Unauthorized Usage of Disneyland Pass on Ebay

[Kevy Baby]

Hazelnut: you didn't accept my challenge the first time I posted this, so I am reposting. Care to explain your position so those of us who are confused by it can understand?

Originally posted by hazelnut
Dan, it appears that levelheaded folk, like you and I, who are not afraid to question the direction of the heard, are severely outnumbered here.
OK Hazlnut, I have to say that I am unclear as to what you are standing up for in this thread. So I'll attempt to cut to the chase:

1. Do you believe that selling the Passport is MORALLY/SOCIALLY wrong? I do - not one of the seven deadlies, but still wrong.

2. Do you believe that selling the Passport is LEGALLY wrong (whether criminally or by civil definition)? I do (note I am giving my educated OPINION, not attempting to be a lawyer).

3. IF this family were destitute, do you believe that they have the right to sell their pass (e.g. presuming that they do not have the legal right to sell the Passport) Should Disney/society/Padders just look the other way? In my opinion, they do not have the justification to sell. There are times when society and individuals should cut some slack (I'm no Javert after all), but this is not one of those times.

4. Presuming this family is not in financial trouble (which evidence points towards - the recently purchased bat, their claim in the description of "sharing their good fortune") do you think that society should "look away"? I don't; just as passionately as I do (don't?) in #3.

Originally posted by hazelnut
As soon at the sheep dogs look the other way, I'm going to make a break for those trees and see if I can find my way back to planet earth...
If you didn't want to be involved in this discussion, you should have stopped posting a long time ago.

Side notes: 1) The statement that those of us who disagree with you are not levelheaded is condescending, 2) Don't play the Martyr card: being in the minority (and I've been there) does not give you special priviledges.

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by Kevy Baby
Hazelnut: you didn't accept my challenge the first time I posted this, so I am reposting. Care to explain your position so those of us who are confused by it can understand?

If you didn't want to be involved in this discussion, you should have stopped posting a long time ago.

First of all, let me say that I think Steven Wright is a genius.

Secondly, since you took the time to throw down the gauntlet (twice), I supposed I must make some sort of effort.

#1 Your questions are long and convoluted—they’re giving my small brain a headache.

#2 Chris Rock: “I ain’t saying it’s right… but I understand.”

#3 (and this one goes out to Cstephens) Al Pacino, Godfather III: “I tried to get out, but they pulled me back in.”

Got to start packing for WDW. Have a great holiday everyone!!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally posted by hazlnut
CP, did you ever see a film called Dog Day Afternoon?



Oh, and
(Austin Powers voice)
Sorry about calling you a man, baby. The only thing I am glad of is that now EVERYONE can see that you refuse to answer direct questions, be they from me or other posters. Too bad, since that's how a discussion works. You're wiggling out of answering for all to see.

What a waste of my time. :rolleyes:

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
The only thing I am glad of is that now EVERYONE can see that you refuse to answer direct questions, be they from me or other posters. Too bad, since that's how a discussion works. You're wiggling out of answering for all to see.

Am I missing something here?

The questions was:

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
If "It's ok to steal when you're down on your luck" is wrong, perhaps you could finish the sentence:

"It's ok to turn a blind eye to theft when...."

To which I answered:


Originally posted by hazlnut
CP, did you ever see a film called Dog Day Afternoon?

I think the ball was in your court, CP.

(a) No, I have not seen the film, please explain.
(b) I have seen the film but do not understand the reference.
(c) I have seen the film and understand that you mean to say: "It's ok to turn a blind eye toword a man committing armed robbery to pay for his lover's sex change operation."

[Bill Catherall]

I know the main horse of the discussion is long dead, so I will not be beating it any further. However, a young colt has been set loose and is still young and vibrant...

(Hazlnut, this is not directed at you, so no deflection is necessary.)

Point: It has been mentioned that it is illegal to sell a pass based on the fact that the pass states it is property of Disney.

Perplexity: Even though we all agree the original auction was wrong, mainly because it was deceptive to the buyer, it seems generally acceptable to sell the pass as a souvenir, provided there is no attempt to make a transfer of rights to park entrance.

Question: So which is it? Is it Disney's property and illegal to resell, no matter the condition? Or, if it can be conditionally resold then doesn't that mean it's not really Disney's property?

[3894]

Originally posted by Bill Catherall


Question: So which is it? Is it Disney's property and illegal to resell, no matter the condition? Or, if it can be conditionally resold then doesn't that mean it's not really Disney's property?

Oooo oooo! I know! I know!

The rights attached to the pass are Disney's. That is what you are buying from them.

The piece of paper is yours. That is what you are selling as a souvenir.

[Not Afraid]

Originally posted by Bill Catherall


Question: So which is it? Is it Disney's property and illegal to resell, no matter the condition? Or, if it can be conditionally resold then doesn't that mean it's not really Disney's property?

It comes down to how it is to be used once it is sold. IMHO, the "property" aspect of the pass resides in the action that it allows the owner to take ie: get into the Park. Disney has a right to know who has a pass, who is using it to enter their facilities - hence the property aspect.

Other uses of the pass would not have the same conditions.

[Bill Catherall]

Thanks 3894 and Not Afraid. That answers my question to my satisfaction. I'm now putting the colt back into the corral. :)

[Not Afraid]

Leave it to my Midwest cousin to say it succinctly! Good going, Cuz!

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by Bill Catherall
Point: It has been mentioned that it is illegal to sell a pass based on the fact that the pass states it is property of Disney.

Actually, I'm glad you brought that (back) up. It was mentioned earlier, but I didn't get around to responding.

The issue of our AP's really being the property of DL is debatable, open to dispute, in a legal sense. Don't have time to look up case law, but suffice it to say, possession is nine-tenths of the law. DL can print whatever they want on the AP's, that doesn't make it so. That's just a (questionable) legal maneuver they use to enable them to remove an AP from a guest breaking their rules. Their argument would be: We're just reclaiming our property.

It's complicated, and I know it sounds screwball, but such is the law. They really can't compel you to give it up. And, if a CM tried to forcefully take away an AP… Yikes! That would be a big problemo...

Here's another example where what they tell you will not actually hold up in court. On the back of a parking pass stub (the one we display on the dash when parking in a lot or garage) there's a lot stuff about "we're not responsible if something happens to your car." Yes they are. Trust me.

Not trying to start another debate here, just relaying some info.

The auction is not right, but it's perfectly legal. (perfectly may not be the right word)

Edited after reading 3894's post/response.

Exactly!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally posted by hazlnut
Am I missing something here?
Not to speak for Card. Pal., but I THINK she was referring to your lack of answer to MY questions (you know, the ones I posted twice). Seems you can be pretty sharp when you want to be, but conveniently claim ignorance when you don't have an answer:

Your questions are long and convoluted—they’re giving my small brain a headache.
When I read that response this morning, the only thing I could think, was, "okay, this person can't carry on a meaningful discussion, I give up."

My questions were pointed, SIMPLE and unbiased and you chose to avoid them. And then you gave a "star" quote and a movie reference (again, avoiding using your OWN words - something you've done repeatedly).

Now, I do give you credit for the answer that you just gave on the legality issue (you actually answered my question #2). But it took you 158 posts before (to the best of my recollection) you gave a straightforward, understandable answer in your own words.

At least that's how I read it.

[timl33]

Yes, you're missing something here. You've answered a question with another question.


Originally posted by hazlnut
Am I missing something here?


Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
The only thing I am glad of is that now EVERYONE can see that you refuse to answer direct questions, be they from me or other posters. Too bad, since that's how a discussion works. You're wiggling out of answering for all to see.

To which I answered:
CP, did you ever see a film called Dog Day Afternoon?


I think the ball was in your court, CP.

(a) No, I have not seen the film, please explain.
(b) I have seen the film but do not understand the reference.
(c) I have seen the film and understand that you mean to say: "It's ok to turn a blind eye toword a man committing armed robbery to pay for his lover's sex change operation."

[Nephythys]

Originally posted by hazlnut
I think the ball was in your court, CP.

(a) No, I have not seen the film, please explain.
(b) I have seen the film but do not understand the reference.
(c) I have seen the film and understand that you mean to say: "It's ok to turn a blind eye toword a man committing armed robbery to pay for his lover's sex change operation."

What bugs me is that instead of answering the questions you try to make CP play some kind of game in order to get her questions answered.

That doesn't seem right to me.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What does "It's ok to turn a blind eye toword a man committing armed robbery to pay for his lover's sex change operation" have to do with anything?

It's not an answer to my question and it does not move this conversation forward.

I can either assume that you have no idea how a conversation works, or that you are doing this to watch us writhe in pain.

Either way, I'm sick of it and WILL NOT POST ANYMORE IN THIS THREAD, AND I MEAN IT THIS TIME.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Either way, I'm sick of it and WILL NOT POST ANYMORE IN THIS THREAD, AND I MEAN IT THIS TIME. C'mon... were 163 posts deep on this one. Don't give up now ;)

[hazlnut]

Like I said (way) earlier, the person who may ultimatley be breaking the law is, in fact, the buyer. If he enters the park with the fake passort, that's tresspassing. And, get this...

If he does so at night with the intent to commit a felony, I believe that's burglary!

Just a little common law fun fact.