - especially when both wrestlers are capable of putting on an enjoyable and much longer match.


Next up was the Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker match. An absolute classic that was damn near perfect. If anything it could have been a tiny bit shorter - there were too many near falls for my liking - but that's a very minor quibble. This was the last match of the night for which I truly felt like I was getting *some* of my money's worth.


The first title match of the televised event was next, and it's the Triple Threat featuring John Cena vs. Edge vs. Big Show for the World Heavyweight Championship. I'd ask why there needs to be a Triple Threat at every Wrestlemania, but that's irrelevant. The whole match just felt like The John Cena Show to me. It was lame and predictable. WWE even had the same exact spot in the match that they had on free TV a few weeks ago: Vickie Guerrero on the ring apron, Cena runs at her but stops, steps aside, and Edge spears her off the apron. The Big Show never won a singles title at Wrestlemania. He's long overdue. Instead WWE gives us the same old, same old. Yawn.


The Hall of Fame Class of 2009 come out next and get the bows they deserve. Stone Cold Steve Austin then drives around the ring in his ATV and has a farewell beer bash. This was all well and good, but the fact that Kid Rock got more screen time than the Hall of Fame class is complete BS.


Then we have the final match of the evening: Randy Orton vs. Triple H for the WWE Championship. I was actually looking forward to this match because their feud was intense, and it could have been a big payoff. But WWE ruined it by getting awfully strict with the rules. When you have a feud where both men attacked each other in the most vicious and brutal ways, and each one of them is just waiting to get his hands around the throat of the other, you don't set up a match where the rules of disqualification are stricter than ever. Because of that, there was no twist, no interference (by either Legacy or the McMahons), no nothing. It was lame, tame, and ordinary. The build up was better than the match. Besides that, it had NOTHING to do with the title. This was a personal grudge match, not a championship match, not a pay-per-view main event, and sure as heck not a Wrestlemania main event, let alone the main event of this big landmark "25th anniversary" Wrestlemania. THIS is the match that should have had Extreme Rules, THIS is the match where they should have been beating the ever loving crap out of each other.


Wait a minute! That was the last match? When I ordered the event, one of the matches I was most looking forward to was the Champions vs. Champions Tag Team Title Match featuring Carlito & Primo vs. Miz & Morrison. But where is it? As I would find out the next day on WWE.com, the match did indeed take place at Wrestlemania - just not as part of the televised event. WWE shunted the match to the non-televised pre-show. A match for the freaking Tag Team TITLES was not worthy of being shown on television? It was not only a title match, but one in which the titles would be UNIFIED! Surely that's something important? Surely that's worth showing live on the air instead of a 10-minute Kid Rock concert or a joke of a Divas Battle Royal? The tag team match was thrown off the show so that Kid Rock could sing?!? Ummm...does WWE realize that the event is called WRESTLEmania, right? I paid to see wrestling, not a concert!

Here's the thing I just don't understand. It's a scripted show, WWE knows they only have four hours in which to fit everything in, so why doesn't WWE plan it out better? Set time limits for each match and segment so that everything can be shown, and nothing feels rushed.

Outside of two or three matches (none of which were for titles), this did not feel like Wrestlemania. Had this been No Way Out or Backlash, the card would have been fine and I probably wouldn't feel as negatively as I do about the fiasco. But it was Wrestlemania, it was the grandest stage of them all, and the WWE sorely disappointed. To make a big deal out of the "25th anniversary" and then put forth what I, and millions of others, watched Sunday night was almost atrocious.

When WWE later released Wrestlemania 25 on Blu-ray and DVD, they did more than the usual music replacement. They actually removed the entire Kid Rock performance, leaving the Diva's Battle Royal to start in progress. This is even more insulting than the live event. Not because they removed something that never should have been there in the first place (I'm happy that it's gone), but because it makes the whole thing pointless to begin with, and gives the Divas the indinity of having their match joined in progress (in addition to losing it to a man in drag). Since WWE knew that they weren't going to use Kid Rock's performance on home video (I don't know about the WWE Network), why pay him to be there at all?

Photos for this review are courtesy of WWE via this gallery, this video and this video.

Hello Kitty's Furry Tale Theater MGM DVDs Review


This review was originally written on October 11, 2008
No Series Opening Titles Or End Credits And A Missing Story!

I'm writing about a series of Hello Kitty DVDs released by MGM in 2003: HK Becomes a Princess, HK Saves the Day, HK Tells Fairy Tales, HK Goes to the Movies, and HK Plays Pretend. These five discs have also been bundled together into the Diamond Collection with a Jewelry Box, HK 5-DVD Collection, as well as paired into a Plays Pretend/Saves The Day 2-Pack (alt url). Finally there's a "Triple Feature DVD Set" with the discs for Princess, Saves The Day, and Fairy Tales all in one case (this might be exclusive to Target). Whew!

For those who don't already know, contained on these DVDs are stories from the 1987 Saturday morning series "Hello Kitty's Furry Tale Theater". You wouldn't know that by watching the discs because there are NO SERIES OPENING TITLES and NO SERIES END CREDITS!!! Yes, you read that correctly. They left out one of the most significant parts of a television series. Remember the catchy theme song? Well, all you'll have are your memories because that theme won't be found here. There's a credits block on the back of the case that lists the voice actors (Tara Charendoff as Hello Kitty in one of her first roles) and major crew, but it doesn't list the minor crew members. Pity all of the poor animators whose work on the series now goes uncredited.

The series consists of 13 half-hour episodes with 2 stories per episode (26 stories total). Yet only 25 of the 26 stories appear on these five discs. Keep in mind that's only 5 stories per each $10 disc (that's the original price). They could have easily fit the entire series onto two dual-layer discs for $20. So not only are you missing a story, and NOT getting the episodes in their original 2-story pairs with the original series opening titles and end credits, but you're being bilked for what little you DO get!

The previous VHS releases in the late 1990s (Wizard of Paws VHS and Kitty & The Beast VHS) were MUCH better than these five DVDs. Sure they only included four stories each, but they included the series opening titles and end credits, which makes them a vast improvement over these DVDs. I can only hope that someone at MGM wakes up and re-releases this series as a proper "complete series" set, but I doubt that that will ever happen.


Best of The Beverly Hillbillies Mill Creek DVD Review


This review was originally written on September 4, 2008
Excellent Set For The Price - With The Original Theme Music (Mostly)!!!

After getting burned on so many budget DVD releases of The Beverly Hillbillies, The Andy Griffith Show, and Petticoat Junction due to the replacement music, I really lucked out when I picked Mill Creek Entertainment's The Best of The Beverly Hillbillies 40 Episode, 4 DVD set yesterday at Walmart for 5.00.

The quality could be better - I noticed some compression artifacts on the side of the mansion when I quickly checked out the first few episodes - but for the price, number of episodes, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the original theme music, it's WELL worth it! Of course, a die-hard fan should buy the two "Ultimate Collection" volumes and "The Beverly Hillbillies/Petticoat Junction Ultimate Christmas Collection" disc, in order to get all of the public domain episodes and a TON of extras - albeit for about fifty bucks in total; but for the casual fan, this set is the best single item you can purchase.

This set includes 40 black & white episodes on 4 discs, and they're all in chronological airdate order (for the full list, see AlphaControl's review of this item). As I stated in my review title, the original theme music is used in ALMOST all episodes. Only two episodes don't use the original music:

* "No Place Like Home" uses replacement music and the titles are in progress, starting at "The Beverly Hillbillies" title screen and leaving out the "shooting at food" scenes beforehand. Since replacement music is used, I have no problem with cutting the full opening sequence.

* "Elly Needs a Maw" doesn't have any beginning titles at all. However, it's missing on another disc I have, so maybe all copies of this episode leave out the beginning title sequence - though they could have tacked one on from another episode.

I should also note that the theme song starts a few seconds late in the episode "Christmas at the Clampetts", though at least it's the original music!

I don't know if I got a bum copy, but the "Pygmalion and Elly" episode on Disc 1 won't play. When I try to view it, my player stops. If this defect exists in all copies, then technically there are only 39 episodes on the disc, and this episode should be added to the list of missing episodes below.

I tried the DVD in four different players, and the episode didn't play in any of them. Mill Creek was kind enough to send me a replacement set and that one also had the same problem. This is the only Mill Creek DVD I have that I've had a problem with - and I have about a dozen of their sets.

From what I've read, all 36 season one episodes and the first 19 season two episodes are in the public domain, which means that only 15 public domain episodes are missing from this set. Although it would be better if this were a six disc set and included those remaining episodes, all things considered, that's a fairly small number of episodes to be missing. For the record, these are the missing 15 episodes (excluding the two that need original music and/or beginning titles, and the one that wouldn't play on any of my DVD players):

1.05 10/24/1962 Jed Buys Stock
1.06 10/31/1962 Trick or Treat
1.09 11/21/1962 Elly's First Date
1.22 02/20/1963 Duke Steals a Wife
1.28 04/03/1963 Jed Pays His Income Tax
1.30 04/17/1963 Duke Becomes a Father
1.31 04/24/1963 The Clampetts Entertain
1.35 05/22/1963 Elly Becomes a Secretary
1.36 05/29/1963 Jethro's Friend
2.01 09/25/1963 Jed Gets the Misery
2.05 10/23/1963 The Clampett Look
2.10 11/27/1963 Turkey Day
2.11 12/04/1963 The Garden Party
2.13 12/18/1963 The Clampetts Get Culture
2.17 01/15/1964 The Girl from Home

That is all.

Lilian Garcia - Quiero Vivir! Audio CD Review


This review was originally written on April 11, 2008
Good Music, But Beware Of The Restrictive Disclaimer - Can't Resell Or Give Away The CD You Bought

I bought the Lilian Garcia - Quiero Vivir! audio CD from Amazon in March 2008. Although I don't understand Spanish, I found it to be very enjoyable. Lilian has a great voice, and I wish that she had made a completely English version of this album. Thankfully two of the songs are English translations. Track 10 "Under In Love" is the English version of track 4 "Desenamorada", and track 11 "Where Did Love Go?" is the English version of track 3 "Adonde" (that's the duet with Jon Secada).

The one thing I dislike about the CD is one thing that I have *NEVER* seen on any CD that I've ever purchased. On the outer rim of the CD is this disclaimer: "This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal and state laws. This CD may be watermarked to identify the intended recipient."

It appears that Amazon is selling promo CDs, as this disclaimer pops up in articles about the current case of Universal Music Group (UMG) vs. Troy Augusto (do a Google search for "this CD is the property of the record company" to find more information about the case). Interestingly, Universal Music Latino is the distributor of the CD, though WWE owns the content. However, nothing on the packaging states that the copy Amazon sold me is a promo CD, so I have no idea why it appears on the disc.

Below is an image of the CD so you can see the disclaimer for yourself, and see that the disclaimer isn't presented to the customer until after the purchase has been made and the product has been opened - thus nullifying the "agreement to comply with the terms of the license" because you can't agree beforehand.


I sincerely hope that this is an error and that Universal Music isn't serious with this disclaimer or they certainly will have killed their CD sales for good.