Apparently Disney Is Too Busy To Play The Notice And Takedown Game

from the mickey-mouse-doesn't-do-notice-and-takedown dept

There’s been plenty of discussion about how the DMCA notice and takedown system works for sites like YouTube, and how that reasonably protects them from being liable, but it’s no surprise that folks in the entertainment industry are just not satisfied. Bob Hammond writes in to let us know that someone from Disney is saying that’s just not good enough for them. Unfortunately for Disney, however, it is the law. Anne Sweeney, the head of Disney’s entertainment and news television properties, admits that it’s “the world we are living in. This is the reality.” But, then complains that it’s just not efficient for them to have to police their own content. Of course, efficiency is a funny thing. Competitor CBS recently realized that it wasn’t just more efficient to leave programs up on YouTube, it actually helped increase viewership of their programs. So, perhaps instead of worrying so much about their clips on YouTube and calling them up every time a clip went up, they might find it a lot more efficient to just view it as free advertising for their programs and learn how to use it to their advantage.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Apparently Disney Is Too Busy To Play The Notice And Takedown Game”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
18 Comments
Chris says:

Product distribution is good, isn't it?

Maybe it’s just me, but I thought trying to get your product into the homes of as many people as possible was the entire idea behind successful business. Now I don’t have anything close to resembling a degree, much less one of buisness, but it would seem to me that sites like YouTube, who provide a free service for the distribution of your media, would be something embraced. However, aparently that’s not the case for quite a few different companies.

I guess these companies, corporations, businesses, whatever you want to call them, are afraid that providing desired content at the click of a button will trump having to wait until 9pm to watch something with nearly as much commericals, as there is actual “entertaining” material. Aside from that I don’t see why the wouln’t want all the free publicity.

John says:

As soon as a company like Disney tried to use a “free” service like YouTube, YouTube would scream bloody murder for the bandwidth / server responsibilities.

Disney is trying to protect their IP – no different than any other IP issue. Much of their IP is not distributable via broadcast channels – you don’t tune into ABC to watch Alladin. You see it in limited distribution environments or point casts, like DVD. CBS basically is getting free advertising for their shows, but Disney doesn’t need the free advertising.

The snarky tone of this column demonstrates a lack of understanding and professionalism. “Efficiency” is indeed a funny thing, and it’s clear that the author doesn’t understand it at all.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re:

As soon as a company like Disney tried to use a “free” service like YouTube, YouTube would scream bloody murder for the bandwidth / server responsibilities

Proof please? They seem quite happy when others are doing exactly the same thing.

Disney is trying to protect their IP – no different than any other IP issue

Indeed. Including why they’re shooting their own IP in the foot.

Much of their IP is not distributable via broadcast channels – you don’t tune into ABC to watch Alladin.

You don’t tune into YouTube to watch Alladin either, since it limits videos to 10 minutes.

CBS basically is getting free advertising for their shows, but Disney doesn’t need the free advertising.

Why not? Who couldn’t use some free advertising?

Chris says:

um..

“Much of their IP is not distributable via broadcast channels – you don’t tune into ABC to watch Alladin”

I’m not completey clear on what you intend this to mean.
We dont tune into ABC to watch a movie, because it’s not a service they provide. Quite frankly I dont know of anyone who would prefeer to watch a movie on TV, over a DVD. The reason we get the DVD is because it’s the only thing available to us. Other options are to pirate the movies, so we can access them more easily, in a more suitable fashion to our likeing. There’s a very real demand for media content that can be accessed over the internet. If companies like Disney, or comedy central, or even TV networks could create as much revenue as they can milk out of their network broadcasts, by providing an on-demand program service, I’m sure they would do it. The problem is they can’t, so they don’t want anyone who actualy can (YouTube) to be able to either.

Anonymous Coward says:

every day this site has an article, or several, basically just restating the same ideas/opinions over and over.

you are against drm and media companies should embrace these new “free advertising” channels of distribution.

both of which are fine perspectives but why not just make a “sticky” headline at the top of the site instead of rewording the exact same thing day after day with new headlines under the guise of “new” information.

makes for an increasingly boring visit.

Reed says:

Re: Welcome to the 21st century

“every day this site has an article, or several, basically just restating the same ideas/opinions over and over.”

It takes a long time for these new 21st century ideas to soak in. I know it is hard to face the reality of the new century, but at some point your going to have to pull your head out of your arse and accept that the world is changing.

Besides who doesn’t use repitition to get there point accross? I mean the recording industry still keeps whining about “piracy”, why don’t they just post a sticky and stop coming out with new bogus reports on how much money they are losing.

“makes for an increasingly boring visit.”

If you don’t like this blog there are plenty of “Industry” sponsored sites that will fill your head with the evils of pirating and how 12 year olds need to be lynched for using Frostwire.

Gimme a break and stop busting balls when you have none.

Brian says:

um...

All you who are saying that it’s better to get your content in front of the most people possible, then why don’t studios just hand out free DVDs, tapes, etc? That’s such an unrealistic, illogical view of how things work. Studios want to have control over how their content is viewed – they want to reep the advertising benefits (ABC streams episodes online, Disney shows content on their site, ABC sells episodes on iTunes, etc), and they want to assure quality. And why shouldn’t they? Studios invest millions of dollars into producing the content, they should retain control. Otherwise, where is the benefit in spending all of that money?

Also – I would argue sites like YouTube are what they are because big media hasn’t gotten involved. The content is home grown, and that’s the greatness of it – it’s unique, fresh, and hasn’t been watered down by big companies trying to appeal to the most people. Do people really want to see YouTube flooded with mainstream content?

Me says:

lawyer games

Well, if you don’t want to take it down because it is so costly… why not join ’em. You could take the prosecuting attorney approach. What I mean by that, is if the defense laywer requests all the evidence you have against his client, you HAVE to send me EVERYTHING you have. So you do it, but you bury them with it. Disney could create advertisements (30 second spots) and put then on youtube, so much so… that you flood you tube with your adds effectively burying the REAL videos are are trying to suppress in the first place.

misanthropic humanist says:

left hand, right hand

Chris wrote: “I guess these companies, corporations, businesses, whatever you want to call them, are afraid that providing desired content at the click of a button will trump having to wait until 9pm to watch something with nearly as much commericals, as there is actual “entertaining” material.”

Kind of. And the same goes for what Mike says about clinging to old business practices, and my own opinions about the out-of-control lawyers.

Basically we have to stop seeing corporations as coherent entities. They may carry the legal fiction of a personified face, and like political parties they spend a fortune on PR to push the illusion of a big happy family all singing together. But, as I’ve said before, the reality of any company above about 250-500 persons is that it is disjoint, partisan, and in some cases practically schizophenic. Large corps are formed of faculties at odds with one another, R&D hate the manufacturing section, who hate the legal department, and everyone hates HR, each organ is fighting to dominate and believes they are the most important part of the company.

A company like Disney is about as twisted and contradictory as they come. It’s no shock to hear different parts of the company sending conflicting messages or working to opposing agendas. So while it’s obvious to anyone with IQ in double figures that free advertising is a boon, and while the animators and promotional staff probably love the publicity angle, somewhere inside Disney a sweaty plamed little pencil in the legal department is having a fit and making life shitty for everone else.

That’s why the first thing any company that really wants to get ahead these days should do is to fire their lawyers and only contract them in as needed.

Jeremy Toeman (user link) says:

misc thoughts on this

1 – I don’t really disagree with Disney here. To say it’s their responsibility to police YouTube is a completely unfair business practice. It would be one thing if it only happened once in a while, but it’s YouTube’s FAULT that Disney has to police the site, and NOT the other way around.

2 – to whoever wrote “Do people really want to see YouTube flooded with mainstream content?” – are you KIDDING? As of the moment I am writing this, exactly half of the videos on the Most Viewed (Today) page ARE MAINSTREAM CONTENT!!!

3 – I agree with the overall theme that the lawyers are screwing things up for companies and consumers alike.

4 – At the end of the day, it is Disney’s right to protect their content. CBS chose one path, Disney is choosing another. Just because you want it to all be free doesn’t mean they have to do it. Don’t like Disney? Fine, don’t buy their content. If enough people are like you, they lose out. My hunch is they’ll do just fine.

-jt

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...