2 ms·
The next level will be to market these waivers. Companies the size of Disney are always expanding. The waivers are expanded into the larger footprint. So it m
by sandworm101 2y ago
The next level will be to market these waivers. Companies the size of Disney are always expanding. The waivers are expanded into the larger footprint. So it may be possible to market a signed waiver. Bring a company into an existing legal umbrella and the existing waiver can be extended. Someone with a substantial percentage of the population under an ironclad waiver, someone likely Disney, might actually be able to sell this as a service. It would be difficult to extend the waiver retroactively, but that too may be possible through a no-click update.
"To continue using disney+ you must agree this clause covering Disney and Disney partners. And fyi, those partners now include your local car dealer, the hospital that treated your broken leg, police officers, and every plumber in your state. All have paid a fee to be listed as a Disney partner. Don't like it? Well, I hope you kids don't like Star Wars."
- kube-system 2y agoI don't understand. If you like their waiver, copy and paste from here and replace Disney with your name: https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/subscriber-agreement https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/subscriber-agreement Or better, have your own lawyer write you an arbitration agreement.
- sandworm101 2y agoNo, I don't mean copy the waiver. I mean get your company into the existing Disney waivers so that everyone who has already clicked for Disney+ now also cannot sue your company. Imagine that Disney buys a competitor park. That park is now under the Disney waiver. But maybe the competitor park is not purchased but instead pays a fee to become a "Disney partner" and therefore enjoy the protections of Disney's extensive waiver scheme even if they have no real relationship with Disney.
- kube-system 2y agoSounds like a stretch in what would pass the doctrine of reasonable expectations.
- panzagl 2y agoOr else every chemical manufacturer launches/acquires a streaming service- can't wait to watch new shows on Roundup+ or AsbestosMax
- techjamie 2y agoIn this post: Wild, humorous speculation I wouldn't recommend anyone to attempt. If courts can't decide whether an arbitration agreement applies unless it goes to an arbitrator, then could I just say that I'm affiliated with Disney and then they have to get an arbitrator to decide I'm not affiliated with Disney? Or, if I were to subscribe to Disney Plus, could I use that as a basis to claim that I am affiliated by being a subscriber and therefore it requires arbitration? That is assuming that the plaintiff is a Disney+ subscriber.
- sandworm101 2y agoI think he wasn't actually a subscriber. I think he had just clicked the waiver for a one-month free trial. The lack of payment will likely be part of the court's decision.
- tln 2y agoI'm sure this is common practice, but Disney presumably has copyright on their waiver, so "copy and paste" would have risks
- kube-system 2y agoThat's entirely true; I was speaking a bit metaphorically. Even if copyright isn't a concern, picking contracts off the internet isn't a great idea, because they might not apply to your situation they way you think they might. People really should engage the services of a lawyer to formulate contracts for them.
- danaris 2y agoI mean, there's a very straightforward way to have that work for you: Just get bought by Disney. I'm sure Disney would be happy to control more parts of the world, too. Everybody[0] wins! [0] "Everybody" includes only those under Disney's corporate umbrella. No consideration is given to the welfare of the rest of the world. Winning void where prohibited. All rights reserved, including yours.