Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:27 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,074

Disney assumes full operational control of Hulu


From here.

Quote:
Disney is now the only one with its hands on Hulus steering wheel.

Disney and Comcast announced a deal under which Disney will assume full operational control of Hulu, effective immediately. Within five years, Comcast has agreed to sell its Hulu stake to Disney for at least $5.8 billion.

...

With full operating control, Disney will have the latitude to set a new strategic road map for Hulu, including launching the service internationally.

...

Comcast agreed to extend the Hulu license of NBCU content and the carriage agreement for Hulus live TV service for NBCU channels until late 2024 and also to distribute Hulu on its Xfinity X1 platform. But it can nix most of the licensing agreements by 2022, the companies said.
...

Last month, AT&T sold its 9.5% stake in Hulu to Disney and NBCU for $1.43 billion, valuing Hulu at $15 billion. Disney and Comcast agreed to allocate that purchase on a pro-rata basis, giving Disney a 66% ownership and Comcast/NBCU a 33% equity stake.

Disney secured 60% ownership of Hulu after it acquired the entertainment assets of 21st Century Fox for $71 billion, and was actively looking for a path to securing 100% of the company in talks with Comcast.
So Hulu was not long ago a joint venture between Fox/Disney/NBC/Comcast/AT&T. Now it's just Disney/NBC. And NBC is going to sell their shares to Disney in a few years, so that Disney controls 100%. Disney is also launching their Disney+ streaming service later this year, so I guess Disney needs two entire streaming services for themselves.

I'm not sure I can predict any specific doom and gloom, but it can't be good when all of our fucking media is owned by like 3 companies, can it? I've actually grown rather fond of Hulu. Their movie selection sucks, but I find their TV show selection quite good, and unlike other services you can stay up to date rather than waiting for months after the series is over to have access to them.

Since Disney bought Fox, it's unlikely that they will lose that content immediately, but given that disney now owns two different streaming services, I suspect they're going to split some of Hulu's content between Hulu and Disney+ so that you have to subscribe to both to get the stuff you previously got just from Hulu. NBC is interested in launching their own streaming service, so it's likely that they yank their content from Hulu as soon as they're legally able to. So you're probably looking at at least 3 subscriptions now to do what Hulu alone once did.

Side rant: People still seem to hold an irrational dislike of Hulu because they originally launched with only a $6 mo option with limited commercials. Since then, they've released a $12 plan with no commercials. But people still seem to be insane, because all I hear on reddit about any thread relating to hulu is "WTF I HAVE TO PAY AND STILL GET COMMERCIALS? I'M GOING BACK TO NETFLIX. THIS IS RETARDED" Or even websites comparing the various services for some reason compare the $6 hulu plan to the $13 netflix plan and then say "HULU HAS COMMERCIALS WTF, GET NETFLIX", completely ignoring the fact that it's Hulu's $12 plan that competes with Netflix's $13 plan, and neither has commercials. Hulu gives you the choice of cheaper sub + commercials, or none, for cheaper than netflix, and somehow people view this as a downside compared to paying netflix a buck more a month for the same thing. Sorry for the rant, just something I've seen 200 times and it drives me nuts.

In any case, I don't like Disney as a company. They've been changing our copyright and intellectually property rights for the worse (for society) for a century now. The fact that they're freely buying up mega media companies with no anti-trust concerns is just a large scale sign of corruption and regulatory capture. They own a significant fraction of all TV and movie production companies, distribution companies, and distribution channels. It's hard to imagine this won't be worse for the consumer.

It's funny - and sad - the media conglomerates are merging and gobbling each other up, but at the same time fragmenting and increasing the number of distribution channels so that the consumer is getting fucked from both directions at once.
  #2  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
I am so, so ready for antitrust laws to blow up Disney.
  #3  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:38 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I am so, so ready for antitrust laws to blow up Disney.
they were forced to sell off the local Fox sports channels they got from buying most of Fox. But I would not expect much more regulation of Disney unless the dems win the White House.
  #4  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:43 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
In any case, I don't like Disney as a company.
There is a lot to dislike. However, this --

Quote:
They've been changing our copyright and intellectually property rights ... for a century now.
Is not true.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #5  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:45 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,681
Let 'em take over Roku, as well. Maybe my damn stick will stop buffering every five minutes and resetting at least once a day!
  #6  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:07 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,074
You should think about getting an amazon firestick 4k then. It's $35 ($15 off) at the moment and works really well. It's also worth getting over the regular fire stick even if you don't need 4k - the remote has power/volume controls and partial universal remote capability (previous ones did not) and the whole thing is very snappy, faster than most or maybe all of those devices.

I assume you can use it even without amazon prime, but I don't know. All the streaming services have an app, and integrates well (the fire stick can launch apps or tell you which app has a certain show, etc).

Last edited by SenorBeef; 05-14-2019 at 05:10 PM.
  #7  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:14 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,062
What is true is that copy rights now last for more than 100 years, and Disney was a major driver behind that expansion.
  #8  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:18 PM
ekedolphin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 4,887
I actually kinda like Disney, and I'm getting Disney+ when it launches.

(I'll go back into my corner now.)
  #9  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:25 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
and Disney was a major driver behind that expansion.
Do you have anything other than rumour, gossip, innuendo, etc., to support that claim?

And how was Disney a "major driver"? Where is the evidence of who the "drivers" were and what's the standard for defining a major one as opposed to a minor one?

Assuming that you can show that Disney supported changes in copyright law, how was its role different than any other supporters, such that Disney should be singled out as being responsible for it?

What's the reason for singling Disney out for dislike as compared to, say, CBS or Comcast or News Corp. or Viacom or Time Warner or Sony, other than you heard some sarcastic remark about the term of protection for Mickey Mouse?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)

Last edited by Acsenray; 05-14-2019 at 05:26 PM.
  #10  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekedolphin View Post
I actually kinda like Disney, and I'm getting Disney+ when it launches.

(I'll go back into my corner now.)
I like small Disney: Disneyworld, Disneyland, the Disney Channel, and Disney movies that turn fairy tales into pap. That shit's fine.

But Disney as Disney, and also Pixar, and also Star Wars, and also Marvel, and also Hulu, and also like five billion other things? Not my bag.
  #11  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:51 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Why does my mind want to finish "assumes full operational control of..." with "...this battle station"?
  #12  
Old 05-14-2019, 06:07 PM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
What is true is that copy rights now last for more than 100 years, and Disney was a major driver behind that expansion.
Nope. It was Adolph Hitler.

The expansion started in Europe, where Disney doesn't have as much influence. While they certainly were happy for it, the main impetus was to keep Mein Kamph from being in the public domain.
  #13  
Old 05-14-2019, 06:11 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,074
Literally Hitler.
  #14  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:34 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,625
My only hope is Hulu will suddenly be available here. It's a pain that Hulu's site seems to know if I'm using a proxy to access the service, thus blocking it.

Last edited by Monty; 05-14-2019 at 08:34 PM.
  #15  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:48 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,326
I got rid of Netflix and switched to Hulu at the worst possible time when Netflix finally started getting great content and good original shows and movies. Maybe this will be a good thing and Hulu will get a bunch of new content.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"

Last edited by pool; 05-14-2019 at 10:48 PM.
  #16  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:28 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,074
Well it's not like you signed a contract, you could just flip them back, or have both.

I don't see how we'd have new content, though. Disney already owned part of Hulu, and so they were already putting some of their content on there. Having fewer owners seems like it'll lead to the removal of content rather than additional content. I guess Disney may decide to use their big bucks to invest in more content, but I wouldn't bet on it.
  #17  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:16 AM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,263
Disney 100% was instrumental in expanding US copyright law by helping pass the Sonny Bono Copyright act.

Hulu is the better streaming service if you like TV. Netflix is mainly nothing but Friends, the Office and their Original programming now. If I had to drop one, I would drop Netflix easily.

It looks like things aren't changing until 2022 the earliest so at least there's that.

It was clear years ago when Netflix exploded every studio would want to keep their content in house and we would be in this position where there will be a dozen streaming services. The only hope is a few fail so that content gets consolidated again.
  #18  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:34 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quimby View Post
Disney 100% was instrumental in expanding US copyright law by helping pass the Sonny Bono Copyright act.
What does 100 percent instrumental mean, exactly? And whats the evidence for it?

And if Disney was 100 percent instrumental because it was in favor, doesnt that mean everyone who was in favor was also 100 percent instrumental? If not, why not? If so, whats the significance of Disney being one of many 100 percent instrumental entities and persons?

In other words, if Disney had a uniquely significant role in enactment of the law, prove it.

If not, why is Disney singled out for blame when there are many many persons and entities who benefited and supported enactment?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #19  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:00 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
If things fragment, are we likely to see streaming prices drop? Fragmentation would mean you'd use each service less, so you should be paying less for it. And the competition among services should push down on prices, right?
  #20  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:56 AM
wbgreen's Avatar
wbgreen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
But I would not expect much more regulation of Disney unless the dems win the White House.
Democrats are never going to go after Hollywood, they're friends.
  #21  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:07 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
I know this is a Pit thread masquerading as a Cafe Society thread, but I think it could be argued that Michael Eisner was the single greatest CEO of the last half of the 20th-century and Disney's post-1982 comeback is, in my opinion, far more impressive than Apple's. And I say this because post-Jobs Apple has largely done nothing, while post-Eisner Disney has gone from success to success to success to success in an industry based upon art.

Sorry to buck the trend here, but given I just watch 3-hour clips of songs from the 70s on YouTube intermixed with the occasional top-10 list, I don't have a dog in this fight.

And the complaint about "all our entertainment being on 3 carriers" is kinda funny to a person who remembers 2 daily newspapers and 3 TV channels.
  #22  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:13 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,098
Disney will have three streaming services: Disney, Hulu, and ESPN. I would guess that the branding will be different. Movies and kids' shows on Disney. TV shows on Hulu. Sports and live-content on ESPN. They could overlap as well (think of it as marketing hooks to their other streaming services). Looks like a typical market-segmentation business model.

It's difficult to argue that Disney is too large and needs to be broken up while also noting that content is spread over too many competing streaming services. If there's significant consolidation then anti-trust crowbars should be used, but I don't see it at the moment when Netflix, Disney, Time-Warner, Viacom, and Comcast are all competing.
  #23  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:15 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Nope. It was Adolph Hitler.

The expansion started in Europe, where Disney doesn't have as much influence. While they certainly were happy for it, the main impetus was to keep Mein Kamph from being in the public domain.
Is that supposed to be a joke? If not, do you have a cite?

Mein Kampf entered the public domain in 2015, 70 years after the death of the author, as per Copyright law in most of Europe since the 1960s, and before that it was 50 years.
  #24  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:29 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
The difference is, we didn't have to rent three different cable services back when we had 3 channels.

With cable TV subscription getting ridiculously overpriced, there's a lot of pricing room for people to have a number of streaming services after cutting the cord and still save money. A digital antenna and DVR can, for most people, stand in perfectly fine rather than pay for a network stream. But the landscape is still changing and the "Star Trekiscovery" trial balloon could signal a cliff edge in how television entertainment is distributed.
  #25  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:49 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557
Yeah, this is silly. Disney is the primary lobbyist concerning copyright law in an effort to maintain its trademark and control of the Mickey Mouse character.

https://www.theiplawblog.com/2016/02...copyright-law/

Quote:
In 1928, Walt Disney released the first Mickey Mouse cartoon: Steamboat Willie. At that point, the work was entitled to protection for 56 years (28 years for the initial term and the 28-year extension). Under the Copyright Act at the time, the copyright on Mickey Mouse should have expired in 1984. But before Disneys mascot could be pushed into the public domain by operation of law, Disney embarked on a serious lobbying mission to get Congress to change the Copyright Act.

Disneys lobbying paid off in 1976 when Congress passed legislation which changes the copyright scheme such that individual authors were granted protection for their life, plus an additional 50 years, and for works authored by a corporation, the legislation granted a retroactive extension for works published before the new system took effect. The result was that the maximum term for already-published works was extended from 56 years to 75 years, thereby extending Mickey Mouses protection out to 2003.

If the extensions ended there, then obviously Mickey Mouse would be in the public domain right now. But 5 years before Mickey Mouses copyright was set to expire, Congress changed the scheme again. In 1998, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which lengthened copyrights for works created on or after January 1, 1978 to life of the author plus 70 years, and extends copyrights for corporate works to 95 years from the year of first publication, or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever expires first. Once again, Mickey Mouses copyright protection lived to fight another day. Now, Mickeys copyright will not expire until 2023. But even that is only 7 years away. The question is: what will Disney do now? Disney would not possibly allow its most famous character to go into the public domain, would it?
  #26  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:54 AM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,263
Why are people being obtuse about this? Disney paid a shit load of lobbyists to get Copyright laws changed to their benefit. It happens every day in Washington.
  #27  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:58 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Since Disney bought Fox, it's unlikely that they will lose that content immediately, but given that disney now owns two different streaming services, I suspect they're going to split some of Hulu's content between Hulu and Disney+ so that you have to subscribe to both to get the stuff you previously got just from Hulu. NBC is interested in launching their own streaming service, so it's likely that they yank their content from Hulu as soon as they're legally able to. So you're probably looking at at least 3 subscriptions now to do what Hulu alone once did.
To be fair, Disney+ is probably going to yank content that was previously on Netflix (Marvel movies & shows, Star Wars, etc) more than stuff previously on Hulu. NBC is definitely going to pull all their stuff from Hulu and Netflix for their streaming service, which will hurt Netflix far more (as the top two shows streaming on Netflix are "The Office" and "Friends").
  #28  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:59 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, this is silly. Disney is the primary lobbyist concerning copyright law in an effort to maintain its trademark and control of the Mickey Mouse character.
Extending copyright term doesn't help you maintain a trademark. Trademarks are already of limitless term so long as they remain distinctive and in use.

That blog is a series of bare assertions. Where is the actual evidence that Disney, as opposed to any other copyright holder, is responsible for the changes in the law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quimby View Post
Why are people being obtuse about this? Disney paid a shit load of lobbyists to get Copyright laws changed to their benefit. It happens every day in Washington.
Sure, it happens every day in the law. Where is the evidence that Disney, as opposed to any other media company or copyright holder, is uniquely responsible for this? What justifies making snarky remarks about Disney and copyright term as opposed to any other large media company or copyright holder?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)

Last edited by Acsenray; 05-15-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #29  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Sure, it happens every day in the law. Where is the evidence that Disney, as opposed to any other media company or copyright holder, is uniquely responsible for this? What justifies making snarky remarks about Disney and copyright term as opposed to any other large media company or copyright holder?
They were the most involved lobbyists and one of the biggest stakeholders in copyright legislation. Could you explain why these facts, that you surely know, are unimportant?
  #30  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:24 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
They were the most involved lobbyists and one of the biggest stakeholders in copyright legislation. Could you explain why these facts, that you surely know, are unimportant?
These things are not proof. Again, how does that make them different than any other large media company? Why don't people bring up copyright term legislation in discussion about any other large media company? What concrete facts and real evidence justify singling Disney out?

Really, if such evidence exists, I myself want to know. I'd love to have another reason to dislike Disney. But so far this just seems like malicious gossip.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #31  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:18 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Again, how does that make them different than any other large media company?
Disney is one of the largest, riches media companies ever, and was in 1998 as well. Disney was instrumental in getting the Sonny Bono act passed, even if lots of other companies supported it, simply by virtue of their size and the money they could bring to bear.

It sounds like you agree that Disney had a huge impact in getting the law passed, but you just don't think there's any reason to single them out as opposed to the many other supporters of the law. Which is fine, but you have to admit, few other supporters of that law were as huge as Disney.

It's a distinction without a difference. "Disney wasn't instrumental in getting the law passed, they were simply the largest and most influential supporters of the law". Okay. You got us there.
  #32  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:40 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Disney is one of the largest, riches media companies ever, and was in 1998 as well. Disney was instrumental in getting the Sonny Bono act passed,
Show me the evidence. Not bare assertion, not rumor, not innuendo, not gossip. What is the evidence that Disney was "instrumental." In fact, define what "instrumental" means. Does it mean that the act wouldn't have passed without Disney support?

I think that's false. There was broad support to harmonize the U.S. copyright term with the EU Directive of 1998. I suspect it would have happened had Disney spent not a dollar on lobbying.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not the one asserting that Disney was "instrumental." Anyone asserting that should ask ēmself why ē believes that to be true and whether there's evidence to justify that belief.

Quote:
even if lots of other companies supported it, simply by virtue of their size and the money they could bring to bear.
In 1998, there were several companies comparable to Disney's size and resources.

Quote:
It sounds like you agree that Disney had a huge impact in getting the law passed,
No, I don't know that one way or another.

Quote:
but you just don't think there's any reason to single them out as opposed to the many other supporters of the law.
No, I'm responding to people offering Disney's size and interest in copyright protection as proof that Disney was somehow uniquely responsible for it. I'm saying there were plenty of companies in Disney's position. That in itself doesn't prove the assertion.

Quote:
Which is fine, but you have to admit, few other supporters of that law were as huge as Disney.
That's not evidence to support the assertion.

Quote:
It's a distinction without a difference. "Disney wasn't instrumental in getting the law passed,
If it's not true then, arguably, folks should stop asserting it. I'm asking for evidence that it's true.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)

Last edited by Acsenray; 05-15-2019 at 05:41 PM.
  #33  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:14 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Show me the evidence. Not bare assertion, not rumor, not innuendo, not gossip. What is the evidence that Disney was "instrumental." In fact, define what "instrumental" means. Does it mean that the act wouldn't have passed without Disney support?

I think that's false. There was broad support to harmonize the U.S. copyright term with the EU Directive of 1998. I suspect it would have happened had Disney spent not a dollar on lobbying.
US copyright law goes beyond EU law, specifically by having vastly longer terms for works created for corporations.

Here's a CNN article about Eisner visiting the Senate Majority Leader to lobby for keeping Mickey Mouse out of public domain just a little bit longer:
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1...cq/disney.html

Of course if you want a document where congressmen say "We did this to please Disney" you can stay on your high horse, as such documents never exist, no manner the level of lobbying.
  #34  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:34 PM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I think that's false. There was broad support to harmonize the U.S. copyright term with the EU Directive of 1998. I suspect it would have happened had Disney spent not a dollar on lobbying.
OK, you made the claim, now show the proof.
  #35  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:38 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
OK, you made the claim, now show the proof.
Representatives of a wide range of creative industries testified in favor of the bill, including individual songwriters and musicians. It wasn't just Disney. It wasn't just the movie industry. A lot of people wanted this to happen. So it's very strange to me to single out Disney as a villain in this story. They were all in on it.

My recollection is that the bill passed both the House and Senate without a recorded vote. That means not a single representative or senator called for a recorded vote. This happens when there is broad support for a bill.

You can possibly assert that Disney bought off every single member of the Senate and House, but how likely is that? That not one of the pro-consumer members of Congress would insist on a recorded vote? Asking for a recorded vote is one of the most common routine motions in Congress. It happens all the time, several times a day when committees are in session or votes are on the floor.

So to me the more likely conclusion is that there was broad support for it.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with ē, ēm, and ēs as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender. (I am also contemplating the spellings /m/s, /m/s, e/em/es, Ē/Ēm/Ēs, /m/s, /m/s, E/Em/Es.)
  #36  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:05 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
You know, I don't want to come in here with a "just believe me!" cite, but my major was in economics with an emphasis on economic history, I have read no fewer than four fat-assed thick books on the history of Disney the company (Not "Disney the art" or "Disney the films" - the company) including Eisner's retrospective, James B. Stewarts book "DisneyWar", and a few others, and... while Ascenray is correct in noting that there were other interested parties who also wanted copyrights extended, to argue that Disney was just another player is just a-historical.

This discussion is focused on the 1998(?) changes to the copyright laws, but the real Disney push came in the mid-1970s, when a foundering company realized that their most valuable assets were about to become public domain and that many of these assets... unknown to any but key Disney officials... weren't even registered properly by Walt and crew when they first started. The big change in mid-1970s copyright law... other than the extension... was that works which were unpublished and unregistered were now protected under copyright law even if it wasn't published or registered, and, if the artist/owner so desired, they could now be registered.

Whew!

Bet your ass that when this thing went into effect on 1-1-78, on 1-2-78 the copyright office received a metric fucktonne of registrations from Disney, etc.

Anyway, like I said - I'm not going to go back and buy some 30 year old book, re-read it, and then give a proper cite, but to argue that Disney was just "one of the guys" when it came to copyright law changes.... especially the 1970-era changes... is not supported by the historical evidence.

Last edited by JohnT; 05-16-2019 at 11:06 AM.
  #37  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:39 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,970
In the 1976 film Silent Movie, Mel Brooks made fun the then current buy-ups of movie studios and such, calling the main company Engulf and Devour as a parody of Gulf+Western (Now Paramount, Viacom, CBS, etc.)

Disney is Engulf and Devour now. The current news is the Engulf part. The Devour part will come later. Hulu will be folded into Disney's upcoming streaming service which will be Good For Everybody. And if you think otherwise, then you are a Disney critic and if you hate Disney, then you are just plain un-American and deserve the worst possible fate.

(As to the copyright law sidetrack: follow the money. No one bribed donated like Disney to key congressmen.)
  #38  
Old 05-16-2019, 01:29 PM
ekedolphin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 4,887
No, if Hulu were engulfed into Disney+, there'd be no R-rated films on Hulu, because Disney has already stated that Disney+ won't have any.
  #39  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:05 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekedolphin View Post
No, if Hulu were engulfed into Disney+, there'd be no R-rated films on Hulu, because Disney has already stated that Disney+ won't have any.
Maybe Hulu will be part of a sister network, Disney++?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017