Videos

14271 readers

154 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

Videos only
Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
Don't be a jerk
No advertising
No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

610

Disney creates best argument for piracy in a century. (odysee.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's like Disney was watching The Boys and didn't understand that the show was satirical... They seemed to think people would legitimately cheer them on if they just straight up acted like Vought.... and even then Vought at least offered a fucking check + Homelander Meet & Greet when A-Train killed Robin.

Isn't it weird that Hughey got the check for Robin's death and not her family? I mean she was just his girlfriend right? I don't think they were actually married, but whatever knowing the showrunner that was probably either a reference to the actual comic or a commentary on the whole "Women in Refrigerators" phenomenon (When a female character is killed off solely to further the story of a male character, named for a scene in a DC book where Green Lantern finds one of his super heroine colleagues chopped up and in his fridge to kick off the plot.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Huh. I never noticed that about the check but you're right.

Maybe Vought paid off the family separately?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can someone please summarize in a sentence or two for those of us who don't like watching videos?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Disney's argument in the recent lawsuit, where they killed a dude's wife at a restaurant, after assurances were made that they could handle preparing food that wouldn't have what she was allergic to, and failed to do so, resulting in her death. It boils down to: you signed up for Disney+ for a free trial 4 years ago, so you have to go to arbitration, not sue us. Therefore if he had pirated the content, he would likely already have a check because they would have settled out of court.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Ahh, ok. Yes, I'm aware of this fucked up situation. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

it seems to me the same thing that happened to Boeing need to happen to Disney when they tried to write off any culpability to human life when they tried to put a monetary value on it to their own benefit.

Also that policies in contracts will be null and void if a company tries to write any such thing into their contracts in future. Which sadly this needs to be a law.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Where I live, at least when it comes to contracts involving jobs, you can not specify something that's less than the law would require. Like you can't agree to work all day without a break on less than minimum wage. Not legal despite any contracts.

You could technically give someone permission to assault you, but you couldn't give someone permission to aggravated assault you. The former being a crime that the victim decides to press charges or not, but the second one being so serious that it will be prosecuted no matter what was agreed.

But yeah your formatting would be way mroe extensive; if a company even tries some shenanigans to avoid consequences in the event of something like this happening, it voids the contract. I agree.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Who thinks capitalism is better than piracy?!’

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In theory Louis Rossman. He even says in this video that he has no issues paying for what he needs and wants. He takes issue when doing the "right thing" will lead to a worse result than doing the "wrong thing."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

there is nothing wrong with paying for what you want. problem is, companies get away with changing rules on the fly, locking your shit down years after you bought it, cancelling it altogether, and just causing issues for actual paying customers.

I bought a nice knife for when I'm backpacking, camping. there is no way the company can remotely disable it, break it, take it from me, I got what I paid for and am happy.

too many tech services are the exact opposite and just treat people like shit, and we're tired of it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if you could make a donation platform for artists that also provides torrents. You would have to tie up the money pending proof of identification from an artist who participated in creating the work, then release a portion to them. I'm just speculating here but it seems like something that could be made.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Amanda Palmer was proposing something like this using block chain.

load more comments