Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#41

Post by justinclift »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #9
aidenn0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Disney having a government enforced monopoly on their content that lasts for about a century, combined with changes in technology w.r.t streaming that allow them to never create a "first sale" and thus make it illegal for anybody to possess a copy of their content without paying them a monthly fee that they get to set?

Another way to say that first part is that after a certain amount of time the government strips away your control over your own creation.

Yes. Is contributing your creation to society - something you live in and benefit from - something you don't like?

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#42

Post by dehrmann »

aidenn0 wrote: post #4
c3534l wrote: post #2

This feels... grotesque? The free market is meant to ensure that competitors lower their prices to compete with Disney+. If instead corporations raise prices to compete with... profits over marketshare, then it feels like something has gone terribly wrong.

You mean like Disney having a government enforced monopoly on their content that lasts for about a century, combined with changes in technology w.r.t streaming that allow them to never create a "first sale" and thus make it illegal for anybody to possess a copy of their content without paying them a monthly fee that they get to set?

> having a government enforced monopoly on their content

Sure, but they're just the only company selling Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. Someone else is selling DC, Illumination, and Star Trek content. They're all competing in the entertainment space, so it's not a real problem for pricing. If Disney opened a $2500 per night Star Wars hotel, I'm pretty sure you'd see market forces react.

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#43

Post by harimau777 »

dehrmann wrote: post #42
aidenn0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Disney having a government enforced monopoly on their content that lasts for about a century, combined with changes in technology w.r.t streaming that allow them to never create a "first sale" and thus make it illegal for anybody to possess a copy of their content without paying them a monthly fee that they get to set?

> having a government enforced monopoly on their content Sure, but they're just the only company selling Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. Someone else is selling DC, Illumination, and Star Trek content. They're all competing in the entertainment space, so it's not a real problem for pricing. If Disney opened a $2500 per night Star Wars hotel, I'm pretty sure you'd see market forces react.

I'm not sure that there's any way that the market could react. It's Star Wars that's a major part of American culture, not whatever alternative a competitor comes up with. It would be like if a single corporation owned King Arthur or Journey to the West.

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#44

Post by [deleted] »

alberth wrote: post #29
teruakohatu wrote: post #21

Like Hollywood I expect Disney accounting to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. Disney has a massive back catalog, the oldest movie on the platform is nearly 90 years old. I am sure Disney is renting Disney+ ancient content at premium market rates and so the platform appears to be unprofitable.

I’m not so sure that’s the case here. Disney+ massive loses was cited as a major reason for the previous CEO being ousted by the Board, and Iger reinstituted. The difficulty with screaming is that you can no longer create $100M big budget movies and expect to show a profit from a service costing just $10/mo. https://insidethemagic.net/2024/04/not-a-profitable-business...

[deleted]

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#45

Post by salawat »

dehrmann wrote: post #42
aidenn0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Disney having a government enforced monopoly on their content that lasts for about a century, combined with changes in technology w.r.t streaming that allow them to never create a "first sale" and thus make it illegal for anybody to possess a copy of their content without paying them a monthly fee that they get to set?

> having a government enforced monopoly on their content Sure, but they're just the only company selling Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. Someone else is selling DC, Illumination, and Star Trek content. They're all competing in the entertainment space, so it's not a real problem for pricing. If Disney opened a $2500 per night Star Wars hotel, I'm pretty sure you'd see market forces react.

No they wouldn't, because no one else can open one without parasitic drag from Disney.

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#46

Post by zamadatix »

alberth wrote: post #29
teruakohatu wrote: post #21

Like Hollywood I expect Disney accounting to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. Disney has a massive back catalog, the oldest movie on the platform is nearly 90 years old. I am sure Disney is renting Disney+ ancient content at premium market rates and so the platform appears to be unprofitable.

I’m not so sure that’s the case here. Disney+ massive loses was cited as a major reason for the previous CEO being ousted by the Board, and Iger reinstituted. The difficulty with screaming is that you can no longer create $100M big budget movies and expect to show a profit from a service costing just $10/mo. https://insidethemagic.net/2024/04/not-a-profitable-business...

These mega streaming platforms (Disney, Netflix, HBO) all pull ~the yearly total gross of box office ticket sales each independently. Is it the content delivery infrastructure that eats all the revenue to the point of losing money?

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#47

Post by CyberDildonics »

khazhoux wrote: post #40
saurik wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To checksum, do you also believe that The Little Mermaid should still belong to Hans Christian Anderson?

No, and Mickey does not belong to Walt Disney either. If Hans had created a business that sustained to this day, then that would be different situation.

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Mermaid-Christian-collection-i...

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#48

Post by harimau777 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #14
aidenn0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Disney having a government enforced monopoly on their content that lasts for about a century, combined with changes in technology w.r.t streaming that allow them to never create a "first sale" and thus make it illegal for anybody to possess a copy of their content without paying them a monthly fee that they get to set?

You could also just...not watch it. You don't have a right to consume someone else's creations just because you want to.

I think it becomes less black and white once something becomes part of culture (in the sense that works like Beowulf, Macbeth, and The Arabian Nights are part of culture, not in the sense that every published work is part of culture). I think that people have a right to their culture and therefore have a right to interact with stories that become part of their culture.

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#49

Post by hn_acker »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #9
aidenn0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Disney having a government enforced monopoly on their content that lasts for about a century, combined with changes in technology w.r.t streaming that allow them to never create a "first sale" and thus make it illegal for anybody to possess a copy of their content without paying them a monthly fee that they get to set?

Another way to say that first part is that after a certain amount of time the government strips away your control over your own creation.

No, in the US the purpose of copyright is to incentivize creation of creative works for the long-term public benefit [1]. The rights to control what others do with your copyrighted works are a means to the end, a temporary price for future unexclusive public access. (The Copyright Clause gives Congress authority to pass copyright statutes, but the First Amendment theoretically "amends" the Copyright Clause and takes priority over any copyright statutes. In the US, fair use was a necessary common law measure made into statutory law to align copyright with the First Amendment.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Re: Leaked Disney+ financials may shed light on recent price hike

#50

Post by harimau777 »

hiddencost wrote: post #18
c3534l wrote: post #2

This feels... grotesque? The free market is meant to ensure that competitors lower their prices to compete with Disney+. If instead corporations raise prices to compete with... profits over marketshare, then it feels like something has gone terribly wrong.

Meant to? By whom? Who makes sure the system operates that way?

That's the pitch that's generally given by advocates of the free market to justify their position. They tend to do so because "the free market" isn't something that is near universally viewed as an inherent good, so it's necessary to convince people that it's existence results in other goods.
Post reply on HN