12 ms·

Disney Is Placing Classic Fox Movies into Its Vault

144 points by auxym 7y ago

rurban 7y ago
They are preparing for their Disney+ streaming launch, so that they can sell their assets over that platform, to punish commercial screenings. Or better, to enhance their value there. Normally it would be a stupid idea, because their Fox archive which is worth several billions is suddenly worth nothing,. It's about a fifth of the worlds films disappearing. But they are betting big on streaming, to kill Netflix. Which will not happen, it just hurts users.
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  And this is where it gets into competition law. If Disney won't allow Amazon and Netflix to screen Disney and Fox films I would hope they are big enough to litigate...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And how would you feel if AWS sued ElasticCo or Mongo for not allowing it to distribute the full version of their software?
    - jimnotgym 7y ago
      I would feel it had no chance of succeeding. If both those organisations closed shop there are still other pieces of software to sell. It would be more akin to stoping them have Linux.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        And if Disney closed shop Netflix would still have content to sell. Do you think Netflix is going to go out of business once all Disney content is removed?
        phlakaton 7y ago
        If others follow suit, bailing out to their own proprietary online streaming services, and Netflix is left with only its original content, I would indeed see dim prospects for it. Netflix's own content is IMO not strong enough to sustain it.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I thought the entire idea of the Internet was “disintermediation” where you could go directly to the consumer? Now we want to force middlemen into the equation? Would you also be okay of indie artists couldn’t exclusively sell their own content on their own website? Should Netflix also not be allowed to have Netflix exclusives? Let’s take it one step further, should Apple not be allowed to sell their OS only with their own hardware? What about the consoles? Do you really want the government to get involved in all of those situations?
        phlakaton 7y ago
        The "entire idea" of the Internet, as far as I'm concerned, is computers talking to each other over a common network. The rest is all crap we made up to layer over it. Both disintermediation and aggregation have been essential forces in the information culture built upon the Internet from the early days. Both serve an useful purpose, and both have their dark sides as well. Netflix is of course free to make and sell their own content how they wish, as is Disney. But the value proposition of Netflix started with syndicated content, and that proposition is diminished the less you find such content on it. At some point, you have to ask whether it's still worth the monthly subscription, or if you should take your money over to the other streaming services instead – each with its own slightly different and uniquely-broken interface, I should add.
        jimnotgym 7y ago
        I have to agree. The problem is Disney (a very large provider) purchased Fox (another larger provider), and then proceeded to stop supplying third parties. Perhaps not in present day USA, but in Europe this may be seen as monopolistic behaviour. Take the example of Rupert Murdoch himself, he tried to purchase the remaining stake in BSKYB on several occasions and was blocked by the reglator who felt that plurality in the media is important. Often you make unterakings to the regulator that you will not shut out third-parties like Disney alledgedly have, in order that you can get the merger sanctioned.
cbanek 7y ago
As someone who has loved going to see "classic" movies in the theater, it's a different experience than watching them at home. I'm not going to the theater because I don't have the movie, but because I want to see it on the big screen, with other people, and get that movie experience. For movies that came out before my time, it's been amazing. For example, I've seen Wrath of Khan so many times at home, but it was nowhere as good as seeing it on the big screen. I wonder what the numbers say on how many people won't buy a movie or stream it just because their theater decides to show it (and usually it's a very short run, like a one night or weekend).
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  Have you ever considered simply buying an HD/4K projector, a decent-quality screen, and a surround-sound setup? If you have a good-sized living room, then the resulting experience is so comparable to a cinema that I personally have never felt inclined to pay for a film at the cinema for the seven years now that I have owned this home setup. Yes, you won't be able to watch it with a set of strangers around you, but I imagine many people would consider that a downside of the cinema, not a plus.
  - JansjoFromIkea 7y ago
    I had all of that in my last place (quite hackily assembled). Honestly though you'll still have issues with the walls reflecting to much light and stuff like that. HOWEVER, the major downside in comparison to a cinema is that there's nothing stopping me from pulling out my phone, or keeping my notifications on, or pausing it to go do something else. The level of immersion in a difficult to watch film can be totally destroyed (e.g. good luck trying to sit through the Turin Horse in your living room, the mood of the film will be totally destroyed by a few pauses).
    - commoner 7y ago
      That downside can be resolved by turning your phone off or putting it in another room while the film is playing.
    - 7y ago
tsherr 7y ago
Disney has always been a corrosive force on our culture. They've taken our cultural myths in the form of fairy tales and damaged them beyond repair. Profit over everything is Disney's approach. The more they own the worse it will get.
- echelon 7y ago
  There's no precedent for breaking up a media company for monopolizing popular culture. But perhaps there should be. Disney owns way too much. They can bully theater chains to show their films on as many screens as they want for as long as they desire, and then they take a lion's share of the revenue. Disney can print money from all of the licensing, which isn't a problem save for the fact other entrants have a huge hurdle to overcome to get shelf space. They water down their content for mass appeal, so it isn't artistically interesting. They also appease foreign governments like China. Again, it wouldn't be a problem if they weren't strong arming others out of the limited theater space. Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( Disney is ridiculous. I say this despite the fact that I have a good bit of stock in the company.
  - vertoc 7y ago
    > Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( It actually is going to be fantastic as a consumer. Since people are cutting cable and going to Netflix, the money for content has to come from somewhere - it’s not sustainable to get unlimited quality content for everyone for $12/mo. If new streaming services didn’t appear, the only new content we would eventually have would be Netflix Originals - and if that’s all you want, you can continue just subscribing to Netflix! With Disney+ and others, it gives companies incentives to create great new content. There’s no chance we would have gotten say, the Mandalorian, on Netflix
    - echelon 7y ago
      Not if you like just one show on each streaming platform. Pay five times and navigate between five different interfaces. And they will have different scroll directions and organizational paradigms. And the ability to cancel anytime is not a perk. For people with ADHD it's a nightmare. There needs to be a Spotify for entertainment.
dangus 7y ago
It’s not really worrying. Disney owns the films. They don’t have to distribute them at all, and in this case, they’ve determined it that the money they’ll make from an independent theater is smaller than the money they’ll make distributing another way, or perhaps not distributing at all for the time being. I recently contacted a student artist to ask to buy a print of a work they posted on an art forum. I had no particular limit to my budget. The artist said no. You know what I can do about it? Absolutely nothing. It doesn’t matter how badly I want that piece in my home.
- drtillberg 7y ago
  A business practice of refusing to make key cultural works available to the public-- this is on par with patent trolling. I don't debate their legal right to do it. It's still surprising and another reason to criticize both their business model and the current incarnation of copyright law, which this company had a significant role in creating.
  - kiba 7y ago
    There's almost nothing we can do about it, though. Nobody cares enough to force congress to reverse direction on copyright laws. However, individuals and companies can contribute to the public domain. That is something we can do regardless of what the current copyright law is.
    - drtillberg 7y ago
      Patent trolling, for example, is less profitable due to reforms around the edges. We've seen an almost shocking level of legal innovation in many backwaters, from pot to legal opiod to climate change. The ground is shifting and a company that controls 40% of the nationwide market for anything is (or ought to be) subject to a higher standard.
    - nobodyandproud 7y ago
      We can change the laws. We just need enough people to make a fuss about it. This is a major misstep by Disney, because it the crosses over to the older generation. Best to spread the word.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
I believe Mickey Mouse law must be curtailed. Copyright is retained for no more than 20 years after movie is released, then it transitions to public domain. In return, I can agree for a copyright for different merchandise to last indefinitely. Then, there are books. I don't really know what to do with them. Since books are work of a much smaller group of people (most often, 1 person), maybe it's ok for them to retain rights till their deaths.
- lazulicurio 7y ago
  That's pretty much the position that I've come to concerning copyright. Individual works last 20 years or until the first author's death, whichever is greater. The rights are assignable but non-transferable. Corporate works last 20 years. The rights are transferable. Then patents, NDAs, and non-competes are a whole other issue to resolve.
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  > till their deaths When you want to use some work it can be a hardship to tell if the author is dead. Fixed expiration time is much better.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    I've never understood what the creator's death has to do with copyright anyway. You've already written the work; why should it matter to copyright law if you were young or old when you did so, or whether or not you got really unlucky immediately afterwards in getting run over by a bus?
    - JKCalhoun 7y ago
      Probably something to do with making a living off the fruits of your genuis/labor?
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      Because copyright is artificial, and the only reason that we grant it to artists is so that the artists may make money and thus more art. The interest of the public domain far outweighs any imagined right of relatives of the artist to make money; it's not like they're automatically artists themselves.
thrower123 7y ago
There needs to be an end to copyright on this historical material. If I was going to be very generous, I'd make copyright have a maximum of 50 years. Twenty is probably more reasonable. It's ridiculous that Steamboat Willie is always going to be the cutoff between public domain and oblivion in dusty forgotten copyright hell.
- esarbe 7y ago
  It's ridiculous that this post is down voted.
zokier 7y ago
People bring up copyright, and its length, here but one critical point is that even if the movies would transition to public domain, that still would not release them from Disneys vault. Instead it would likely mean that Disney would exhort even tighter control over the copies. And make no mistake thinking that Disney would be completely clawless without copyright.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Once a work enters public domain, it would be legal to distribute copies of the media, no?
  - mthoms 7y ago
    Thanks to lobbying by Disney, this has long been a continuously moving target[0]. Thankfully, efforts to extend the period yet again have failed[1], so the original incarnation of Mickey will enter the public domain in 2023. But the damage has been done. After a certain period, older works just naturally loose their cultural relevance. Disney's main characters being the obvious exception but there's been (and will be) tons of collateral damage. IMHO, it's disgusting what they've done. [0] https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/ https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-cop... [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-wo...
- est31 7y ago
  Indeed. Even if they lended you their copies, they'd add clauses to the lease contract banning you from creating copies. Similar to how China lends its pandas to zoos all over the world but any babies must be sent to China. Another example is museums which ban you from taking pictures of paintings that are already out of copyright. There is a story about someone who has taken pictures anyways and uploaded them to Wikipedia. The museum sued Wikipedia and the court ruled in favour of the museum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiss_Engelhorn_Museum#Wikimedia_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiss_Engelhorn_Museum#Wikimed...
- twic 7y ago
wheaties 7y ago
I remember going to see films at The Little. Man, that brings back memories. I hope they can survive this.
- mmmBacon 7y ago
  Me too. It’s a great theater and an important cultural institution in Rochester.
areoform 7y ago
Every citizen should be taught the history of anti-trust and labor law in the United States. These events have already unfolded in our past. Their consequences have already been dealt with by American society in 1946 - 1948. In two landmark anti-trust cases, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. and Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. The first one is more famous, but the second one is directly applicable as it dealt with the inverse of Disney's current modus operandi - the restriction of first-time screenings to theaters owned by the studio, The gist of the complaint was that, by reason of an unlawful conspiracy of the respondents, petitioners were prevented from securing pictures -for exhibition in their theatre until after the preferred exhibitors had been able to show them in earlier and more desirable runs, and that petitioners were thus discriminated against in the distribution of feature films in favor of competing theatres owned or controlled by some of the respondents. The matter before the court was the lower courts judgement and the damages awared to the petitioner. The lower court had found that an unlawful conspiracy existed and used a rough approximation to derive the damages, ...evidence was introduced in the course of the trial tending to show that respondents conspired to maintain the release system as part of a conspiracy to maintain minimum admission prices to be charged by exhibitors generally. This proof indicated that the object of this conspiracy was to make it possible to maintain high admission prices in the Loop theatres by restricting the price competition of the subsequent-run theatres. The distributors' contracts with the Loop theatres provided for film rentals based on a percentage of the admission fees collected. It appeared that the rental contracts entered into between respondent distributors and the Chicago exhibitors, including respondent exhibitors and petitioners, uniformly contained schedules of minimum admission prices fixed on the basis of the playing position assigned. There was thus evidence tending to show that the release system and the price-fixing system were each an integral part of an unlawful conspiracy to give to the Loop theatres the advantages of a first-run protected from low-price competition. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this as being too vague, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision because, ...it is impossible to establish any measure of damage, because the unlawful system which respondents have created has precluded petitioners from showing that other conditions affecting profits would have continued without change unfavorable to them during the critical period if that system had not been established, and petitioners had conducted their business in a free competitive market. - http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep327/usrep327251/usrep327251.pdf Disney should be held to the same standard. They have caused irreparable harm to the industry through their predatory actions and monopolistic behavior. A future where Disney controls the entertainment industry is a future without a free, fair and functioning market.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jdkee 7y ago
The U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, aka the "Mickey Mouse" Act, is an outrageous piece of legislation. The law effectively denigrated the public welfare and reduced the public domain for the benefit of a few corporations. It should be undone.
- teh_klev 7y ago
  The article isn't about copyright. It's about a change in distribution and access rights to Fox's back catalogue of movies since Disney bought Fox which is harming smaller cinema house operators.
  - whateveracct 7y ago
    Some of the movies mentioned are well over 50 years old though, so copyright is a root cause even if it isn't the root cause.
    - teh_klev 7y ago
      > so copyright is a root cause even if it isn't the root cause. That assertion makes absolutely no sense. Fifty years isn't a huge amount of time and the bulk of Fox's catalogue (that's actually interesting, well for me anyway) is younger than that so your copyright argument doesn't stand up. To re-iterate, this article is about restricting access to cinemas to play these movies in their theatres. The distribution format for cinemas and their equipment is, as far as I know, somewhat different from buying a DVD or BluRay off of Amazon. Even a ten year copyright period wouldn't solve the problem of the studios withholding the technical formats that are needed for their content to be played in a theatre. They simply don't have to give that up. Personally I don't have a problem with studios owning the copyright for say 75 years, that seems like a fair amount of time...provided the studio's play fair with access to their content. Sure what Disney are doing is a shitty thing, but it's certainly not as simple as claiming that reforming the copyright rules would solve this.
      - beerandt 7y ago
fortyseven 7y ago
As always, those trying to play within the law get screwed over. Meanwhile pirates fart, chuckle a bit at it all, and go back to sleep.
diggernet 7y ago
We need compulsory licensing at a statutory rate for movies and tv shows. Fine, give them absolute control and negotiated rates for the first decade. But after that, let anyone show them for a reasonable fixed rate without needing to arrange explicit permission. It works for music. That way, all streaming services would have full access to all back catalogs, and could compete on price, features, catalog size, etc. Not the current situation where they need in-house originals and exclusive arrangements, and many many shows are simply unavailable for any price.

144 points by auxym 7y ago

They are preparing for their Disney+ streaming launch, so that they can sell their assets over that platform, to punish commercial screenings. Or better, to enhance their value there. Normally it would be a stupid idea, because their Fox archive which is worth several billions is suddenly worth nothing,. It's about a fifth of the worlds films disappearing. But they are betting big on streaming, to kill Netflix. Which will not happen, it just hurts users.

jimnotgym 7y ago
And this is where it gets into competition law. If Disney won't allow Amazon and Netflix to screen Disney and Fox films I would hope they are big enough to litigate...
- scarface74 7y ago
  And how would you feel if AWS sued ElasticCo or Mongo for not allowing it to distribute the full version of their software?
  - jimnotgym 7y ago
    I would feel it had no chance of succeeding. If both those organisations closed shop there are still other pieces of software to sell. It would be more akin to stoping them have Linux.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And if Disney closed shop Netflix would still have content to sell. Do you think Netflix is going to go out of business once all Disney content is removed?
      - phlakaton 7y ago
        If others follow suit, bailing out to their own proprietary online streaming services, and Netflix is left with only its original content, I would indeed see dim prospects for it. Netflix's own content is IMO not strong enough to sustain it.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I thought the entire idea of the Internet was “disintermediation” where you could go directly to the consumer? Now we want to force middlemen into the equation? Would you also be okay of indie artists couldn’t exclusively sell their own content on their own website? Should Netflix also not be allowed to have Netflix exclusives? Let’s take it one step further, should Apple not be allowed to sell their OS only with their own hardware? What about the consoles? Do you really want the government to get involved in all of those situations?
        phlakaton 7y ago
        The "entire idea" of the Internet, as far as I'm concerned, is computers talking to each other over a common network. The rest is all crap we made up to layer over it. Both disintermediation and aggregation have been essential forces in the information culture built upon the Internet from the early days. Both serve an useful purpose, and both have their dark sides as well. Netflix is of course free to make and sell their own content how they wish, as is Disney. But the value proposition of Netflix started with syndicated content, and that proposition is diminished the less you find such content on it. At some point, you have to ask whether it's still worth the monthly subscription, or if you should take your money over to the other streaming services instead – each with its own slightly different and uniquely-broken interface, I should add.
        jimnotgym 7y ago
        I have to agree. The problem is Disney (a very large provider) purchased Fox (another larger provider), and then proceeded to stop supplying third parties. Perhaps not in present day USA, but in Europe this may be seen as monopolistic behaviour. Take the example of Rupert Murdoch himself, he tried to purchase the remaining stake in BSKYB on several occasions and was blocked by the reglator who felt that plurality in the media is important. Often you make unterakings to the regulator that you will not shut out third-parties like Disney alledgedly have, in order that you can get the merger sanctioned.

cbanek 7y ago

As someone who has loved going to see "classic" movies in the theater, it's a different experience than watching them at home. I'm not going to the theater because I don't have the movie, but because I want to see it on the big screen, with other people, and get that movie experience. For movies that came out before my time, it's been amazing. For example, I've seen Wrath of Khan so many times at home, but it was nowhere as good as seeing it on the big screen. I wonder what the numbers say on how many people won't buy a movie or stream it just because their theater decides to show it (and usually it's a very short run, like a one night or weekend).

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
Have you ever considered simply buying an HD/4K projector, a decent-quality screen, and a surround-sound setup? If you have a good-sized living room, then the resulting experience is so comparable to a cinema that I personally have never felt inclined to pay for a film at the cinema for the seven years now that I have owned this home setup. Yes, you won't be able to watch it with a set of strangers around you, but I imagine many people would consider that a downside of the cinema, not a plus.
- JansjoFromIkea 7y ago
  I had all of that in my last place (quite hackily assembled). Honestly though you'll still have issues with the walls reflecting to much light and stuff like that. HOWEVER, the major downside in comparison to a cinema is that there's nothing stopping me from pulling out my phone, or keeping my notifications on, or pausing it to go do something else. The level of immersion in a difficult to watch film can be totally destroyed (e.g. good luck trying to sit through the Turin Horse in your living room, the mood of the film will be totally destroyed by a few pauses).
  - commoner 7y ago
    That downside can be resolved by turning your phone off or putting it in another room while the film is playing.
  - 7y ago

tsherr 7y ago

Disney has always been a corrosive force on our culture. They've taken our cultural myths in the form of fairy tales and damaged them beyond repair. Profit over everything is Disney's approach. The more they own the worse it will get.

echelon 7y ago
There's no precedent for breaking up a media company for monopolizing popular culture. But perhaps there should be. Disney owns way too much. They can bully theater chains to show their films on as many screens as they want for as long as they desire, and then they take a lion's share of the revenue. Disney can print money from all of the licensing, which isn't a problem save for the fact other entrants have a huge hurdle to overcome to get shelf space. They water down their content for mass appeal, so it isn't artistically interesting. They also appease foreign governments like China. Again, it wouldn't be a problem if they weren't strong arming others out of the limited theater space. Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( Disney is ridiculous. I say this despite the fact that I have a good bit of stock in the company.
- vertoc 7y ago
  > Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( It actually is going to be fantastic as a consumer. Since people are cutting cable and going to Netflix, the money for content has to come from somewhere - it’s not sustainable to get unlimited quality content for everyone for $12/mo. If new streaming services didn’t appear, the only new content we would eventually have would be Netflix Originals - and if that’s all you want, you can continue just subscribing to Netflix! With Disney+ and others, it gives companies incentives to create great new content. There’s no chance we would have gotten say, the Mandalorian, on Netflix
  - echelon 7y ago
    Not if you like just one show on each streaming platform. Pay five times and navigate between five different interfaces. And they will have different scroll directions and organizational paradigms. And the ability to cancel anytime is not a perk. For people with ADHD it's a nightmare. There needs to be a Spotify for entertainment.

dangus 7y ago

It’s not really worrying. Disney owns the films. They don’t have to distribute them at all, and in this case, they’ve determined it that the money they’ll make from an independent theater is smaller than the money they’ll make distributing another way, or perhaps not distributing at all for the time being. I recently contacted a student artist to ask to buy a print of a work they posted on an art forum. I had no particular limit to my budget. The artist said no. You know what I can do about it? Absolutely nothing. It doesn’t matter how badly I want that piece in my home.

drtillberg 7y ago
A business practice of refusing to make key cultural works available to the public-- this is on par with patent trolling. I don't debate their legal right to do it. It's still surprising and another reason to criticize both their business model and the current incarnation of copyright law, which this company had a significant role in creating.
- kiba 7y ago
  There's almost nothing we can do about it, though. Nobody cares enough to force congress to reverse direction on copyright laws. However, individuals and companies can contribute to the public domain. That is something we can do regardless of what the current copyright law is.
  - drtillberg 7y ago
    Patent trolling, for example, is less profitable due to reforms around the edges. We've seen an almost shocking level of legal innovation in many backwaters, from pot to legal opiod to climate change. The ground is shifting and a company that controls 40% of the nationwide market for anything is (or ought to be) subject to a higher standard.
  - nobodyandproud 7y ago
    We can change the laws. We just need enough people to make a fuss about it. This is a major misstep by Disney, because it the crosses over to the older generation. Best to spread the word.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

I believe Mickey Mouse law must be curtailed. Copyright is retained for no more than 20 years after movie is released, then it transitions to public domain. In return, I can agree for a copyright for different merchandise to last indefinitely. Then, there are books. I don't really know what to do with them. Since books are work of a much smaller group of people (most often, 1 person), maybe it's ok for them to retain rights till their deaths.

lazulicurio 7y ago
That's pretty much the position that I've come to concerning copyright. Individual works last 20 years or until the first author's death, whichever is greater. The rights are assignable but non-transferable. Corporate works last 20 years. The rights are transferable. Then patents, NDAs, and non-competes are a whole other issue to resolve.
jimhefferon 7y ago
> till their deaths When you want to use some work it can be a hardship to tell if the author is dead. Fixed expiration time is much better.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  I've never understood what the creator's death has to do with copyright anyway. You've already written the work; why should it matter to copyright law if you were young or old when you did so, or whether or not you got really unlucky immediately afterwards in getting run over by a bus?
  - JKCalhoun 7y ago
    Probably something to do with making a living off the fruits of your genuis/labor?
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Because copyright is artificial, and the only reason that we grant it to artists is so that the artists may make money and thus more art. The interest of the public domain far outweighs any imagined right of relatives of the artist to make money; it's not like they're automatically artists themselves.

thrower123 7y ago

There needs to be an end to copyright on this historical material. If I was going to be very generous, I'd make copyright have a maximum of 50 years. Twenty is probably more reasonable. It's ridiculous that Steamboat Willie is always going to be the cutoff between public domain and oblivion in dusty forgotten copyright hell.

esarbe 7y ago
It's ridiculous that this post is down voted.

zokier 7y ago

People bring up copyright, and its length, here but one critical point is that even if the movies would transition to public domain, that still would not release them from Disneys vault. Instead it would likely mean that Disney would exhort even tighter control over the copies. And make no mistake thinking that Disney would be completely clawless without copyright.

saagarjha 7y ago
Once a work enters public domain, it would be legal to distribute copies of the media, no?
- mthoms 7y ago
  Thanks to lobbying by Disney, this has long been a continuously moving target[0]. Thankfully, efforts to extend the period yet again have failed[1], so the original incarnation of Mickey will enter the public domain in 2023. But the damage has been done. After a certain period, older works just naturally loose their cultural relevance. Disney's main characters being the obvious exception but there's been (and will be) tons of collateral damage. IMHO, it's disgusting what they've done. [0] https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/ https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-cop... [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-wo...
est31 7y ago
Indeed. Even if they lended you their copies, they'd add clauses to the lease contract banning you from creating copies. Similar to how China lends its pandas to zoos all over the world but any babies must be sent to China. Another example is museums which ban you from taking pictures of paintings that are already out of copyright. There is a story about someone who has taken pictures anyways and uploaded them to Wikipedia. The museum sued Wikipedia and the court ruled in favour of the museum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiss_Engelhorn_Museum#Wikimedia_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiss_Engelhorn_Museum#Wikimed...
twic 7y ago

wheaties 7y ago

I remember going to see films at The Little. Man, that brings back memories. I hope they can survive this.

mmmBacon 7y ago
Me too. It’s a great theater and an important cultural institution in Rochester.

areoform 7y ago

Every citizen should be taught the history of anti-trust and labor law in the United States. These events have already unfolded in our past. Their consequences have already been dealt with by American society in 1946 - 1948. In two landmark anti-trust cases, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. and Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. The first one is more famous, but the second one is directly applicable as it dealt with the inverse of Disney's current modus operandi - the restriction of first-time screenings to theaters owned by the studio, The gist of the complaint was that, by reason of an unlawful conspiracy of the respondents, petitioners were prevented from securing pictures -for exhibition in their theatre until after the preferred exhibitors had been able to show them in earlier and more desirable runs, and that petitioners were thus discriminated against in the distribution of feature films in favor of competing theatres owned or controlled by some of the respondents. The matter before the court was the lower courts judgement and the damages awared to the petitioner. The lower court had found that an unlawful conspiracy existed and used a rough approximation to derive the damages, ...evidence was introduced in the course of the trial tending to show that respondents conspired to maintain the release system as part of a conspiracy to maintain minimum admission prices to be charged by exhibitors generally. This proof indicated that the object of this conspiracy was to make it possible to maintain high admission prices in the Loop theatres by restricting the price competition of the subsequent-run theatres. The distributors' contracts with the Loop theatres provided for film rentals based on a percentage of the admission fees collected. It appeared that the rental contracts entered into between respondent distributors and the Chicago exhibitors, including respondent exhibitors and petitioners, uniformly contained schedules of minimum admission prices fixed on the basis of the playing position assigned. There was thus evidence tending to show that the release system and the price-fixing system were each an integral part of an unlawful conspiracy to give to the Loop theatres the advantages of a first-run protected from low-price competition. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this as being too vague, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision because, ...it is impossible to establish any measure of damage, because the unlawful system which respondents have created has precluded petitioners from showing that other conditions affecting profits would have continued without change unfavorable to them during the critical period if that system had not been established, and petitioners had conducted their business in a free competitive market. - http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep327/usrep327251/usrep327251.pdf Disney should be held to the same standard. They have caused irreparable harm to the industry through their predatory actions and monopolistic behavior. A future where Disney controls the entertainment industry is a future without a free, fair and functioning market.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jdkee 7y ago

The U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, aka the "Mickey Mouse" Act, is an outrageous piece of legislation. The law effectively denigrated the public welfare and reduced the public domain for the benefit of a few corporations. It should be undone.

teh_klev 7y ago
The article isn't about copyright. It's about a change in distribution and access rights to Fox's back catalogue of movies since Disney bought Fox which is harming smaller cinema house operators.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  Some of the movies mentioned are well over 50 years old though, so copyright is a root cause even if it isn't the root cause.
  - teh_klev 7y ago
    > so copyright is a root cause even if it isn't the root cause. That assertion makes absolutely no sense. Fifty years isn't a huge amount of time and the bulk of Fox's catalogue (that's actually interesting, well for me anyway) is younger than that so your copyright argument doesn't stand up. To re-iterate, this article is about restricting access to cinemas to play these movies in their theatres. The distribution format for cinemas and their equipment is, as far as I know, somewhat different from buying a DVD or BluRay off of Amazon. Even a ten year copyright period wouldn't solve the problem of the studios withholding the technical formats that are needed for their content to be played in a theatre. They simply don't have to give that up. Personally I don't have a problem with studios owning the copyright for say 75 years, that seems like a fair amount of time...provided the studio's play fair with access to their content. Sure what Disney are doing is a shitty thing, but it's certainly not as simple as claiming that reforming the copyright rules would solve this.
    - beerandt 7y ago

fortyseven 7y ago

As always, those trying to play within the law get screwed over. Meanwhile pirates fart, chuckle a bit at it all, and go back to sleep.

diggernet 7y ago

We need compulsory licensing at a statutory rate for movies and tv shows. Fine, give them absolute control and negotiated rates for the first decade. But after that, let anyone show them for a reasonable fixed rate without needing to arrange explicit permission. It works for music. That way, all streaming services would have full access to all back catalogs, and could compete on price, features, catalog size, etc. Not the current situation where they need in-house originals and exclusive arrangements, and many many shows are simply unavailable for any price.