Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The father did the right thing. He was an attorney for Disney and had an obligation to tell his client of the violation when he learned of it. Disney could have chosen to ignore the matter, but as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, Disney is not running a charity. If Disney allowed for such a violation to go unpunished once learning of it, it would send a signal (via inaction . . . news of Disney going after parties like this have a deterrent effect I bet) that its OK to pirate and illegally show movies so long as you're not making a profit from it. Like it or not, what the teacher did was tantamount to robbing Disney of proceeds; the teacher could have easily arranged a trip to the theater for the class, which would see Disney properly compensated.
If the teacher was showing it in class, it was probably on a DVD. Which means that it would no longer be showing at the theater. I'm going to presume that the teacher or the school had legally purchased the DVD. (If it was an illegal copy, then I would agree that Disney had a right to go after them.) This was a non-commercial use (the audience was presumably not paying anything to attend the showing) in a non-public setting (i.e. restricted to a pre-defined group, namely the students of that class). What amount should the school have paid Disney in this case?
I'll concede that the father may have done the right thing, legally, for his employer. Maybe. But he did a horrible thing for his daughter.
Does anyone remember the FBI warnings that used to be at the beginning of every movie? They probably stopped including them because they knew most people ignored it or fast forwarded (or maybe they're still there and I just haven't noticed because I don't use physical media anymore?). But if the warning is gone, that doesn't mean that the laws changed or went away. They should consider themselves fortunate that the fine was so low. It could have been much much worse
The warning is still there. I've noticed that it somehow doesn't respond to fast forwarding like the rest of the moving does.
The father did the right thing. He was an attorney for Disney and had an obligation to tell his client of the violation when he learned of it. Disney could have chosen to ignore the matter, but as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, Disney is not running a charity. If Disney allowed for such a violation to go unpunished once learning of it, it would send a signal (via inaction . . . news of Disney going after parties like this have a deterrent effect I bet) that its OK to pirate and illegally show movies so long as you're not making a profit from it. Like it or not, what the teacher did was tantamount to robbing Disney of proceeds; the teacher could have easily arranged a trip to the theater for the class, which would see Disney properly compensated.
^ This.
There have been companies who tried to sue for copyright infringement and lost because prior to that particular lawsuit, they had not defended their copyright vigorously enough. Take Google for example. Do you think they would have any success suing Webster if/when google (lowercase) was added to the dictionary? No, because they never went after it before. Hell, I was watching a movie where one character said to the other, 'you can google it' and I never heard anything about a lawsuit or cease and desist letter.
I think they were very generous in only charging $250. They probably could have gone for more, but to me, it appears they were only going for awareness.
Disney reported quarterly revenue of $19 billion.
Seeing as how they made their bones on family entertainment, it wouldn't kill them to say, "Okay, we popped you for violating our copyright and you shouldn't do that again. However, under the circumstances, here's $500 for the PTA."
Considering that Disney already clawed back the $250, that would only be about 0.0000013% of their quarterly revenue.
Seeing as how they made their bones on family entertainment, it wouldn't kill them to say, "Okay, we popped you for violating our copyright and you shouldn't do that again. However, under the circumstances, here's $500 for the PTA."
Considering that Disney already clawed back the $250, that would only be about 0.0000013% of their quarterly revenue.
Just saying.
Reward people for violating copyright? It won't be long before every PTA in the country is showing a Disney movie at a fundraiser and waiting by the mailbox for their check.
The $250 wasn't an effort to make money. It was small enough that it didn't damage the organization, but large enough that it sent a clear message. That was the real aim.
If the teacher was showing it in class, it was probably on a DVD. Which means that it would no longer be showing at the theater. I'm going to presume that the teacher or the school had legally purchased the DVD. (If it was an illegal copy, then I would agree that Disney had a right to go after them.) This was a non-commercial use (the audience was presumably not paying anything to attend the showing) in a non-public setting (i.e. restricted to a pre-defined group, namely the students of that class). What amount should the school have paid Disney in this case?
I'll concede that the father may have done the right thing, legally, for his employer. Maybe. But he did a horrible thing for his daughter.
Yup. He's probably a big deal at work, but he has severed his daughter's trust. She will be forever guarded from that day forward. She may never again share with him the personal details in her life. He lost more than he gained.
I will forever look at Disney movies and products differently.
Reward people for violating copyright? It won't be long before every PTA in the country is showing a Disney movie at a fundraiser and waiting by the mailbox for their check.
The $250 wasn't an effort to make money. It was small enough that it didn't damage the organization, but large enough that it sent a clear message. That was the real aim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma5cmpb
Looks the Disney CEO apologized to the school. He will also donate money to them.
Disney reversed positions after the story blew up on social media.
Again, the balance between upholding one's right to defend copyright, and the company's public image, right or wrong it's a thing they had to consider.
Of course not. It's simply a matter of being magnanimous -- or a least creating the impression that you are.
Nobody likes a skinflint or a bully. Disney could easily undo tens of millions in PR spending by handling this badly. Or they could use it as an opportunity to show what great guys they are.
That's good business, especially when you are dealing with your core customer group.
Seeing as how they made their bones on family entertainment, it wouldn't kill them to say, "Okay, we popped you for violating our copyright and you shouldn't do that again. However, under the circumstances, here's $500 for the PTA."
Considering that Disney already clawed back the $250, that would only be about 0.0000013% of their quarterly revenue.
Just saying.
Never reward people or an organization for breaking the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
