Earlier quoted context omitted.
Market freedom leads to consolidation which leads to the exact opposite of competition. This is why the United States, contrary to popular opinion, is not a purely capitalist nation; it is instead a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. Reasonable regulation protects the free market.
Its simply false that market freedom always leads to consolidation. There is a very complex interplay between transaction cost, information problems, scaling economics and so on. You are just throwing out populist phrases because they sound good. The solution is not to declare some kind of neo-progressive trust busting but locking at individual industries and figuring out why they are consolidating and if it will be…
Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
111–120 of 362 posts
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really makes that seem like a simpler time when the concern of the day was that your OS came with an integrated browser.
You make it sound like having a single proprietary browser as the standard for browsing the web is a minor concern. Can you imagine if nowadays anybody who's not using IE/Edge was a 2nd class citizen on the web, not able to access most content? Remember the days of flash? For one thing it would've hurt massively the development of non-MS smartphones. Nowadays Chrome seems to be the new IE but at least they're a bit m…
eeeeeh
"Google Chrome is required to run the new Google Earth. Please try this link in Chrome. Learn more."
"Launching the new Allo Web, only available in Chrome."
"Launching Google Inbox Beta, only available in Chrome."
Granted, Allo and Inbox and the new YouTube design are now available in Firefox, but with artificial performance limitations. Also, even versions of Firefox that support U2F are unable to log into Google with it, because Google sniffs the User Agent.
Additionally, half of Google’s mobile websites are unusable, or haven’t been updated since before the 2013 redesign, on Firefox mobile.
"Best Viewed in Internet Explorer" is back in full swing.
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#113Sane antitrust regulations should kill this deal. It is bad for everybody other than shareholders of those two companies. In particular bad for customers, other companies and employees: https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172555... https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are...
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's bad that Disney protects things like Mickey Mouse and all of their old IPs. It's not just shareholders, there's a lot of people whose jobs depend on Disney being able to make money from these historic IPs. And I think it's fine that they keep it, it doesn't really hurt anyone. The problem is the easiest way to protect this is by having Congress extend the copyright law duration on all copyrighted w…
Letting only unused IP go to public domain is completely contrary to the stated goals of the constitution. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Much of our creative works and culture are driven by building on top of what came before. The asinine length of copyright we have today mean…
But they keep buying up alllllll the popular IP....so that kind of doesn't really work now.
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#115https://youtu.be/PXBJIZ1NXFU (Epic Rap Battles of History, Stan Lee vs Jim Henson) Whole video is good imo, but skip to around 2:06 onwards for the relevant bit. Sums up the feeling nicely I think.
Awesome episode this one. It looked to be ending at a nice amicable juncture and then the epic sinister twist. It's mind blowing how many properties Disney owns.
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#116So along with Disney pulling all their titles from Netflix for their own streaming service, I guess the FX content will be next to go from Netflix.
Oh it's crazy how much stuff Disney can pull off Netflix, I don't know if they will, because it's in their interest to have some stuff accessible over more than one place, but they own ABC (Lost, Castle, Firefly, etc), ESPN, Marvel, LucasArts, now Fox and their assets, not to mention they distribute on behalf of many publishers (Dreamworks for example), they would probably clear more than half of Netflix's content if…
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's bad that Disney protects things like Mickey Mouse and all of their old IPs. It's not just shareholders, there's a lot of people whose jobs depend on Disney being able to make money from these historic IPs. And I think it's fine that they keep it, it doesn't really hurt anyone. The problem is the easiest way to protect this is by having Congress extend the copyright law duration on all copyrighted w…
It's not just shareholders, there's a lot of people whose jobs depend on Bitcoin/Tesla/UBI/Cloud failing. And I think it's fine that they keep it, it doesn't really hurt anyone.
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we have a list of mispredictions?
* Trump as president, predicted in the 2000 episode "Bart To The Future" [0] * Top 10 Simpsons Predictions That Came True [1] (not a great video though) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyaDKaun7w [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQGXofzQEiE
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#119So along with Disney pulling all their titles from Netflix for their own streaming service, I guess the FX content will be next to go from Netflix.
Oh it's crazy how much stuff Disney can pull off Netflix, I don't know if they will, because it's in their interest to have some stuff accessible over more than one place, but they own ABC (Lost, Castle, Firefly, etc), ESPN, Marvel, LucasArts, now Fox and their assets, not to mention they distribute on behalf of many publishers (Dreamworks for example), they would probably clear more than half of Netflix's content if…
Re: Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is essentially a restriction on speech. You can't represent any figure or image bearing even a slight resemblance to Mickey Mouse unless The Walt Disney Co. approves of said representation. It may not be directly life and death, but the negative ramifications of excessive copyright monopolies run deep, on both the culture and the market. The only people it's good for are the entrenched interests who are try…
With respect to Mickey Mouse specifically, the only reason anyone cares about Mickey Mouse is because he is associated with Walt Disney Co. He's more like an animated logo.
There is a separate section of law designed to protect such brand associations called "trademark". As long as Mickey Mouse is a registered trademark (which he is), TWDC will retain the ability to stop uses of the mark that would be deceptive or misleading.
Trademark protections are much weaker than copyright protections and apply only to commerce within the pre-defined areas in which the trademark is registered. Disney would lose the ability to lock up anyone who published an image of Mickey Mouse that they didn't like, but would still be able to protect its brand, as long as the public associated Mickey Mouse with TWDC in the relevant areas of commerce. This should be more than sufficient to stop, e.g., Universal Studios from putting up Mickey Mouse banners at their competing theme parks, implying an endorsement or association with Disney.
What it may not stop is a use of Mickey Mouse that doesn't imply association with or endorsement by the trademark's owner. For example, under copyright law, Universal cannot create a "Punch Mickey" attraction. However, one may be able to argue that such an attraction is legal when Mickey is only protected by trademark law, because then the only uses that are barred are those that are likely to confuse or mislead the consumer. I'm sure this would be litigated out if it actually happened and some judges are definitely stodgy enough to say that any use of someone else's trademark automatically rises to the level of misleading consumers (and we should not discount the rarely-discussed incentive that judges have to rule in favor of powerful interests, nor should we pretend that we don't see that on a regular basis), but under copyright there is no real way to argue that this is non-infringing.
The main point being that Disney would no longer be able to use the FBI as Rent-A-Cops to stop any use or depiction of Mickey Mouse that they disliked, under the auspices of "promoting the progress of science and useful arts". People who wanted to make their own unofficial Mickey Mouse content or merchandise would be free to do so without threat of arrest or lawsuit, so long as they did so in a manner that was not misleading about the association with Disney.