Disney and Disney+

[Pieter Boelen]

How about continuing here?

The difference is that Netflix is relying on other content providers, while Disney, as a major publisher, owns most of their content. Both are totalitarian/despotic practices, putting the market into their own hands. Being one of the largest publishers worldwide, Disney, however, takes it to the next step.

That's just historically grown though.
Disney has existed for longer.

I will sell you the latest film published by me, that I've decided to release as conditional, ONLY if you enter into a legal agreement with me to use a platform where I can monitor your consumption, interests, and viewing habits, and stream future content to you based on what I've learned about you, giving me the direct power to influence your consumption, psychology, culture, and life.

Still makes sense?

I wouldn't exactly call that a "fair" contract. If it was happening physically in your life, would you still agree to it? Someone from Disney going around with you whenever you shop, taking notes and directly influencing your conversations and shopping choices? Just so you can watch Disney films?

The worst part is not even what this does on an individual basis, but what it does to our culture at large. If people are seen as cattle to be controlled, and methods are perfected to control them, where does that leave us?

This is terrible control and exploitation that actually goes against our basic human rights, and, in the long run, does great harm to our lives -- without exaggeration.

You skipped over the "releases on disc still exist".
As long as that is the case, the consumer still has a choice.
Likewise, I can choose to use Disney+ and I can choose not to.

That "monitoring" you mention is an artificial intelligence doing it.
I don't like artificial intelligence; especially not when it is put in charge of people's safety (self-driving cars and ships; YIKES!).
But there's no denying that there are positives to it as well.
Sometimes I've had online AI (Facebook, Google, YouTube) suggest stuff to me that I didn't know about.
And I was grateful as it opened my eyes to new horizons in some cases.

The main "threat" of AI is that it only operates on what already exists.
I do not believe it is capable of true creative thought.
It also doesn't have a conscience, nor does it even have common sense.

AI is "trained" on existing data and tries to extrapolate based on that.
That makes it only as good as the data it is trained on.
And a lot of the online AI is trained partly on your own interaction, but also on that of others.
Since many people are not healthy, the result of many AIs can be equally unhealthy.

I believe I have managed to train "my" Google/Facebook AIs pretty well though.
Usually what it suggests to me is quite positive and worthwhile.

And sometimes it is HILARIOUS!
Such as when we had Google ads on this site and I got:

"Go cruising with Holland America Line"
Gee, thanks for the suggestion. I'm already there! Also... I am getting paid for it.

"Learn Dutch here"
Hey, Sherlock... I AM Dutch!

"Dating for Lesbians"
Hold the phone... wouldn't that require me to be female...? Which I'm most definitely not?

All three caught something valid.
But also completely missed the point.
Which makes it as much a source of "influencing me" as it does "inspiring me" and "entertaining me".

In the end, as long as I use my own critical thinking skills, it can't be all that bad.
And thankfully I have a very big say in that.

The thing is, being a major cultural influence with their products, having established themselves on the free market first, and then doing this, they've actually forced people to either love/trust them and subscribe to them unconditionally (creating addiction), or to distrust/hate them and avoid the platform like the plague (creating strong distaste for anything published by them). That's what ultimatums do. There is no middle ground left. And they're doing this to their past fans/customers, too.

You also skipped over that option I mentioned where you can disable the "automatically play next episode".
The way I see it, that is a feature that can actively prevent the user from getting addicted.

It is true that this whole "subscription" model is quite the shift in culture. But it is not unique to Disney.
Every streaming service does it. Every cloud service does it.
Microsoft does it with Windows and Office these days.
And before any of those ever started, charities try to get you to make monthly donations rather than single ones.

I'm not saying I fully agree with it. But there IS some sense to it.
If you have a steady flow of cash, you don't need to worry so much about your budgets.
That means you can focus your efforts on using the money to do what you're being paid for.
Instead of using the money to continuously try to keep getting more money,
e.g. advertising and approaching the same people over and over.

Of course I would prefer a system where all content were available from the same system.
And I could pay exclusively for what interests me.
But with all the legal rights involved and the different parties wanting their own money, that's not likely to happen.
And even if it did, that could be considered totalitarian too.

It is easy to focus on the negatives, because for certain they are there.
But what about the positives?

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

Of course there are positives, everything has a positive side.

Now I try to avoid such services because, at least for now they don't suit me, I want to pay once for the content I want without having to pay again if I want to rewatch it.

 

[Cerez]

You skipped over the "releases on disc still exist".
As long as that is the case, the consumer still has a choice.
Likewise, I can choose to use Disney+ and I can choose not to.

On the first half, the whole reason they are creating Disney+ is so they don't have to go through other distribution channels. Which means less stuff available from them on discs. If Disney+ takes off, expect to see a lot fewer Disney releases in stores on discs.

On the latter half, I've already addressed that in the other thread -- your choice is basically: "if you're not my [unwitting slave], you're my enemy". You either sell your soul and human rights to them to have access to their content, or you decline and will never have access to their content again. It's an ultimatum, not a legit choice.

That "monitoring" you mention is an artificial intelligence doing it.

At the end of that line there are people using that collected information to control other people. A computer is a tool, a means to an end.

Sometimes I've had online AI (Facebook, Google, YouTube) suggest stuff to me that I didn't know about.
And I was grateful as it opened my eyes to new horizons in some cases.

Which is how they are getting away with this immoral practice. That doesn't make collecting information about people and socially and psychologically/emotionally manipulating them to do your bidding right.

I believe I have managed to train "my" Google/Facebook AIs pretty well though.
Usually what it suggests to me is quite positive and worthwhile.

You're missing the bigger picture. It's not about you. Google/Facebook couldn't care less about you as an individual. It's about learning about mass behaviour so they can control it. All these records add up to stats. And the digital platform provides the means to control. They serve social experiments in how to manipulate people into over-consuming their content and maximising their profits. Contrary to popular notion, the AI is not there to assist you. It's there to collect data on you, so they can better control you.

In the end, as long as I use my own critical thinking skills, it can't be all that bad.
And thankfully I have a very big say in that.

Psychologists would disagree with you there. That critical thinking depends on what you are surrounded with in your daily social environment. And this is where this whole thing gets really messed up: through controlling exposure and consumption, Disney is affecting our social environment and behaviours, changing our culture.

You may like to think of it that way, but it's very far from harmless.

You also skipped over that option I mentioned where you can disable the "automatically play next episode".
The way I see it, that is a feature that can actively prevent the user from getting addicted.

This is not the type of addicition I am talking about. This is just one minor aspect. The whole platform has been psychologically designed to make you feel good and keep you there, keep you consuming. It rewards you when you show addictive loyalty. Over time it rearranges your neural pathways and messes up how your brain works.

I'm not saying I fully agree with it. But there IS some sense to it.
If you have a steady flow of cash, you don't need to worry so much about your budgets.
That means you can focus your efforts on using the money to do what you're being paid for.
Instead of using the money to continuously try to keep getting more money,
e.g. advertising and approaching the same people over and over.

You cannot justify the killing of the free market. This is pretty much going back to the feudal system. Does it make sense for the landlord? Sure. Is it good for our lives and economy? No.

It is easy to focus on the negatives, because for certain they are there.
But what about the positives?

I refuse to look at the positives in something that is designed to serve solely selfish interests and to disrupt our natural lives and behaviour. What's the point in that? So I can live in denial?

 

[Cerez]

Once again:

(See starting from 12:35 for above video.)

 

[Pieter Boelen]

On the first half, the whole reason they are creating Disney+ is so they don't have to go through other distribution channels. Which means less stuff available from them on discs. If Disney+ takes off, expect to see a lot fewer Disney releases in stores on discs.

Could happen. But it hasn't yet. Maybe it never will.

On the other hand, it seems fewer and fewer people are buying discs.
Which makes it logical for distributors to want to make them, because they don't sell.
Even for me, I kind-of have to stop buying them as I just don't have the physical storage space.

On the latter half, I've already addressed that in the other thread -- your choice is basically: "if you're not my [unwitting slave], you're my enemy". You either sell your soul and human rights to them to have access to their content, or you decline and will never have access to their content again. It's an ultimatum, not a legit choice.

You always have the choice to subscribe and then cancel again, don't you?
You could choose to pay for one month per year, for example.

At the end of that line there are people using that collected information to control other people. A computer is a tool, a means to an end.

They're obviously using my "data" to tailor advertisements to me. And I'm certain that they get money from that.
I don't have a problem though with companies making money. They have to do something to stay in business, after all.

It is still my own choice to click on those tailored advertisements.
True, because they ARE tailored, there is a higher chance that it will indeed be something I would want to click on.
But even that is not necessarily bad as it might be something genuinely good that I otherwise wouldn't have known about.

For example, the Facebook algorithm pointed me towards a group for Extra Gifted people and I learned a lot from that.
And I still spent zero money on it, so I didn't lose anything and only gained. No harm done there, from what I can see.

Plus I'm pretty darn certain there are either zero or virtually zero actual human beings involved in this process.
Nobody is consciously keeping tabs on me. Let's face the facts here... I'm not that interesting.

Which is how they are getting away with this immoral practice. That doesn't make collecting information about people and psychologically and emotionally manipulating them to do your bidding right.

It's only true manipulation if you let them manipulate you.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good brain on my head and I can make my own choices.
Sometimes those choices might be in line with what "they" encourage me to do.
And sometimes they're not.

You're missing the bigger picture. It's not about you. Google/Facebook couldn't care less about you as an individual. It's about learning about mass behaviour so they can control it. All these records add up to stats. And the digital platform provides the means to control. They serve social experiments in how to manipulate people into over-consuming their content and maximising their profits. Contrary to popular notion, the AI is not there to assist you. It's there to collect data on you, so they can better control you.

I do worry about over-consumption. But that's nothing new. That was happening well before AI as too.

One big trick that I find far more concerning is how (mechanical/electronic) objects these days are deliberately designed to fail within a few years so you have to buy another.
This I find even more morally reprehensible as it uses up the already limited resources of this planet much faster than there is any need for.
Or deliberately designing packaging so you cannot get all the content out and have to buy new sooner.
Plus:

That would be funny, if it weren't also completely real.

Psychologists would disagree with you there. That critical thinking depends on what you are surrounded with in your daily social environment. And this is where this whole thing gets really messed up: through controlling exposure and consumption, Disney is affecting our social environment and behaviours, changing our culture.

You may like to think of it that way, but it's very far from harmless.

It's true that the environment affects critical thinking. I'm experiencing it thoroughly in real life as well.
In fact, it feels like my environment has lost touch with reality while at the same time claiming that it is me who has lost touch with reality.
That's some seriously high-level gaslighting!

But "changing our culture" is not necessarily a bad thing.
Our culture is MESSED UP! We've been agreeing on that point for quite a while, unless I'm very much mistaken.
If I could, I would wish to change our culture too; to be more positive, more accepting of others, etc. etc.

I generally see very positive messages in Disney's content.
If those messages could seep more into the public consciousness, that may actually be a healthy development.

In a way, Disney+ isn't being particularly secretive about it either as The World According to Jeff Goldblum kind-of advertises their very own bag of tricks.
And once you are aware of the methods, you automatically become more resilient to them and can make your choices much more consciously.
So if they're really trying to do large-scale brainwashing for negative reasons, this is a really counter-productive move on their part...

This is not the type of addicition I am talking about. This is just one minor aspect. The whole platform has been psychologically designed to make you feel good and keep you there, keep you consuming. It rewards you when you show addictive loyalty. Over time it rearranges your neural pathways and messes up how your brain works.

What's wrong with "feeling good"?
If I could point to one thing that's causing this world to go to shit, it is because people in general don't feel good.

If I could, I would want to help other people feel good too.

You cannot justify the killing of the free market. This is pretty much going back to the feudal system. Does it make sense for the landlord? Sure. Is it good for our lives and economy? No.

As long as there are multiple different services and the consumer still has choice, the free market has not died.
It is true that Disney is using some very aggressive tactics, but mainly by setting their price level uncommonly low.
That's simply "playing the game" that goes with the free market.

Yes, they're upsetting the balance of the free market. Netflix is going to lose a lot of subscribers, for example.
To counter that, Netflix is going to have to make quality content at the same level as Disney to get them back.
And ideally, in the end, we get two services that both deliver better than they used to before.
Or one of the two ends up failing and the other eats it up. That could also be.
But that is not "killing the free market". That is literally the way the free market is supposed to work.

I refuse to look at the positives in something that is designed to serve solely selfish interests and to disrupt our natural lives and behaviour. What's the point in that? So I can live in denial?

That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you refuse to look at the positives, isn't that a form of denial itself?

And how do you know what it was designed for?
I wasn't involved in the design and I know nobody else who was. All I can judge on is my own experiences.
And so far, in my own experiences, with my own (VERY CRITICAL) thinking applied, I have yet to see clear evidence of anything exceptionally nefarious.

Wait till the first season is finished airing, and then free-share-download the whole season.
[...]
And it looks like season one is already wrapped up:

For Netflix original series, they always dump the entire season on day 1.
That service really encourages "binging", which personally I find both very tempting to do but also potentially very unhealthy and addictive.

I think patience pays off.
[...]
The advantages you get is that the wait adds value to the experience and control over your personal experience and autonomy

Curious thing there, that describes the Disney+ model better than the Netflix one.
Disney deliberately chose to release their series only one episode at a time.
Usually one a week.

"The Internet" seems to be objecting to that, which I personally find both hilarious and very concerning.
I think "everybody" got a bit (too) used to the Netflix model of "everything in one go".
To the point that "Netflix and chill" and "Netflixing" are quite common parts of our culture these days.
Parts of our culture that encourage people to stay glued to their couches more than could be considered natural or healthy.

I see Disney+ attempting to counter that a bit.
For example, with that one setting of theirs that I mentioned.
As well as their "one new episode a week" approach.

For me so far, I watch Goldblum and I watch The Mandalorian.
That gives me 2x45 minutes of Disney+ time per week.
And the rest of the time I have left for living my life.
Or catching up on PiratesAhoy!

 

[Cerez]

You always have the choice to subscribe and then cancel again, don't you?
You could choose to pay for one month per year, for example.

Except that you lose all your favourites, your access to the main digital content, and all your personalised content. Once people get used to something, it's hard to let it go, it takes sacrifice. And you can bet that the company will make it extra hard on you to leave their grip.

The more psychologically addictive the company designs the platform, the harder it is to leave and the bigger the loss will feel -- even if in nature and reality that 'loss' is trivial.

It's only true manipulation if you let them manipulate you.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good brain on my head and I can make my own choices.
Sometimes those choices might be in line with what "they" encourage me to do.
And sometimes they're not.

Except that you are using a platform daily to access content you desire, and that platform and content/experience is fully controlled by the company. By using the platform, you are letting them affect/manipulate you.

What's wrong with "feeling good"?

The same thing that is associated with drug addiction and abuse. Without self-control, you lose yourself and the feeling "good" quickly turns into feeling "bad". We have to stay aware of how our environment impacts us, how our daily activities and time spent doing something are affecting our body -- even if that activity feels good. Otherwise we become mindless zombies for others to control us.

And how do you know what it was designed for?
I wasn't involved in the design and I know nobody else who was. All I can judge on is my own experiences.
And so far, in my own experiences, with my own (VERY CRITICAL) thinking applied, I have yet to see clear evidence of anything exceptionally nefarious.

Watch the videos. I've been studying what the Disney management has been doing for years. It's definitely not nearly as benign and humanitarian as you currently believe it to be.

If you refuse to look at the positives, isn't that a form of denial itself?

If you tolerate the intolerant, you support intolerance:

Entire political systems have crumbled because people chose to give power, unreasonable benefit of doubt, to the immoral few who were ready to completely disrupt their current lives and to manipulate and tear their social order apart.

If you cease to scrutinise immoral behaviour, you're effectively approving of it, and if you cease to be cautious about exploitation, you will be exploited, sooner or later.

Genuine positivity does not come from shutting your eyes to the world, and believing in fantasies, but in accepting the world (wholesomely, good and bad), learning as much as you can about it, and recognising and acknowledging the good in it. It doesn't mean ceasing to have a critical perception, in fact quite on the contrary -- a critical perspective is necessary to finding genuine positivity:

"A genuinely positive attitude that’s based on real experience and authentic power does protect people. If you realistically see the world as a place where you can get your needs met most of the time, you’ll be healthier.

The compulsive positive thinker is in trouble, however, because he or she is in denial of reality. Some people are not comfortable with their own pain, so they cover it up with positive thoughts in a desperate attempt to avoid what’s there." ~ Dr. Gabor Mate

"The Internet" seems to be objecting to that, which I personally find both hilarious and very concerning.
I think "everybody" got a bit (too) used to the Netflix model of "everything in one go".
To the point that "Netflix and chill" and "Netflixing" are quite common parts of our culture these days.
Parts of our culture that encourage people to stay glued to their couches more than could be considered natural or healthy.

This is not up for Disney to decide, but for each individual for themselves. This illustrates the fundamental problem with Disney, actually, quite well. They believe they are in control of our lives, and righfully so... That they can dictate and control our consumption and needs. And the sad part is that we are proving them right by letting them.

Edit:

You're making the mistake in thinking that Disney and Netflix are so different from one another. They're not, they cherish the same immoral principles at heart. And you can see what Netflix did to people's habits, you confirmed it yourself.

These platforms, these corporations, aim to control our culture and society, our lives -- this is not exaggeration, but an evidence-based and reasonable outcome. And they don't have our best interest at heart, but their own selfish interests.

 

[Cerez]

From Quora's Terms of Service (a social question answering platform founded by Facebook ex-employees):

"All data Quora collects ('Data') about use of the Quora Platform by you or others is the property of Quora, Inc., its subsidiaries, and affiliates."

Any data collected about you is their exclusive right and property, to do with as they please. In other words, in using their platform, you automatically become their product to be sold at their whim.

Here's a dare: see if you can find a similarly outrageous legal clause in Disney+'s Terms of Service (or other privacy and user agreements) that you've legally agreed to when subscribing to this "service".

 

[Cerez]

And sure enough, Disney's terms are just as messed up, if not worse:

The Disney Services may allow you to communicate, submit, upload or otherwise make available text, chats, images, audio, video, competition entries or other content (“User Generated Content”), which may be accessible and viewable by the public.

[...]

In most instances, we do not claim ownership to your User Generated Content; however, you grant us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, irrevocable and royalty-free worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights for the full duration of those rights to use, reproduce, transmit, print, publish, publicly display, exhibit, distribute, redistribute, copy, index, comment on, modify, transform, adapt, translate, create derivative works based upon, publicly perform, publicly communicate, make available, and otherwise exploit such User Generated Content, in whole or in part, in all media formats and channels now known or hereafter devised (including in connection with the Disney Services and on third-party sites and platforms), in any number of copies and without limit as to time, manner and frequency of use, without further notice to you, without attribution (to the extent this is not contrary to mandatory provisions of applicable law), and without the requirement of permission from or payment to you or any other person or entity. You agree that submission of User Generated Content does not establish any relationship of trust and confidence between you and us, and that you have no expectation of compensation whatsoever (except as may be specifically stated in the provisions of the Disney Services in connection with the submission, or arising from it).

[...]

We may monitor, screen, post, remove, modify, store and review User Generated Content or communications sent through a Disney Service, at any time and for any reason, including to ensure that the User Generated Content or communication conforms to these terms, without prior notice to you.

"Otherwise exploit" -- their wording, not mine. It allows them to do with anything they want with the information collected from you. They say "non-exclusive", but if you look at what their use covers, they practically have exclusive rights to anything you contribute on the platform, including things you are not voluntarily sharing, such as your usage habits (as you're being tracked by the platform's system and through their affiliate sites).

It's far from a fairy tale, and closer to a horror story, with absolutely no regard for people as people. Do you still think they have the best of intentions?

 

[Cerez]

Oh, and to anyone who's still not aware, Disney bought 20th Century Fox this year. So anything ever released by 20th Century Fox is also Disney property now, and subject to their licensing and distribution terms.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

For anyone who is doubting @Cerez; just search for "Otherwise exploit" on the page linked.



My ideology is to try and limit my use of such platforms to only when absolutely necessary and instead, support DRM-free and/or physical media.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I had written almost a complete novel here. Then I pressed a wrong button and it vanished.

Try again, but shorter:

I know, I bought one. I really liked that concept, except that they put DRM on the digital copy that comes with the disc -- which completely defeated the purpose. I suspect that this is why it didn't catch on, in addition to them charging double for the same movie (for the two copies) with the higher pricing.

If they would have provided the digital copy DRM-free and for free with the DVD purchase, I believe it would have very much worked, and it may have caused DVD sales to soar again, leaving phyical discs quite popular on the market.

The fact is that anyone with a physical copy of the DVD had to option to rip it and create a digital copy with a little effort at the time, so them placing DRM on the digital copy and charging for it was just controlling and selfish, greedy, nonsensical behaviour that killed the concept.

If they don't apply DRM, how do they avoid losing even more money to piracy?
They might end up selling exactly 1 copy which is available to everyone for free 1 hour later.
(Even if this wouldn't actually happen, at the very least it'll be their fear. And I understand that fear.)

They took a chance in making a movie. They invested a lot.
They paid a large creative team to do plenty of work.

I think it's fair for them to want something in return.
Might even be fair (or at the very least understandable) for them to want as much as possible in return.

Don't they deserve some sort of 'thank you' for their efforts?
And how else could they continue making new content?

Except that you lose all your favourites, your access to the main digital content, and all your personalised content. Once people get used to something, it's hard to let it go, it takes sacrifice. And you can bet that the company will make it extra hard on you to leave their grip.

The more psychologically addictive the company designs the platform, the harder it is to leave and the bigger the loss will feel -- even if in nature and reality that 'loss' is trivial.

I left Netflix this month. It was very easy.
They said my favourites would still be there if I'd sign back up a year later.

Of course that requires them to "use my data", but that's simply a logical requirement to be able to do that.

Except that you are using a platform daily to access content you desire, and that platform and content/experience is fully controlled by the company. By using the platform, you are letting them affect/manipulate you.

I said I use it weekly; not daily.

And of course it affects me. Everything affects me. If it wouldn't affect me, why would I bother with it?

Also a common misconception of people is that we cannot influence others.
DEAD WRONG! What we truly cannot do is NOT influence others.

The same thing that is associated with drug addiction and abuse. Without self-control, you lose yourself and the feeling "good" quickly turns into feeling "bad". We have to stay aware of how our environment impacts us, how our daily activities and time spent doing something are affecting our body -- even if that activity feels good. Otherwise we become mindless zombies for others to control us.

That self-control is the key.
We ourselves are responsible for that.

Not any company. Not any service.
We ourselves.

Watch the videos. I've been studying what the Disney management has been doing for years. It's definitely not nearly as benign and humanitarian as you currently believe it to be.

I feel disillusioned enough with the world as it is.
I choose to not do extra things to deliberately make myself feel even worse.

If you tolerate the intolerant, you support intolerance:

Entire political systems have crumbled because people chose to give power, unreasonable benefit of doubt, to the immoral few who were ready to completely disrupt their current lives and to manipulate and tear their social order apart.

If you cease to scrutinise immoral behaviour, you're effectively approving of it, and if you cease to be cautious about exploitation, you will be exploited, sooner or later.

This world at large is definitely failing there.
"Freedom of speech" is abused by people to say whatever they want, no matter how hateful.
Scary people rise to positions of power by saying hateful things that, for some mad reason, apparently IS what people want to hear.
And I myself have been compared to Hitler on this forum simply for enforcing the forum rules (specifically, the "respect for others" bit).

Genuine positivity does not come from shutting your eyes to the world, and believing in fantasies, but in accepting the world (wholesomely, good and bad), learning as much as you can about it, and recognising and acknowledging the good in it. It doesn't mean ceasing to have a critical perception, in fact quite on the contrary -- a critical perspective is necessary to finding genuine positivity:

"A genuinely positive attitude that’s based on real experience and authentic power does protect people. If you realistically see the world as a place where you can get your needs met most of the time, you’ll be healthier.

The compulsive positive thinker is in trouble, however, because he or she is in denial of reality. Some people are not comfortable with their own pain, so they cover it up with positive thoughts in a desperate attempt to avoid what’s there." ~ Dr. Gabor Mate

I have seen and experienced too much hurt throughout the world to ever be at risk of being a "compulsive positive thinker".
My mind is a thoroughly critical one. Always has been and, as long as I have any say in it, it always will be.

I'm reminded of this quote:

And also: 6 Secret Beliefs That Are Making Us All Unhappy | Cracked.com

Lots of truth to both.

This is not up for Disney to decide, but for each individual for themselves. This illustrates the fundamental problem with Disney, actually, quite well. They believe they are in control of our lives, and righfully so... That they can dictate and control our consumption and needs. And the sad part is that we are proving them right by letting them.

Why is that sad? It is the truth.
Clearly they're onto something.

You're making the mistake in thinking that Disney and Netflix are so different from one another. They're not, they cherish the same immoral principles at heart. And you can see what Netflix did to people's habits, you confirmed it yourself.

I thought that was exactly my point; Disney+ is no worse than Netflix.
And based on what I myself have observed from actively using both, I'd say Disney+ is the healthier of the two.

These platforms, these corporations, aim to control our culture and society, our lives -- this is not exaggeration, but an evidence-based and reasonable outcome. And they don't have our best interest at heart, but their own selfish interests.

They aim to make money. Can't fault them for that. It's what they do.

But can their selfish interests not be in line with our own best interests?
I do love NON-zero-sum logic: The Evolution of Trust

It's far from a fairy tale, and closer to a horror story, with absolutely no regard for people as people. Do you still think they have the best of intentions?

They cannot keep your favourites if they cannot store them.
They cannot determine if they should commission a Season 2 of The Mandalorian if they do not know the number of viewers.
They cannot know how much hardware and bandwith they need for rush hour if they cannot monitor usage.
They cannot support 'deleting your data' if they're saving that data anonymously.

Oh, and to anyone who's still not aware, Disney bought 20th Century Fox this year. So anything ever released by 20th Century Fox is also Disney property now, and subject to their licensing and distribution terms.

I can understand why it would feel like "Disney are taking over", because in a way they are.
Clearly they are doing something right.

We can be jealous of that.
We can fear it.
We can even attempt to wage war on it.

We can also admire it.
Learn from it.
Be inspired by it.
Aim to do better ourselves.
Perhaps even work together and influence them right back.

Any data collected about you is their exclusive right and property, to do with as they please. In other words, in using their platform, you automatically become their product to be sold at their whim.

I am not my data.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

If they don't apply DRM, how do they avoid losing even more money to piracy?
They might end up selling exactly 1 copy which is available to everyone for free 1 hour later.
(Even if this wouldn't actually happen, at the very least it'll be their fear. And I understand that fear.)

True but just look at GOG, and a game CD Project Red made the Witcher 3.

CDPR made the GOG version and the PC DVD version DRM free and yet the game is a huge success and more and more developers add their products to GOG.
Same goes for the Witcher 1 and 2, only that for the Witcher 1 it got DRM free after an official patch.

Before its release, over 1.5 million people pre-ordered the game.[105] The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt debuted atop the UK software sales chart in its first week, when it earned 600 percent more than predecessor The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. It was the best-selling video game of the year in the UK, breaking the record held by Battlefield Hardline.[106] It debuted atop the Japanese video-game sales charts, selling 67,385 copies in its first week.[107] Four million copies of the game were sold in its first two weeks of release.[108] By June 2015, over 690,000 players had activated the game through GOG Galaxy.[109][110] The game sold over six million copies in the next six weeks,[45] and the studio made a profit of $63.3 million in the first half of 2015.[111] In March 2016, CD Projekt Red reported that the game had shipped nearly 10 million copies worldwide.[112] By the end of 2017, the series as a whole had sold over 33 million.[113][114] By June 2019, that number had risen to over 40 million, with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt accounting for over half of that figure.[115]

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - Wikipedia

Now their fear does make sense but with DRM or without the media is anyway "pirated" in a matter of hours.

They took a chance in making a movie. They invested a lot.
They paid a large creative team to do plenty of work.

I think it's fair for them to want something in return.
Might even be fair (or at the very least understandable) for them to want as much as possible in return.

Don't they deserve some sort of 'thank you' for their efforts?
And how else could they continue making new content?

Now with this I completely agree, if their content with is good they definitely deserve a reward.

If something is good though, people are generally going to buy it legally even if they can get it for free, as proven by the aforementioned example.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Indeed it is very likely that "the suits" underestimate "the plebs".
They might be, just like us all (I suppose), have good intentions somewhere in there and yet act a lot out of fear as well.

So they believe "people" will pirate their content if they don't actively try to stop them.
Even when, in reality, it might not be all that bad and perhaps even be more financially successful if they renounce that.

If I look at myself, I've pirated my (un?)fair share of content.
But then if I appreciate it, I often found myself buying it officially afterwards.
Not for my own personal sake, but as a 'thank you' for a job well done.

Maybe, if we can focus on those positive developments of, for example, GOG, this world at large can learn that there are other ways that work too.
That's going to take time. And a lot of positive reinforcement.
But if we believe it is possible, then the chance of success is infinitely larger than if we don't!

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

Indeed it is very likely that "the suits" underestimate "the plebs".
They might be, just like us all (I suppose), have good intentions somewhere in there and yet act a lot out of fear as well.

So they believe "people" will pirate their content if they don't actively try to stop them.
Even when, in reality, it might not be all that bad and perhaps even be more financially successful if they renounce that.

If I look at myself, I've pirated my (un?)fair share of content.
But then if I appreciate it, I often found myself buying it officially afterwards.
Not for my own personal sake, but as a 'thank you' for a job well done.

Exactly, pirating it doesn't stop you from buying it after, if you liked it.

Maybe, if we can focus on those positive developments of, for example, GOG, this world at large can learn that there are other ways that work too.
That's going to take time. And a lot of positive reinforcement.
But if we believe it is possible, then the chance of success is infinitely larger than if we don't!

Precisely, once the majority realizes that it's possible, they could follow.

There is no need to invest money in DRM if you don't use it, so in the end less money spent and maybe someone will find out your work this way and try it out, like it and then buy this and your future works; while had they've not tried it for free they would have never bought it.

 

[Cerez]

Listen to this:

(Will properly reply later.)

Edit:

Also to this:

I refuse to call public sharing of owned digital content "piracy". There is nothing piratical about it. Sharing is sharing, just that. It existed way before the Internet did, and it's what has gotten us to this point in social and cultural progress. Without sharing, humankind would have never reached any form of civilisation.

Corporations and studios are trying to twist our perception on something that is a natural part of human nature just so they can control us and protect their selfish interests, without consideration to our wellbeing and culture.

 

[Cerez]

Also worth noting that the downloading of publically shared files on the Internet for personal use is not illegal. It would be a sad, dystopian day when that became our reality -- practically an Orwellian nightmare.

What the copyright law currently prohibits and what is persecuted is the public distribution/sharing of a purchased copy on a large scale on the Internet. In sharing your purchased copy with the world, you would be breaking the law. This is what publishers have labelled "piracy". Though whether this persecution is a morally right practice is truly questionable, seeing as sharing with others what you own is human nature and seen as good will in our social lives and culture.

Before the days of the Internet, we used to share digital files and software in our possession through floppy disks, cassettes, and CDs between friends/acquaintances, and through magazines (as a bonus attachment) and other public (mailing) distribution channels.

Shareware-based software sales thrived on this foundation. Computers wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for sharing.

 

[Cerez]

If they don't apply DRM, how do they avoid losing even more money to piracy?
They might end up selling exactly 1 copy which is available to everyone for free 1 hour later.
(Even if this wouldn't actually happen, at the very least it'll be their fear. And I understand that fear.)

That's just what makes it a farce: the movie was always available for free sharing by this point if people wanted to share it (both by easily ripping DVDs and through downloading from file sharing networks). So providing a free, unrestricted digital copy to go with the DVD purchase here would have just raised the value of the purchase, as it meant less hassle for the customer, an overall better buying experience.

And if everyone decided to share their digital copy with their friends, it would have meant exposure, and it would practically be no different to people lending their purchased DVD, or making a copy of their DVD to give to their friends. Not having a physcial copy would have meant that more people would have gone to buy the movies they liked from this sharing exchange to have on their shelves. Not to mention that buying the digital copy in store (with the DVD) would have been so much easier than trying to download it or rip it from a DVD, or get it from your friend.

The point is that instead of increasing sales and bringing DVDs back, what this extremely poorly overseen, selfish execution has meant was the opposite: the death of the concept and the extinction of disc sales, of physical copies, from the market altogether.

Instead of making digital sales mainstream in stores, coupled with discs, and making file sharing networks somewhat redundant, it only encouraged people to move away from buying physical copies, to the point that online streaming became the new standard.

It's also worth noting that movies make the majority of their money from cinema tickets, not from DVD sales. Publishers are the ones who earn the majority of their money through sales of copies, not the movie-makers.

They said my favourites would still be there if I'd sign back up a year later.

In other words, their policy is that you need to renew your subscription yearly if you don't want to lose your settings.

But you signed up for Disney+ shortly thereafter, right? Something to replace it for the craving, perhaps?

My point is that the use of their platform has trained you to depend on abundant digital content in a certain way that didn't exist before you signed up for Netflix.

That self-control is the key.
We ourselves are responsible for that.

Not any company. Not any service.
We ourselves.

Except that we are susceptible to external/environmental influence. This means that we need to stay vigilant about how we are spending our time daily, and what activities we are repeatedly involved in. Which takes effort -- more than most people can (or are willing to) muster after work or in general.

If we build new environments irresponsibly, we are putting our own healths at risk. And guess what these corporations are doing? Exactly that -- hiring professionals working in the gambling industry to make their digital platforms more phychologically addictive, to encourage their users to keep consuming endlessly.

It's not just up to the individual -- it is also up to all of us as a society.

I feel disillusioned enough with the world as it is.
I choose to not do extra things to deliberately make myself feel even worse.

Take your time. Getting into grips with the reality of our current societal structure and ways is no easy task. That being said, these academic videos are well worth taking a look when you feel emotionally strong enough to face it and learn.

People do a lot of bad stuff, but it doesn't mean we are all bad. And these discussions (both in the videos and here in person between us) are a testament to that. When encouraged to do the right thing, we generally excel. We certainly have the potential to go the extra mile and grow.

Why is that sad? It is the truth.

The fact that people are not allowed to grow to the level where they have enough awareness/insight to protect themselves I find very sad. And I've made it my mission in life to raise their awareness/insight and help them.

People exploiting people is both extremely ignorant and sad -- the whole thing ultimately comes back full circle and no-one gains anything from it, everyone loses. It goes against (our own) nature and it's ultimately (self-)destructive.

I thought that was exactly my point; Disney+ is no worse than Netflix.
And based on what I myself have observed from actively using both, I'd say Disney+ is the healthier of the two.

And my point is that both of them are pretty much equally harmful. It's like comparing one cigarette to another -- you're still smoking...

Except the harm in this case extends beyond the individual into the socio-cultural, into all our lives.

They aim to make money. Can't fault them for that. It's what they do.

Even if in the process they are hurting people, hurting our culture? Really, we can't fault them for that? I would say we very much can. With its current ideology, management, and actions, Disney is no good in my books.

But can their selfish interests not be in line with our own best interests?

Exactly! This is the sole most important question of this century. Humanity's survival depends on it.

They cannot keep your favourites if they cannot store them.
They cannot determine if they should commission a Season 2 of The Mandalorian if they do not know the number of viewers.
They cannot know how much hardware and bandwith they need for rush hour if they cannot monitor usage.
They cannot support 'deleting your data' if they're saving that data anonymously.

But they can give their users a full oversight and control over the data that is collected on them, including deletion.
They can allow you to export your settings and save them to your hard drive, to return to their service when you wish to and not lose anything.
They can not extensively track you across their own site and multiple sites/affiliates if you choose to opt out of such tracking to preserve your privacy while using their service.
They can consider your mental health when designing the platform to be accessible for all and sell to you their products responsibly instead of encouraging addiction.

And the list goes on. It's not a matter of can or cannot. It's a matter of will, of internal culture, of moral responsibility.

Clearly they are doing something right.

I wouldn't call the deliberate exploitation of people and the domination of the free market the "right" thing to do. Cruel despotism is not "right". Totalitarianism and the future suffering of people is not "right". I'm not sure how that can be inspiring if you are a good person.

(To be clear, I'm not taking a jab at you, just making a sensible and firm point.)

I will be inspired when I see Disney start taking strides to being transparent with their users, to caring for their users' privacy and health, and to respecting their free will.

Technology itself is not evil -- it's how we use it.

I am not my data.

Online, all you are is data (to them), everything you do and don't do is data. They treat us all based on their interpretation of that data.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

I refuse to call public sharing of owned digital content "piracy". There is nothing piratical about it. Sharing is sharing, just that. It existed way before the Internet did, and it's what has gotten us to this point in social and cultural progress. Without sharing, humankind would have never reached any form of civilisation.

Corporations and studios are trying to twist our perception on something that is a natural part of human nature just so they can control us and protect their selfish interests, without consideration to our wellbeing and culture.

Real piracy (the one that the golden age of piracy is named after), is indeed piracy; software "piracy" isn't even the shadow of that.
Still I use the term for convince, but I always agree that its not real piracy.

 

[Cerez]

Still I use the term for convenience, but I always agree that its not real piracy.

I think we shouldn't even use the word "piracy" when referring to openly shared content online. It's literally just freely sharing.

Sharing with close friends and/or a small group of close people to you is actually considered fair use and legal.

But it's important to know that the widespread and public sharing of copyrighted content without explicit written permission is illegal in our society. So publically sharing a copyrighted work you've bought is technically a crime, but I still don't see how the term "piracy" applies to it. It's illegal sharing or illegal distribution.

Publishers slapped the "piracy" label onto it just to make it sound more sinister. Because incriminating someone for "openly sharing" sounds much less justifiable than incriminating them for "piracy".

I say let the truth be known.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

Also worth noting that the downloading of publically shared files on the Internet for personal use is not illegal. It would be a sad, dystopian day when that became our reality -- practically an Orwellian nightmare.

Doesn't this apply only to non-copyrighted content?

Before the days of the Internet, we used to share digital files and software in our possession through floppy disks, cassettes, and CDs between friends/acquaintances, and through magazines (as a bonus attachment) and other public (mailing) distribution channels.

Shareware-based software sales thrived on this foundation. Computers wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for sharing.

True, with out software shearing many companies may not have existed; just look at the backstory of CD Project Red and Akella.

CD Project Red backstory:
Watch this if you have the time:

Or this if you don't:

Akella backstory:

Originally Akella translated and sold pirated versions of the games, it's first officially licensed and translated game was Ubisoft developed POD (Published in 1997). During it's pirate days Akella was known for high quality translation and voice over of games such as: Full Throttle, Leisure Suit Larry: Love for Sail!, The 7th Guest and The 11th Hour.

Akella (Company) - Giant Bomb

I think we shouldn't even use the word "piracy" when referring to openly shared content online. It's literally just freely sharing.

Sharing with close friends and/or a small group of close people to you is actually considered fair use and legal.

But it's important to know that the widespread and public sharing of copyrighted content without explicit written permission is illegal in our society. So publically sharing a copyrighted work you've bought is technically a crime, but I still don't see how the term "piracy" applies to it. It's illegal sharing or illegal distribution.

Publishers slapped the "piracy" label onto it just to make it sound more sinister. Because incriminating someone for "openly sharing" sounds much less justifiable than incriminating them for "piracy".

I say let the truth be known.

Exactly, I completely agree.