Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that disney owns Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars right?
Many people think that those franchises were better before Disney though.
Those people aren't shareholders.
Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
31–38 of 38 posts
Re: Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. Or the same content outlets will have to deliver content through streaming, either subscription or ad supported, while the same service providers will just make money selling internet service rather than cable/satellite TV service.
This may just be me, but I'd rather not watch something, than watch it with ads. Maybe if I'd been slowly trained to accept them, rather than backed into a corner by them until ad blockers and streaming came along, that wouldn't be the case. Once you live a life without ads though... I mean, virtually none at all... they start to grate on your nerves in a big way. I started to realize how much of my time was spent wa…
> This may just be me, but I'd rather not watch something, than watch it with ads.
Its not just you, its why ad-free subscription services exist (premium cable TV, some streaming services, etc.) I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment its in response to, though.
Re: Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
#33Re: Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
-- I can't imagine a worse actor in the IP space than Disney Why do you say that? Just curious.
Disney is pretty much only a huge force from using public domain to make money, yet they routinely do things to avoid their IP from entering the public domain. Some examples [1]: - Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845) - Revenue = $810.3 million - Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865) - Revenue = $1.02 billion - Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (185…
Honest question: How are those examples different from studios adapting, say, Shakespeare to a more "modern" context? 10 Things I hate About You (1999) is an adaptation of Taming of The Shrew.
Re: Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney is pretty much only a huge force from using public domain to make money, yet they routinely do things to avoid their IP from entering the public domain. Some examples [1]: - Frozen (2013) from Hans Christian Anderson’s Ice Queen (1845) - Revenue = $810.3 million - Alice in Wonderland (2010) based on Lewis Carroll’s book (1865) - Revenue = $1.02 billion - Snow White (1937) from the Brothers Grimm folk tale (185…
Honest question: How are those examples different from studios adapting, say, Shakespeare to a more "modern" context? 10 Things I hate About You (1999) is an adaptation of Taming of The Shrew.
The difference is that those studios don't try to rewrite laws via lobbying to block their IP from entering the public domain after profiting greatly off public domain.
Mickey Mouse should be released.
Re: Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: How are those examples different from studios adapting, say, Shakespeare to a more "modern" context? 10 Things I hate About You (1999) is an adaptation of Taming of The Shrew.
The difference is that those studios don't try to rewrite laws via lobbying to block their IP from entering the public domain after profiting greatly off public domain. Mickey Mouse should be released.
If I'm understanding copyright law correctly (I am not a lawyer, but am familiar), Disney has copyrighted the specific adaptation of those stories from the public domain - not the stories themselves. So someone can't, say, do Snow White in the same way as Disney did (same script, artistic style etc) but they can do things like Snow White and The Huntsman (2012), which made ~$397m worldwide. I do agree that rewriting laws via lobbying is a problem. I'm just not sure that Mickey Mouse should be public, seeing as how that IP is so tied up in so much of what constitutes value for Disney.
Edit: Just read a bunch about the history of Disney and the Mickey IP. Yeah, totally not comfortable with that.
Re: Netflix said to be in Disney’s crosshairs
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that, they're more responsible for cable cutting than any other service. I still have tv service but I'm finding it harder and harder to talk about anything on cable with people. They'll talk about Stranger Things and other shows. Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. It will probably be too late. With less revenue, it will be harder to produce top shows a…
> Cable/satellite service will have to come down in price to keep a large audience for ads. Or the same content outlets will have to deliver content through streaming, either subscription or ad supported, while the same service providers will just make money selling internet service rather than cable/satellite TV service.
Yes exactly - those channels will be part of the a la carte option for consumers I mentioned.
Right now - internet is more valuable to most people but much less expensive per month than tv in a package. TV is just not reasonably priced, especially when you still have ads on every channel.
If anything, TV should be free with the networks selling advertising and paying the tv provider for their infrastructure and audience. Basically like magazines. Give it away. Get an audience. Sell ads. Don't squeeze us from both ends and charge us for content AND monthly for each piece of shitty equipment.
Or sell channels a la carte at a fair price and make it easy. These packages are ridiculous. You have a ton of stuff you don't want. Then they reconcile viewership on the backend to figure out what members of that package should get what portion of each subscription. It's old-school. It inflates the TV price because you often have to purchase a larger package than you need to get the variety of channels you want.
Consumers are simply tired of paying for content AND getting ads.
Roku is amazing and they could enable the a la carte direct subscription model with the content providers. But for most channels right now, when you add one, you have to login with your TV provider and validate.