Reader comments
Disney puts a crimp in BYU tour
73 comments | Read story
anonymous | 12:50 a.m. May 12, 2008
Too bad, but that's the real world. There's good and bad in every
situation.
Aussie | 12:51 a.m. May 12, 2008
We attended their concert in Brisbane and were looking forward to the Disney
songs. The replacement songs were fine but the young ones in the audience would
have enjoyed 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' even more.
They truly were great ambassadors for BYU, the LDS church and also for the USA.
A story that you won't read about is how some in the troupe learned that a young down syndrome girl in the audience was there on her birthday. After the concert finished, the entire group found her and all began singing 'Happy Birthday' to her. Way to make someone feel SPECIAL!! Well done.
They truly were great ambassadors for BYU, the LDS church and also for the USA.
A story that you won't read about is how some in the troupe learned that a young down syndrome girl in the audience was there on her birthday. After the concert finished, the entire group found her and all began singing 'Happy Birthday' to her. Way to make someone feel SPECIAL!! Well done.
Comments continue below
CB | 3:04 a.m. May 12, 2008
Too bad that those representing Disney have hi-jacked the name and reputation of
a once great organization.
If anyone named Disney was still there this wouldn't be happening, in fact it would be considered a compliment and an asset to have the BYU featuring anything Disney. Sounds as if anyone can play their music in any place and by anyone if they come up with the fee. Too bad. so sad, apparently they've gone "Hollywood".
If anyone named Disney was still there this wouldn't be happening, in fact it would be considered a compliment and an asset to have the BYU featuring anything Disney. Sounds as if anyone can play their music in any place and by anyone if they come up with the fee. Too bad. so sad, apparently they've gone "Hollywood".
ramper | 6:03 a.m. May 12, 2008
Pick up a copy of "Disney: The Mouse Betrayed" and you will see what a
bunch of sleazes are running that once great organization. It is a shame Walt is
not around to clean out the Rat Factory.
BYU Fan in Texas | 6:21 a.m. May 12, 2008
Many years ago, our family met Walt Disney. What a wonderful and gracious man.
He gave away more than these "corporate" Disney wealth freaks will
ever understand. After his death, we could see the enlightening of Disney -
donating millions to anti-Christian and pro-gay organizations. All they seem to
care about is looking good in the Political Correct world and gouging anyone who
uses their facilities. Yep, the real world - that is bunk. I will take the
50's any day. You knew your neighbors, people were fair and honest, they
believed in God and said so.
C1 | 6:43 a.m. May 12, 2008
Disney annoys me. The company likes to put forward a family friendly image, but
it's only a part of their marketing plan. The fact is that Disney is
really about one thing: pushing products and making money.
My kids (although still small) have never been to Disneyland, never seen 95% of the Disney movies, and don't own any Disney products. I don't want them to grow up hooked on an organization that is really nothing more than a corporation.
My kids (although still small) have never been to Disneyland, never seen 95% of the Disney movies, and don't own any Disney products. I don't want them to grow up hooked on an organization that is really nothing more than a corporation.
russ | 7:22 a.m. May 12, 2008
Disney today is a vicious, mean, greedy corporation. It is not the Disney of
old, and hasn't been since they locked up land in Florida. I suspect that
the Y and Disney could have cut a deal early on. The Y should have checked
things out better. Disney needs to hire a diplomat and to look at the big
picture.
Disney Pro. | 7:34 a.m. May 12, 2008
I have to disagree. I have worked for the Disney company for over ten years, and
it is a joy! There is a lot of hypocrisy from LDS and BYU supporters in
denouncing Disney for protecting their intellectual property, but then the
Church is trying to do the same thing in distinguishing itself from the FLDS
polygamists and you all think that is not only just fine, but absolutely
necessary! Come on, fellow Saints, you are better than that. Quit being so
hypocritical. Disney is a fantastic organization. Believe me, I'm one of
them.
Concerned Saint | 7:59 a.m. May 12, 2008
I would think that BYU would have its legal licenses and rights worked out
BEFORE they planned an expensive tour to Australia. What kind of negligence is
going on at that University? They consume millions of dollars in sacred Tithing
funds and then waste those precious funds on incompetence in dealing with
licensing issues?! How much are we wasting to have lawyers clean up this mess
when it should have been taken care of before (or at the time) the performances
were being designed?
Ernest T. Bass | 8:08 a.m. May 12, 2008
I thought byu WAS disneyland....or at least mostly pretend.
Not quick to judge. | 8:10 a.m. May 12, 2008
Reply to Concerned Saint...
You obviously didn't read the whole article. BYU has licenses including blanket license for which they felt these 3 numbers fell under. The actions by Disney is either to clarify what exactly the interpretation is or they are ignorant of the agreements already in place. No big deal. No incompetance. No waste of church resources. Hint, I have found that focusing on the details of a news piece really averts unfounded emotional reactions that the writers expertly use to draw interest.
You obviously didn't read the whole article. BYU has licenses including blanket license for which they felt these 3 numbers fell under. The actions by Disney is either to clarify what exactly the interpretation is or they are ignorant of the agreements already in place. No big deal. No incompetance. No waste of church resources. Hint, I have found that focusing on the details of a news piece really averts unfounded emotional reactions that the writers expertly use to draw interest.
to C1 | 8:14 a.m. May 12, 2008
"I don't want them to grow up hooked on an organization that is really
nothing more than a corporation"
Really?!?!?
So do you grow your own produce? Farm your own meat? Not watch ANY TV? Build your own car? Sew your own clothes? Own your own bank? Build your own toys for your kids? etc., etc.
Dude, they're already hooked on those evil corperations. But good stand on Disney.
Really?!?!?
So do you grow your own produce? Farm your own meat? Not watch ANY TV? Build your own car? Sew your own clothes? Own your own bank? Build your own toys for your kids? etc., etc.
Dude, they're already hooked on those evil corperations. But good stand on Disney.
Two words | 8:17 a.m. May 12, 2008
Intellectual Reserve
Good Grief | 8:22 a.m. May 12, 2008
Hello fellow Latter-Day Saints, here's an FYI for you. We say we believe in
obeying the laws of the land and believe it or not liscencing in this country is
leagal, just because it's BYU does not mean it's excempt. How would
you like it if someone took YOUR intellecutal property? Quit whining about the
'evil empire' garbage, Disney followed the law the Young Ambassadors
did not.
Mike R | 8:26 a.m. May 12, 2008
It's all about money. BYU thought that they had the licenses (which they
most likely do have) and the money grubbers at Disney say they do not.
RE:Good Grief | 8:31 a.m. May 12, 2008
AMEN!!! Would this even be a story if it didn't involve BYU??? WHAT???
BYU DIDN'T GET WHAT THEY WANTED??? DISNEY DIDN'T KISS THEIR FEET???
STOP THE WORLD!! IT'S THE END OF DAYS!!! Get over it, the show went on.
J | 8:32 a.m. May 12, 2008
If what BYU was proposing to do violated the terms of the licensing agreement
with ASCAP, etc., then by all means the Disney legal counsel have the obligation
to protect Disney's rights in the performance. Disney is first and
foremost a for-profit organization aimed at making money (and there is nothing
wrong with that). They shouldn't have to give up their valuable
intellectual property rights just because some university group wants to perform
them, even if the performance is for "good" purposes. They have the
right to determine how, when, or if their music is performed (subject to limited
exceptions, which I don't believe apply in this case). To brand them as
anti-family because of this decision is ridiculous.
The rights to the music belong to Disney. If BYU screwed up on getting the license agreements in place, BYU is the one who should pay the consequence, and certainly not Disney.
The rights to the music belong to Disney. If BYU screwed up on getting the license agreements in place, BYU is the one who should pay the consequence, and certainly not Disney.
To: Not quick to judge | 8:34 a.m. May 12, 2008
Funny thing, your "hint" applies, precisely, to most of the
anti-Disney commentors above.
For an organization whose "bread and butter" is the performance of copyrighted material, what's so hard about having something like this straightened out very early on?
Reminds me of the "gee, a little more research/ legal analysis would have been nice" hole that was dug before the Main Street/Plaza lawsuits. Had somebody bothered to research whether a thoroughfare previously "public," which remains open for public use after being put in private hands carries with it First Amendment protections, a lot of trouble could have been avoided.
In this situation, the blanket license agreement in question either covers the production of the numbers in question or it doesn't.
Shouldn't somebody have known that months ago?
For an organization whose "bread and butter" is the performance of copyrighted material, what's so hard about having something like this straightened out very early on?
Reminds me of the "gee, a little more research/ legal analysis would have been nice" hole that was dug before the Main Street/Plaza lawsuits. Had somebody bothered to research whether a thoroughfare previously "public," which remains open for public use after being put in private hands carries with it First Amendment protections, a lot of trouble could have been avoided.
In this situation, the blanket license agreement in question either covers the production of the numbers in question or it doesn't.
Shouldn't somebody have known that months ago?
Dean | 8:45 a.m. May 12, 2008
Disney is not a greedy, mean, vicious company. I'm a senior at BYU, and my
family lives on Disney World property (city of Buena Vista). My dad has been
working there for over 30 years. Disney has done a lot of good in the world and
you neo-cons can see past your thick bubble. Are you kidding?
And how many of you understand anything about the Law? Just because BYU "thought" these songs fell under their blanket license sure doesn't mean that it did. I defend Disney 100% and their rights to their songs. The BYU Ambassadors need to a lesson on the real world. Simply clarifying the purpose of the BYU Ambassadors will not change the mind of Disney. Disney is a business. Always was. And any smart business actually uses copyrights. Do not slam Disney and its employees. You are ignorant and uneducated if if you do.
Disney is actually a very nice company. Nice enough not to sue the pants off of BYU. Get out of your "but we're really nice" bubble and step into the real world: Go pay for a license to use Disney songs. It's not that hard to do.
And how many of you understand anything about the Law? Just because BYU "thought" these songs fell under their blanket license sure doesn't mean that it did. I defend Disney 100% and their rights to their songs. The BYU Ambassadors need to a lesson on the real world. Simply clarifying the purpose of the BYU Ambassadors will not change the mind of Disney. Disney is a business. Always was. And any smart business actually uses copyrights. Do not slam Disney and its employees. You are ignorant and uneducated if if you do.
Disney is actually a very nice company. Nice enough not to sue the pants off of BYU. Get out of your "but we're really nice" bubble and step into the real world: Go pay for a license to use Disney songs. It's not that hard to do.
CHRIS | 9:16 a.m. May 12, 2008
WELL PUT DEAN.
what's going on? | 9:43 a.m. May 12, 2008
I'm actually amazed that people here criticize Disney for wanting BYU to
pay for something that everyone else in the world has to pay for. Why would BYU
be treated any differently? No one is singling out BYU. Songs are property, and
you have have to pay for them. It's simple.
To people who criticize Disney: that is like walking into a store and just taking taking anything because you want it, and saying, "No need to pay, I'm from BYU." This is ludicrous. Pay for it!
To people who criticize Disney: that is like walking into a store and just taking taking anything because you want it, and saying, "No need to pay, I'm from BYU." This is ludicrous. Pay for it!
Just breathe | 9:43 a.m. May 12, 2008
This is really not as big of a deal as some are making it. This kind of thing
happens very often.
DTW | 9:47 a.m. May 12, 2008
DEANER,
Your comment is excellent!! Great words, except for the whole "NEO-CON" hasty generalization!! The so called "NEO-CONS" aren't the ones causing the fuss, slick! It's the NEO-NUGGETS who do NOT understand capitalism, NOT the "NEO-CONS," and the "NEO-NUGGETS", aka bubbled goons, that blame Disney for running their organization like a business are to blame ma ma mayn!!!
Your comment is excellent!! Great words, except for the whole "NEO-CON" hasty generalization!! The so called "NEO-CONS" aren't the ones causing the fuss, slick! It's the NEO-NUGGETS who do NOT understand capitalism, NOT the "NEO-CONS," and the "NEO-NUGGETS", aka bubbled goons, that blame Disney for running their organization like a business are to blame ma ma mayn!!!
Scott | 9:50 a.m. May 12, 2008
I doubt anyone griping about Disney has ever tried to buy music for a ward
choir, that greed makes anything exhibited by Disney pale in comparison. But
then again, the Disney corporation is not about to be translated anytime soon.
Both the church and the corporation are comprised of individuals which have
strengths and weaknesses, just like the rest of us.
It is interesting to note however, that the roadshows and dance festivals around the church have long intructed the planners to avoid using Disney songs and characters. Seems like BYU missed this memo.
It is interesting to note however, that the roadshows and dance festivals around the church have long intructed the planners to avoid using Disney songs and characters. Seems like BYU missed this memo.
Slapstick sam | 9:54 a.m. May 12, 2008
Sounds like another case of BYU thinking they are above everyone else and
breaking copyright laws. It's disneys IP, they can do what they want with
it.
No big deal | 9:54 a.m. May 12, 2008
Seems like another garden-variety make work project for lawyers. When it gets
worked out, they are the ones who will make the $$$ with billable hours.
But Dean is dead wrong about one thing. The songs were not performed in public, so Disney had no standing to sue. What they did was as much as they could do, and BYU responded properly.
But Dean is dead wrong about one thing. The songs were not performed in public, so Disney had no standing to sue. What they did was as much as they could do, and BYU responded properly.
Brian H. | 10:13 a.m. May 12, 2008
What permission did Disney get from the Brothers Grimm?
license guru | 10:12 a.m. May 12, 2008
For those concerned about whether BYU was irresponsible getting licenses,
don't jump to conclusions. BYU had their ducks in a row. They got all of
the typical licenses that a University gets to play and perform copyrighted
music. The problem is there is very little legal precedent on the TYPE of
license to get for "show choirs" specifically.
There are very fine legal distinctions between singing these songs in a choral situation and performing the songs with dance and costume, but not exactly performing the script of the play. In actuality, BYU and Disney BOTH have good arguments.
There are very fine legal distinctions between singing these songs in a choral situation and performing the songs with dance and costume, but not exactly performing the script of the play. In actuality, BYU and Disney BOTH have good arguments.
Moose | 10:35 a.m. May 12, 2008
Jannie Thompson would never have let this happen. If royalties were required she
new it before first rehersal.
Shelby | 10:42 a.m. May 12, 2008
The Disney organization is no worse to deal with than any other rights holder.
The only differences are that 1)they retain exclusive copyrights that
aren't covered under usual blanket agreements, and 2)they have the legal
resources to stop illegal performances of their works. This is just a little
bump in the road for the Young Ambassadors. I'm sure they'll recover
just fine.
Anonymous | 10:43 a.m. May 12, 2008
Rules are rules. Disney isn't the only corporation to have them. I
can't believe all of the anti-Disney attitudes here. I'm guessing
it's because you're all pro-BYU. This isn't an
"anti-anything" situation. Have you ever heard of copyright laws?? You
should probably know that a few years ago during the televised concert for
President Hinckley's birthday, the audience spontaneously started singing,
"Happy Birthday." Well, because the event was broadcast, the Church
had to pay big bucks because that song is copyrighted (and not by Disney).
Welcome to the real world!
Fritz | 10:42 a.m. May 12, 2008
Oh, brother. People! BYU is not demanding special treatment. They thought they
had the proper licenses. I never knew anything involving lawyers to be clear or
straightforward. They did the right thing to take out the numbers until the
confusion is worked out. It is as likely as not that they were O.K. to begin
with. If not, they will take care of it. Yes, Disney is a business. Sometimes
businesses are difficult to work with; sometimes they do go beyond their
rightful reach.
Disney Pro: Yes, Disney has the right to defend their intellectual property, but comparing it to the LDS Church battle with FLDS is quite different. No body would question that there would be a problem with a theme park using the title Fdisneyland or Disneeland.
Disney Pro: Yes, Disney has the right to defend their intellectual property, but comparing it to the LDS Church battle with FLDS is quite different. No body would question that there would be a problem with a theme park using the title Fdisneyland or Disneeland.
Anonymous | 10:46 a.m. May 12, 2008
To No big deal,
The songs were not performed in public? This is a performance group weren't talking about here. Where do you think they performed the songs? In a closet where no one saw them? An audience counts as "public." The group doesn't have to be performing on the sidewalk.
The songs were not performed in public? This is a performance group weren't talking about here. Where do you think they performed the songs? In a closet where no one saw them? An audience counts as "public." The group doesn't have to be performing on the sidewalk.
disney | 11:10 a.m. May 12, 2008
Hahahaha!
BYU can't be that upset. It IS Disney we're talking about.
BYU can't be that upset. It IS Disney we're talking about.
Matthew | 11:21 a.m. May 12, 2008
The real solution is to not grant copyrights to corporations. Corporations
don't have an intellect and thus can't actually produce intellectual
property. We need to roll back the "rights" of corporations and
restore some of the rights of individuals. If the copyright/performance right
to Tarzan was held by the composer, you can bet it would be licensed through
mechanisms that BYU was trying to rely on.
The Texan | 11:22 a.m. May 12, 2008
Will the real truth/story please stand up. All of you can't be right at the
same time. What is at the bottom of this? No one is making much sense. More like
a mob run amok.
Bill from South Dakota | 11:23 a.m. May 12, 2008
This stuff happens! Byu has licenses it thought covered these musical numbers,
Disney Corp. obviously feels differently. Let the lawyers work it out and then
go on and sing their music! Disney is a for-profit corporation. As such, it has
a responsibility to protect its assets. This is just smart business. If BYU
weren't involved this would not be a big deal.... Oh wait..... it really
isn't a big deal!
Everything is OK | 11:45 a.m. May 12, 2008
I am a Disney employee and a Senior at BYU. I�m very
supportive of both. In some way BYU and Disney are a lot alike. They both feel
like they are a special case that deserves special treatment. In all reality,
Disney has all rights to put whatever protective rights on their work as they
want. They own a large portion of the business world. If they didn't have
those type of protection laws, their credibility would be stolen from them. It
is the same throughout the company. Even employees don't get exceptions.
They set the rules and don't budge because of how large the corporation is.
It would be way too messy if they didn't.
The problem with this whole thing is that BYU should have looked into the paperwork more to double check they had everything set way before production. But they didn't know. So what. They fixed it and everything is better. Disney did the right thing and BYU did all they knew they needed to. Everything is fixed now and no one needs to continue arguing about who is right and who is wrong or how rude Disney is or how arrogant BYU is.
The problem with this whole thing is that BYU should have looked into the paperwork more to double check they had everything set way before production. But they didn't know. So what. They fixed it and everything is better. Disney did the right thing and BYU did all they knew they needed to. Everything is fixed now and no one needs to continue arguing about who is right and who is wrong or how rude Disney is or how arrogant BYU is.
Double Dip | 12:08 p.m. May 12, 2008
Sounds like Disney is trying to Double Dip
Way to go, Dean | 12:28 p.m. May 12, 2008
Dean, your emotions are ruling you, not facts. Way to slam BYU before knowing
what's actually happening, as most of you are doing. You should be
ashamed. It's a wrinkle that they're trying to work out. They never
said they were mad or better than Disney, you did. Why don't all of you
get a grip and find something useful to do with your time instead of assuming
(and enjoying) the worst, like volunteer, take a class . . . whatever.
John Lambert | 1:16 p.m. May 12, 2008
Not everyone has to pay to do such a performance. People sing Disney songs
all the time. I also think it is a bit outrageous that a production (Mary
Poppins) that came out 40-45 years ago is still copyrighted. That seems a bit
long to me.
However, it does seem that BYU has standing agreements for these productions, and since I have seen them perform songs from "Fiddler on the Roof" which is latter than Mary Poppins I do think this was a bit overbearing.
However, it does seem that BYU has standing agreements for these productions, and since I have seen them perform songs from "Fiddler on the Roof" which is latter than Mary Poppins I do think this was a bit overbearing.
Anonymous | 1:25 p.m. May 12, 2008
Stealing music is wrong
New Era � 2008 � February
It�s Just a Copy, Right?
New Era � 2008 � February
It�s Just a Copy, Right?
Shameful Ambassadors | 1:38 p.m. May 12, 2008
The Headline is wrong. Disney did not put a crimp in BYU's tour, BYU put a
crimp in its own tour by failing to get proper legal permission to perform those
songs. Quit revealing your Mormon bias by blaming Disney. They have every right
to protect their artistic property, and BYU should be ashamed for trying to get
away with this infringement.
Why all the Hate Hater's | 2:59 p.m. May 12, 2008
It seems that it is a simple situation to understand.
BYU thought it was covered and it wasn't. They tried to make a case for themselves with Disney and Disney didn't buy-it. That's okay.
Disney didn't accuse BYU of stealing anything. Nor did BYU make unkind accusasions toward Disney. I read the whole article. Didn't you???
The only unkind things said about Disney and BYU stealing music came in the posts following the article. Right???
The posts on this story remind me of any BYU sports article where there are remarks made by those who like and enjoy BYU as a whole and those who are the haters.
Note I said the 'Hater's".
Hi there my little BYU haters. Once a haater, always a hater, right?
It's too bad that some of the songs weren't included. I'm sure the kids who would have performed them were disappointed. But life and the tour went forward.
My ax to grind is with the BYU Hater's and Church Hater's in general. It is sad that chumps andlegalist like yourself populate the planet.
The end is coming for all bad people. Hater's lead the way in this. Poor, poor hater's. The end is near!!!
BYU thought it was covered and it wasn't. They tried to make a case for themselves with Disney and Disney didn't buy-it. That's okay.
Disney didn't accuse BYU of stealing anything. Nor did BYU make unkind accusasions toward Disney. I read the whole article. Didn't you???
The only unkind things said about Disney and BYU stealing music came in the posts following the article. Right???
The posts on this story remind me of any BYU sports article where there are remarks made by those who like and enjoy BYU as a whole and those who are the haters.
Note I said the 'Hater's".
Hi there my little BYU haters. Once a haater, always a hater, right?
It's too bad that some of the songs weren't included. I'm sure the kids who would have performed them were disappointed. But life and the tour went forward.
My ax to grind is with the BYU Hater's and Church Hater's in general. It is sad that chumps andlegalist like yourself populate the planet.
The end is coming for all bad people. Hater's lead the way in this. Poor, poor hater's. The end is near!!!
To WHy all the Hate Hater's | 3:58 p.m. May 12, 2008
Why the negative labeling? Why is anyone who is not pro-BYU labeled a
"hater." Why is anyone who is not pro-Church labeled a
"hater."
You, yourself, state, "It is sad that chumps and legalists like yourself populate the planet." Sounds just a tad "hateful" doesn't it?
And what "end is near"? Are we referring to the end of time or the end of hate?
Maybe, I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem like you're doing much to help end the hating. But at least you've had a chance to vent, and sometimes I guess that's what we really want and need.
You, yourself, state, "It is sad that chumps and legalists like yourself populate the planet." Sounds just a tad "hateful" doesn't it?
And what "end is near"? Are we referring to the end of time or the end of hate?
Maybe, I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem like you're doing much to help end the hating. But at least you've had a chance to vent, and sometimes I guess that's what we really want and need.
Too bad | 4:02 p.m. May 12, 2008
It sounds like Disney missed out on some great free publicity. The way most
companies are vying for "product placement" nowadays, this really
seems like a missed opportunity.
To Why all the Hate Hater's | 4:11 p.m. May 12, 2008
I totally agree with you.
Don't you just "hate" anyone who disagrees with you? Don't you "hate" people who say negative things about BYU or the Church? Don't you "hate" people who see things differently? It's totally annoying!!!
I especially "hate" those who insist on using logic and reason instead of relying on "faith" like we're always supposed to? Don't you?
But you're absolutely right. "The end is near!!!" Poor, poor haters.
Don't you just "hate" anyone who disagrees with you? Don't you "hate" people who say negative things about BYU or the Church? Don't you "hate" people who see things differently? It's totally annoying!!!
I especially "hate" those who insist on using logic and reason instead of relying on "faith" like we're always supposed to? Don't you?
But you're absolutely right. "The end is near!!!" Poor, poor haters.
UtahaninNC | 4:27 p.m. May 12, 2008
For Disney Pro. If you are making a correlation between the LDS objection to
being associated with the FLDS and the Disney and BYU conflict, you are truly
working in Fantacy Land. For the simpletons it's called apples and oranges,
Geeezzzz. Hypocrit v. stupid! I'll be a hipocrit thank you!
Reactionary Enclave | 4:33 p.m. May 12, 2008
Fantastic point! Anyone who disagrees with a person's narrow view of the
world is labeled by that person as a "Hater".
I can see many shades of gray, but that takes a little more intellectual exertion.
I can see many shades of gray, but that takes a little more intellectual exertion.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Mark A. Philbrick
BYU's Young Ambassadors perform tune from "Spamalot." Songs from "Tarzan," "Mary Poppins" and "Hercules" were cut from tour.
- Suspect charged in Mumbai attack 10:45 a.m.
- Homer king Bonds made splash 10:33 a.m.
- U.N. climate conference opens 10:16 a.m.
- Stocks rise, investors await Bernanke 9:53 a.m.
- Pentagon: 16K troops to start surge 9:45 a.m.
- Feds mull mustang relocation plan 9:40 a.m.
- Officer fatally shot near Pittsburgh 9:35 a.m.
- Herzog, Harvey elected baseball HOF 9:32 a.m.
- U.K. paper: U.S. in lead over England 9:29 a.m.
- AOL ends ties with Time Warner 9:25 a.m.
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- BYU professor remembered
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
261 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing232
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry190
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl166
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage131
- George lost in rivalry hatefest114
- Cougars going back to Vegas106
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony98
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Did you not tune into your teams bowl game last year? They were beaten by the...
BYU blue is a patented color. It's not Navy. It is patented with it's own...
has UT ever beaten Alabama?
NASA scientists tell us that we need to be at 350ppm CO2 emmisions and not...
CJ must have borrowed Boozers PR agent. How else would he make comments that...
Hey Confused, The reason the GOP doesn't want ethics reform is that the...
"It is an all or nothing tale--the Nephites are all good and the Lamanites...
do not forget Miles, so we can see his defending of CJ will bring us the...
He wouldn't have been dictating his books, he would have remembered where he...
Climategate reveals the global warmists trying to shut down peer review. If...
Advertisements
We met with them over a computer project one time.
The first thing they said in the meeting, in Utah, at our site, was that anything mused, though outloud basically anything spoken was theirs. It would belong to them.
We showed them the door.
Arrogant jerks...
They really were full of themselves.
The funny thing is that these individuals weren't "disney" other then working for them. I'm sure the founders and original folks were easier to work with.
I say this because we used to get Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak at our site a lot. The ironic thing is that he was there for a disney project to do some R&D with us.
One of the brightest and nicest guys around. A pleasure to deal with.