Disney Ditching Netflix Keeps Piracy Relevant (torrentfreak.com) 263
Yesterday, Disney announced its intent to pull its movies from Netflix and start its own streaming service. This upset many users across the web as the whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes." TorrentFreak argues that "while Disney expects to profit from the strategy, more fragmentation is not ideal for the public" and that the move "keeps piracy relevant." From the report: Although Disney's decision may be good for Disney, a lot of Netflix users are not going to be happy. It likely means that they need another streaming platform subscription to get what they want, which isn't a very positive prospect. In piracy discussions, Hollywood insiders often stress that people have no reason to pirate, as pretty much all titles are available online legally. What they don't mention, however, is that users need access to a few dozen paid services, to access them all. In a way, this fragmentation is keeping the pirate ecosystems intact. While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.
Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix started becoming close to an end to piracy. They were getting a great selection of content (US still had a better selection than most) and I was happy to pay for it as I always found something to watch for a reasonable cost. Not that I watched Disney products but inevitably others are going to follow suit.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content. Suddenly it becomes less value for money. Piracy is looking appealing again...
Re:Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.
Re:Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shame (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding the other issue, of companies streaming content with fees, an alternative that works is advertising. Major networks like ABC and NBC and CBS and Fox all offer their broadcast programs on the internet for some weeks after the broadcast, and those streamed programs are interspersed with advertisements, just like the broadcasts. When we think about ancient TV programs that are still in syndication, broadcast still with interspersed commercials, it should be obvious that any content-production company should be able to offer its content via streaming practically forever (well, at least until it finally enters the public domain), if it always added some interspersed advertising. The companies would never need to charge viewers fees, but their programs would still be making money. And only the most die-hard of pirates would insist they have some kind of right to view commercial-free content.. Most folks are used to commercials, after all!
Re: (Score:2)
Hum Rudyard Kipling died in 1936 and Dinsey's Jungle Book was released in 1967. I must be missing something here about the copyright expiring. Now on the other hand if we where to talk about Pinocchio we would be on the mark. Here Dinsey waited just exactly the 50 years from the death of Carlo Collodi before bringing out their bastardised version.
My favourite idea is that any copyright extension is "retrospective". So if Disney want's more than 50 years better start paying a lot of money to the estate of Ca
Re:Shame (Score:4, Informative)
Hum Rudyard Kipling died in 1936 and Dinsey's Jungle Book was released in 1967. I must be missing something here about the copyright expiring
The Jungle Book was first published in 1894. The copyright laws of the time had a much shorter duration. If I remember correctly, it was 14 years from date of publication with the potential for one optional extension of another 14 years.
Disney's version was taken from the public domain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're saying a commercial empire that has entertained millions, employed millions and made millionaires was made possible by shorter copyright duration that what we have now?
The very company that is influential enough to extend copyright duration only exists because it was able to take advantage of shorter copyright terms?
public domain games (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright fee schedule (Score:2)
Copyright in the name of a corporation is good for 1 year, with infinite renewals at $100k per year (cumulitive), indexed to inflation. So, year one costs $100k. Year 10 of copyright costs $1M. Year 100 of copyright costs $10M.
Not expensive enough in my view though I think that's a fine fee schedule - much better than what we have now. I tend to favor starting the copyright cost at $100 (indexed for inflation) and then doubling the amount every year. Makes it fairly easy to keep a copyright for 10-15 years but after that it had better be worth a LOT of money. By year 25 you are into the billions. A few properties are worth that but not many. Your idea might be more likely to become reality than mine though...
Re: (Score:2)
Two 14 year terms from the date of publishing. You have to pay hard cash to renew it for the second 14 years.
I suggest ANNUAL renewal requirement. And: An ORIGINAL AUTHOR MUST COME IN PERSON to sign the renewal and pay a $50 fee from cash then and there On each individual item, with a limit of 2 works per visit and 3 visits per day -- No corporate representative (An actual person who was a principle direct creator of the work). No attorney, no appointed agent, unless the person proves the
Re: (Score:2)
Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.
Yep. If you want Disney, pirate it. They're dickheads who are fucking around with copyright law and public domain. Don't fund them.
Re:Shame (Score:4, Funny)
Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.
I pirated the last two star wars films from them and still felt ripped off. I'll probably pirate the new ones just to delete them.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.
An increasing number of ordinary people, far beyond the original 'hacker' culture, are coming to the same conclusion.
Re:Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.
You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been told several times on this site that no-one is owed anything (for example, poor people are not owed a way out of poverty). So surely that applies to content makers?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a particularly stupid strawman, and you know it.
You might as well try to argue it's fine to steal from retailers.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't assert that they're the same, I made an analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.
You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.
That would be me. I'd love to watch it, but I don't care about any of HBO's other offerings, and to me, it isn't worth spending $15 for a few episodes per year of a single TV show. If you don't want to watch HBO's other content, that comes to something like twenty bucks per episode, making it by far the most expensive TV show to watch in the entire history of TV.
I consider content sources in terms of the value per dollar. Netflix costs me... either $8 or $10 a month (I forget which) and provides content
Re: (Score:2)
Err... I meant $15 per month to get a few episodes per year (in case that wasn't obvious). $15 per year would still be too expensive, but not extortionately so.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be surprised if this is what Disney does. I subscribe to netflix and HBO, but I torrent all that Hulu crap because they insist on commercials.
F#)@ that noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu has a commercial free tier. It's an extra $4/month. But that's still less than HBO Go or 4K Netflix's subscription price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised you think that's cool. I'd be pretty peaved if someone stole my work.
If I made some work then purposefully removed it from the place where everyone can access it in order to put it in my own place (with only my own stuff) to make more money I wouldn't be surprised when no one turned up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you absolutely sure you didn't watch Disney stuff? Disney is more than their animated movies today - it's Star Wars, it's Pirates of the Caribbean, it's Marvel and all their shows. The list goes on. Disney is essentially an umbrella corporation today.
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy vs Disney (Score:3)
Netflix started becoming close to an end to piracy.
Hah! That's adorable if you actually believe that. While I agree that services like Netflix are probably making a dent, piracy is NEVER going to go away.
Not that I watched Disney products but inevitably others are going to follow suit.
Really? You didn't want any Marvel Cinematic Universe movies? No Star Wars? No Pixar? Touchstone Pictures? The Muppets? You realize all those are Disney properties, right? You'll forgive me if I don't actually believe you when you claim you don't watch any Disney products.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.
Agreed! I have zero interest in having twelve different subscriptions to var
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing, but I think that the reality is that a lot of the executives in the entertainment industry aren't actually very worried about piracy. They know it happens. They wish it didn't. They'll complain vocally about it. But it's not something that keeps them up at night.
The issue is control over distribution channels. Decades ago, studios were concerned that VHS sales would cut into theater ticket sales, and then that VHS rentals would cut into VHS sales. For a while, Disney even refused to rel
Re: (Score:3)
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.
That IS important, but there is another issue: Infrastructure and delivery.... Software on my set-top box devices ONLY supports Netflix, Youtube, and some other standardized apps.
So If I need to use a new streaming service, then you're basically saying I must chunk my set-top boxes and spend a few hundred $$$ on new ones...... that or stream from a media server such as Plex.
But if I go through all the trouble of ha
Greed!! (Score:5, Interesting)
No I will not paying for another streaming service. Good luck with that.
Re:Greed!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Kodi with a pirate plugin or a solution like it will win because because then its all in one place.
Re: (Score:2)
..or install another streaming application.
Or just take up a hobby in real life. You'll be much happier and more fulfilled with the added bonus of knowing that you're not contributing to media companies.
You will not have to (Score:3)
Netflix will fund a series of animated movies of all the classic children's tales, complete with music...
At some point they might even cross over and beat Disney on quality, not hard as Disney has been a mixed bag for a while. Some stuff is great but some of it mediocre.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney has always been mediocre, just the best that was available in English. At least until Pixar came along.
I LOVE MONOPOLIES! (Score:2)
Yeah!
I do not want to have to subscribe to another streaming service! I want all my videos in one service. Everyone else wants that too. Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content. I'm sure they would not overcharge us. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah!
I do not want to have to subscribe to another streaming service! I want all my videos in one service. Everyone else wants that too. Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content. I'm sure they would not overcharge us. What could possibly go wrong?
You don't need to have a single monopoly service, set up compulsory licensing laws similar to those used for music and then you can have many competing services and they all have access to the same content.
Subscribe to 6 streaming providers? (Score:3)
and you need to buy espn 5 times (HBO is on it's) (Score:2)
and you need to buy espn 5 times (HBO is on it's own).
Re: (Score:2)
Provide feedback to Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a bit hard to find a good place to provide feedback. Here is how I did it:
They responded to me by basically saying they were forwarding my comment to the appropriate person.
Re:Provide feedback to Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
It may go straight to File 13, but I wrote in too.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. You made it nice and easy to let them know what I want them to do instead.
Re:Provide feedback to Disney (Score:5, Funny)
monopoly is even more revevent for "piracy" (Score:3)
this post seems to have convoluted logic.
so called piracy is a function of cost to consumer. as long as searching and downloading, a delayed, usually not ideal, but good enough, quality media through a free resource in internet, is considered less costly, than alleged timeliness, convenience and quality of a subscription service, "piracy" will thrive.
while more subscription services, with separate exclusive offerings , can increase costs, they can also reduce costs.
they increase competition for none exclusive material, under competition, from others and "piracy".
they may offer plans based on actual quantity of downloads than duration of subscription(removing injustice of people with non very active subscriptions subsidizing more active ones),
etc.
Re: (Score:2)
while more subscription services, with separate exclusive offerings , can increase costs, they can also reduce costs.
they increase competition for none exclusive material, under competition, from others and "piracy".
they may offer plans based on actual quantity of downloads than duration of subscription(removing injustice of people with non very active subscriptions subsidizing more active ones),
etc.
Competition is good but that same "none exclusive material" means that most people are not going to subscribe to multiple channels. I think amazon probably has the winning strategy right now. Give away some titles for free to get people using your platform, allow you to add on additional channels for a small upcharge, and make almost everything available for a price. My only problem with amazon at the moment is their on demand price is still way too high. They have $4 rentals on movies that you can buy
Good, let it fragment more (Score:5, Interesting)
There's two alternatives here:
1) One or a few distribution companies manages to hit critical mass so everyone else "have to" be there. This is what happened with Spotify in the music business, who is now making a big squeeze play on the artists instead of the label.
2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.
I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.
Re: (Score:3)
2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.
I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.
Amazon is working on plan 2. They have recently started adding a bunch of add on subscriptions to their video offerings. They also have one of the broadest selection of on demand titles of any service. Their on demand is overpriced but it's nice to be able to have an almost one stop shop for movies.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the opposite of plan 2, this is consolidation under Amazon. If Amazon were pursuing plan 2 then they'd open their API to allow other services to include Amazon content. (probably with a requirement for reciprocation)
Yes, Amazon is pursuing plan 2 with it at the top. It would be much better if there was either a neutral party or competing parties at the top but there is no incentive at the moment for Amazon to do this. Best case scenerio at the moment would be if someone else starts following in Amazon's footsteps and then starz/disney/hbo/etc make their channels float. i.e. If I paid for starz on amazon then I get it for free on netflix.
Just let the cable and sat co give us more choice (Score:2)
Just let the cable and sat co give us more choice.
Why can't I buy my own hardware without high outlet fees or being forced to rent a card.
Why am I forced to pay up $7/mo for locals (on top of the base rate) when I can just pick them up on my own??
Why can't I just buy My local RSN and maybe NBCSN and maybe ESPN for the MNF (in season only) for My sports choices??
Buy most of the main basic non sports channels but not say Disney channel and the other kids channels?
at least you can get limited basic + HBO.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the cable model where you get to bundle a bunch of services together for once price.
Didn't we just bash the cable industry for bundling and demand they start making things availabl
Re: (Score:2)
What you say makes total sense, if you think that $200 is not a ridiculous amount to be paying for TV. Maybe we're spoiled in the UK, but here cable and satellite have to compete with Freeview - free OTA - which has 20-30 watchable (for varying degrees of watchable) channels.
I can't help thinking that too many people are now used to paying maybe $30 max for 2 or 3 streaming services, and will baulk at prices anywhere near the amount they used to pay for cable.
Disney sparks piracy? (Score:3)
For me, piracy is all about GoT, Doctor Who, BSG and the occasional college game - geeky or manly stuff that doesn't come with NetFlix. The NetFlix catalog itself is fine for background TV watching since I have better things to do than binge-watch anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
So for the next installment, it hits theaters, then it's on streaming for 3 months before the blueray comes out. Your kids see the advertisements that they can stream it every second of every day, and so goes the Disney marketing scheme. You sign up for the streaming platform, and a week later they take the movie off the stream rotation and put out the DVDs. And market that on the streaming platform.
It's fiendishly evil in its brilliance. Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that a lot of us out in meatspace, and even commonly on Slashdot, can grok multiple sources of input at once. Like "radio + reading email" at work. Or "talking with friends at a ballgame". This is similar.
The value just isn't there (Score:3)
Even if you like most Disney movies (and I do), there just isn't enough value being provided for a subscription costing 8-10 bucks a month. Even if we didn't already own most of the titles we care about - there just aren't that many to have it make sense for more than a month or two.
And that's ignoring the more recent news that they're looking at splitting their titles up between two or more services!
Seriously - we all know this channel will only offer just a few Disney movies at any one time, padded out with 24-hour access to That's So Raven And Boy Meets World.
Cable TV has been continually losing subscribers because of cost... TV and movies just aren't that important to most people. Disney and others seem to think those same people are going to come back in droves, throwing money at them - but that's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I own most of the Disney movies I actually like. I own, for example, the DVD of Aladdin. The only reason I'd watch it on Netflix would be if I wanted instant gratification to watch it on a whim and save the whole 60 seconds it would take to eject whatever disc is in the Playstation, walk over to the shelves, carry the DVD to the TV, and swap it in. I'm not going to pay an extra subscription to save that minute. Nor will I pay an extra fee for the availability of direct-to-video rubbish like Aladdi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, for quite a few years I've been running my own little streaming "server" on whatever surplus computer I have at the time... currently a 2006/7 MacBook Pro. My DVDs and Blu-Ray discs generally come out of their case just once (for ripping), then go into a box in the closet.
It doesn't take much computing power to stream movies and TV shows; and it certainly makes it easier to find a given movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As y
The Entitlement Mentality is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch. This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - I'm not, but the worst thing an individual can do is come out and say they are now going to start violating the legal rights of others because they don't want to pay for a f#@king Disney movie. Do these people even listen to themselves?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that.. but I don't think you understand the OP's thoughts. You have been paying for a subscription-based service (Netflix) that you have up to this point... have had access to content from the Disney network. Suddenly.. and without a refund from Netflix.. you find that the same content you've enjoyed for days/months/years is suddenly no longer available. Little did you know.. that the content owner decided that the Charlie Sheen-esque cocaine and hooker parties for the Disney elite were being imp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do these people even listen to themselves?
While I don't use pirate sites, I applaud those who do. Those are the people who put pressure on movie studios to bring the price of movies from $100+ down to $14.95.
Piracy is an important facet of the free market. It's an indicator that the seller's product is priced too high. Everything the seller does contributes to this indicator. It can be that the seller puts too many obstacles in place for paying customers to make use of the product, making the product less valuable, or any number of things that makes the cost exceed the worth. When this happens, piracy is the relief valve.
Disney is actively encouraging movie piracy by exiting Netflix, and this will bite them in the ass for years to come. I think the market for paid streaming services is near saturation, and Disney is too late to make much of an impact.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean not purchasing the product is a facet of the free market. That's like you
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily just priced too high - unavailable or difficult/inconvenient to get causes things to be pirated as well. When you look at the massive drop in piracy with the advent of paid streaming services, part of that is because it's just so much easier than torrenting, and more convenient than stockpiling CDs and DVDs. Price is definitely a driving factor, but convenience is a big one as well.
Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
when people feel that they are constantly cheated and lied to, well, they start to lose faith in the system. when they are fucked repeatedly, they just say 'the hell with it' and do whatever they feel like.
the companies have had control for WAY too long and there is no balance. we still have DRM and all that goes with it.
I don't weep one bit for media companies. they are all thieves and so if we are 'thieves', we have at least created our own form of balance.
I sleep well at night. and I pirate. if you don't, that's you; but I'm going to do what I want, when the power brokers all seem to tilt the rules their way.
treat me fair, I'll treat you fair. treat me like shit and you'll get the same back at you.
and its not about entitlement. unless, of course, you mean the mega corps who think they have a RIGHT to keep charging rent over and over again for the right to view or hear things.
fuck them. I weep not one tear for the rich .1% who own everything and keep it all to themselves.
yes, its gotton to this. and it will get worse, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, 'tit-for-tat' turns out to be a deeply instinctual primate behaviour.
In fact, it's more like 'two tits per tat'. We like to punish people who we view as having violated the perceived rules, even at our own expense.
So... having been used and abused by media for as long as we can recall, lots of us have no qualms at all about stealing even if we suspected it would drive the big content producers to bankruptcy. We'd probably celebrate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch.
I don't think the point of the article is 'entitlement' exactly, or that there are a whole lot of people who don't believe that there is an equilibrium to be had between fairly compensating content producers for desirable content, so long as that content is actually accessible.
This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.
And nobody is comparing it to that scenario. Movie piracy has been a byproduct of selling movies for home viewing since the inception of the industry. At first it was kept somewhat in check based on the fact that it required organized
And gets even worse.. (Score:2)
As the disney streaming service will be available only in 2019, which is basically 2 years of not having any sort of streaming service with disney movies.
This feels sorta like Flexplay (Score:2)
It's not a completely valid comparison, but this feels like when Disney decided not to release their materials on DVD when it became available, choosing the self-destructing dvd variant Flexplay instead. I believe the motivation at the time was protecting Disney IP by not allowing content on digital media that presumably could be ripped with no loss of quality. (Which admittedly turned out to be true.)
This move simply seems like a money grab, giving Disney the entire profit from the streaming service, rat
Suits me (Score:2)
I don't watch Disney, haven't since the 70s. If it keeps my Netflix cost down then that is great news.
Now make the disney channel premium and ESPN (Score:2)
Now make the disney channel premium and let ESPN be put into the sports pack on cable and sat.
Don't need ESPN for local NFL games / and all NHL games.
Disney not enough to be worthwhile for me (Score:2)
While there are some complaints, generally Netflix is good enough for me, and unless that changes then it will be the only one I have.
I watch some Disney stuff. Not a lot though, so not enough to justify a subscription with them, so they lose all income from me if they are not on Netflix.
I think a lot of fragmentation will cause many people to feel the same way, and they will either not watch the stuff that is pulled from Netflix (or whatever ONE or TWO they choose to subscribe to), or they will infringe. T
Here's hoping... (Score:2)
they take the /. dupes with them. ;)
Joss Whedon's shit is gone, fuck them (Score:2)
on point (Score:2)
Not happening (Score:2)
First of all, I'm not paying for more than one streaming service.
Secondly, I'm in Canada so choices are already extremely limited.
Thirdly - is that even a word? - I'm pretty sure we won't get a Disney stream service in Canada and Disney will pull their content from Netflix Canada on top of that, totally screwing everyone of us.
What I find curious (Score:2)
Is the amount of people who seem to think they have a RIGHT to access media content they want, in a way they want and feel justified taking it for free if their conditions are not met. Nobody owes you anything. You are free to vote with your wallet, but not to vote by committing copyright infrigement.
Universal licensing (Score:2)
whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes."
This is another case of companies just not understanding the internet. They use a completely different, and frustrating, business model to distribute something online rather than retail.
Pick any movie studio. There are probably 1000 stores that sell DVDs for that movie studio. Target, Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, FYE, Barnes and Noble, etc. And the price is almost the same. We take this for granted: It is in the best interest of the studio to sell their product at as many retailers as possible.
But yo
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy isn't the reason they play these licensing games. The pirated content came from the DVDs and Blu-Rays.
more fragmentation is not ideal for the public (Score:2)
I would say that a monopoly would be even worse.
Netflix is just a middle man. The best would be an open source platform where content creators could publish their content and they would decide the pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
/ me? Wait till it comes out on DVD
Re:70s (Score:5, Informative)
> You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.
It's pretty common for public libraries to have DVDs. If your library doesn't have a title, ask about an intra-library loan.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.
Libraries that have DVDs are not rare. The library here has some though the selection is definitely not great and certainly does not include StarWars (too popular / not intellectual enough). It's also not free (unless you have low revenue): it costs 5€ per *year* for unlimited books, CDs and DVDs (the only limitation being on the number of simultaneous items).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they have - that's a ridiculous statement. The 70s was Disney's dark-ages phase where they had decided that animation was too expensive, so they gave us cheap live action crap like Herbie Rides Again, The Apple Dumpling Gang, The Shaggy D.A., and Freaky Friday. Since the 70s, we've had movies like Tron, Watcher in the Woods, and the resurgence of feature animations, starting with The Little Mermaid. Add in Touchstone pictures, and you've got a lot of great movies (like The Nightmare Before Chri
Re: (Score:2)
Inside Out was made by Pixar, a Disney subsidiary. Inside Out is one of the coolest movies I've seen in the last few years.
Hate 'em, but there are some brains over there, somewhere. They just need to get more serious about trying to sell to customers instead of making piracy be everyone's best solution. This current story, alas, does not sound like a step in that direction.
Just sell the fucking files. Future analysts are going to be asking, "Why did they wait so long? Why did they get everyone habituated
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh come on then, let's have it. Explain to us all how refusal to pay is what puts coin in their coffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Which indeed translate to revenue... provided people aren't pirating.
Re: (Score:2)
Not clicking your links for obvious reasons, but that is some impressively crazy shit. Well done you. 4.5 straightjackets out of 5 from me.
Surprisingly the links are legit. If you want some light up shoes then go right ahead. I mean, I assume you're not 5 years old so I don't know why you would but there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would/should/could this be government? A private intermediary would be far effective, better yet several competing based on price and/or quality of service
Because a private intermediary would do as little as possible while charging as much as it can get away with and then take bungs in order to place specific content in more advantageous slots. Nothing for the benefit of the general public should be run by a private company. Ask the internet how that works out.