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.
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.
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.
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 Trek:Discovery” trial balloon could signal a cliff edge in how television entertainment is distributed.
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.
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.
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”).
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
In 1998, there were several companies comparable to Disney’s size and resources.
No, I don’t know that one way or another.
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.
That’s not evidence to support the assertion.
If it’s not true then, arguably, folks should stop asserting it. I’m asking for evidence that it’s true.
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.
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.
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.
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 [del]bribed[/del] donated like Disney to key congressmen.)
