The Consumer Thread

[SirRumpole]

Hypothetically, if Disney went completely out of business tomorrow who would own Mickey Mouse ?

Companies don't have descendants if they are wound up.

 

[Value Collector]

Hypothetically, if Disney went completely out of business tomorrow who would own Mickey Mouse ?

Companies don't have descendants if they are wound up.

Their creditors probably, or who ever bought him in the winding up of assets.

He is to valuable to be forgotten tomorrow, some one would buy him for a dollar (or 100million dollars)

Man if Disney went bankrupt, it would be the biggest Intellectual property auction of the of all time, they have some many characters and Franchises, and hundreds of films in the can, if you cut that cake up and sold it in pieces you would bring in millions.

You could sell existing stars wars films to one group, rights to make future movies to another, merchandise rights to another group, and rights for video game usage to another, do the same with marvel, Mickey and friends, princesses, toy story, nemo, cars etc, break up the music library, sell off the film library piece by piece.

 

[luutzu]

Mickey Mouse is a different story, he is not just a copyrighted character, he is a trade mark, as are some other Disney characters.

Trade marks and brands are used to distinguish and identify companies and products.

you can't make a drink and call it Coca Cola and use the Coca Cola ribbon logo, because that is a trade mark of the Coca Cola company, you are misleading consumers if you do.

Certain standards of quality and product content are associated with certain brands, when people here the word Disney it brings up an idea about the type of product etc, some one that tries to use a trade mark of Disney to increase their sales is actually misleading consumers and stealing from Disney who have done the hard yards for decades to build their brand and public image.

Now if The Walt Disney company died tommorrow, and it's characters were abandoned for 100years, it would be a different story, you would be within your rights to use Micky, to put in the hard yards and rebuild his public image, but as long as Disney is still working and investing and using him as a trade mark, you can't use him without unfairly benefiting from their work at their expense and misleading consumers

Eg, you can use my organs after I die and have abandoned them and you are creating value, but try taking my kidneys while I am still alive and that's called stealing (or murder)

How much of Disney do you own?

There's the private ownership, then there's the national ownership. Cultural heritage and what not. Passing from one generation of story tellers and adapted from one to the next to better suit taste and evolution.

If Disney and the studio look hard enough, I'm sure they can find descendants of the Grimms; or Charles Dickens; or relatives of Jane Austin etc. etc.

From what I notice over the years, most if not all movies/content have nothing done to them since original release - where they would have had made their money already. Nothing done beside reprinting it on different format.

But since that constitute effort and copyright ownership for the studios... Why can't ownership of other culture's or long dead artists and poet's work whose relatives did nothing but somehow are not paid a cent by Disney and friends?

OK, the law is there to protect our interests so stuff other people's ownership and royalties if their law aren't as advanced as ours. It's the market, so go sue somebody.

----
I read somewhere that MicroSoft is aware of the pirating of their software but doesn't mind it so much if it's for personal use. Why? It help entrench MS product acceptance when those kids grow up, get a job and decide what software/platform to use at the office.

Got to give some to win some.

 

[Smurf1976]

If channel ten has bought the rights in Australia for Seinfeld for 20years, Netflix will not have the right to distribute it to Australia.

If Ten make it available online as soon as it's released overseas then that's no problem. If they try the old trick of holding things back until it suits them then that'll eventually put them out of business as consumers find workarounds (legal or illegal).

It's like the music industry when MP3 became a popular format. They spent far too much time trying to prop up the previous format (CD) rather than embracing the new one and effectively forced piracy as for many years that was the only real means of actually using the MP3 format. The industry spent a lot of time complaining about piracy but seemed to miss the point that they were the ones effectively forcing it (well, unless they thought the Discman was still going to be popular in 2016 and that devices such as smart phones would never be developed).

Ten etc would be making a rather large blunder if they did the same thing and tried to prop up broadcast TV at the expense of embracing their new role as online content providers with a "heritage" sideline in broadcasting that will likely disappear altogether at some point.

Does anyone seriously think that broadcast TV will be of any relevance in 2030? Will it even still exist?

 

[SirRumpole]

Does anyone seriously think that broadcast TV will be of any relevance in 2030? Will it even still exist?

That depends on how good the Internet is.

With wireless only and a 9Gb package, watching tv on internet is a pipe dream for me.

I don't pirate stuff either.

TV is rubbish these days, I rarely watch anything apart from news and sport or documentaries and if something good does come along I will shell out for the DVD/BlueRay whatever.

But maybe I'm just lazy, too much effort in pirating when there is so little worth watching.

 

[Value Collector]

How much of Disney do you own?

There's the private ownership, then there's the national ownership. Cultural heritage and what not. Passing from one generation of story tellers and adapted from one to the next to better suit taste and evolution.

If Disney and the studio look hard enough, I'm sure they can find descendants of the Grimms; or Charles Dickens; or relatives of Jane Austin etc. etc.

From what I notice over the years, most if not all movies/content have nothing done to them since original release - where they would have had made their money already. Nothing done beside reprinting it on different format.

But since that constitute effort and copyright ownership for the studios... Why can't ownership of other culture's or long dead artists and poet's work whose relatives did nothing but somehow are not paid a cent by Disney and friends?

OK, the law is there to protect our interests so stuff other people's ownership and royalties if their law aren't as advanced as ours. It's the market, so go sue somebody.

----
I read somewhere that MicroSoft is aware of the pirating of their software but doesn't mind it so much if it's for personal use. Why? It help entrench MS product acceptance when those kids grow up, get a job and decide what software/platform to use at the office.

Got to give some to win some.

You can rationalise away your piracy all you want, if you want to pirate stuff, nothing I say is going to stop you, I am just saying content is available in so many different forms now, and it's cheaper and in more abundance than in any time in history, why not just pay for the content and keep the system going.

If something means so much to you that you seek it out and go through the hoops of obtaining a low quality pirate, why not just pay the $6 or $4, and if you don't have enough money to buy indivual movies, subscribe to Netflix or some other cheap unlimited package or take advantage of the many routes to obtain free content advert based distribution.

 

[luutzu]

You can rationalise away your piracy all you want, if you want to pirate stuff, nothing I say is going to stop you, I am just saying content is available in so many different forms now, and it's cheaper and in more abundance than in any time in history, why not just pay for the content and keep the system going.

If something means so much to you that you seek it out and go through the hoops of obtaining a low quality pirate, why not just pay the $6 or $4, and if you don't have enough money to buy indivual movies, subscribe to Netflix or some other cheap unlimited package or take advantage of the many routes to obtain free content advert based distribution.

I do pay for my content. I just paid some $30 to watch Captain American. Abot $100 on the new Star Wars. Also subscribing to Presto. But will be canceling it and get that free Stan offer with my new Vodafone plan.

But point is, it's not rationalising theft or whatever with piracy with (other) people; it's just the fact that people and corporations will take advantage if it's out there - legal or not legal.

Like I said, if Disney and the studios want people to feel sorry and play fair, maybe they should set a good example and pay a fair and living wage to their employees; or donate to refugees or charitable foundations in countries whose stories they took and profit handsomely from all these decades.

They can't use the law that they also help push for and say well... we Disney don't have to pay for stuff in the public domain; we don't have to pay a living wage when the law said it's fine to exploit people.

So Disney and the studios should get off that high moral horse and hire some lawyer to scare to heck out of those kids stealing and sharing the files.

 

[Value Collector]

I do pay for my content. I just paid some $30 to watch Captain American. Abot $100 on the new Star Wars. Also subscribing to Presto. But will be canceling it and get that free Stan offer with my new Vodafone plan.

But point is, it's not rationalising theft or whatever with piracy with (other) people; it's just the fact that people and corporations will take advantage if it's out there - legal or not legal.

Like I said, if Disney and the studios want people to feel sorry and play fair, maybe they should set a good example and pay a fair and living wage to their employees; or donate to refugees or charitable foundations in countries whose stories they took and profit handsomely from all these decades.

They can't use the law that they also help push for and say well... we Disney don't have to pay for stuff in the public domain; we don't have to pay a living wage when the law said it's fine to exploit people.

So Disney and the studios should get off that high moral horse and hire some lawyer to scare to heck out of those kids stealing and sharing the files.

What percentage of Disney staff earn minimum wage? I bet it's almost none, except trainees etc.

Disney already does make a lot charity contributions.

-------------------------------

how did Star Wars cost $100?

 

[luutzu]

What percentage of Disney staff earn minimum wage? I bet it's almost none, except trainees etc.

Disney already does make a lot charity contributions.

-------------------------------

how did Star Wars cost $100?

I went there three times. Two of it taking family members. So it's like watching it 6 times (get it? 6 from 3 visits because it's 3 viewing the new but being told the same story as the original 3. Wait, that should be 12 times ... it's a good movie, no complaint. Will definitely go watch that Rouge One spin-off/expansion.

No, Disney might/will pay minimum legal wage of $9.50 an hour end this July 2016, and topped-out, or max of $13.57 if certain conditions are met. But if you work for Disney for 40 years, you'd be glad to know you can earn $14.07 an hour by 2017.

Living the dream - just that dream is considered a living wage if you're single, but poverty wage if you got a kid or two.

http://themeparkuniversity.com/disney/depth-look-walt-disney-world-employee-wages/

btw, if American corp. play fair and not lobbied the people's gov't, the people's minimum wage would be $22 an hour, not the $15 they are currently fighting for.



----

VC, don't go over to the Dark Side bro. Just take their money and give it to charities on your own.

 

[Value Collector]

I went there three times. Two of it taking family members. So it's like watching it 6 times (get it? 6 from 3 visits because it's 3 viewing the new but being told the same story as the original 3. Wait, that should be 12 times ... it's a good movie, no complaint. Will definitely go watch that Rouge One spin-off/expansion.

No, Disney might/will pay minimum legal wage of $9.50 an hour end this July 2016, and topped-out, or max of $13.57 if certain conditions are met. But if you work for Disney for 40 years, you'd be glad to know you can earn $14.07 an hour by 2017.

Living the dream - just that dream is considered a living wage if you're single, but poverty wage if you got a kid or two.

http://themeparkuniversity.com/disney/depth-look-walt-disney-world-employee-wages/

btw, if American corp. play fair and not lobbied the people's gov't, the people's minimum wage would be $22 an hour, not the $15 they are currently fighting for.



----

VC, don't go over to the Dark Side bro. Just take their money and give it to charities on your own.

You are quoting stating wages, for entry level theme park jobs, these jobs are mainly for students and retirees looking for a fun job for some extra spending money. If you think the imagineers, fireworks technicians, ride Maintance crews, animators, show directors, lighting, music, head chefs, hotel management, advertising, and all the other specialist workers are being paid the same as the street sweepers and popcorn guys you are crazy.

Seriously who plans on working a career in an entry level job??? Disney is a huge organisation with plenty of scope for advancement into areas paying very good wages, the head of animation started as a street sweeper, now not everyone is going to become head of animation, but if you looked at figures of what percentage of people that had worked at disney for 5 years or more on average they would be earning a lot more than minimum wage.

---------------

Also I looked it up, Disney gave away $333,000,000 in 2015 to charity, that's a third of a billion, that's a lot.

So trying to make them out as

 

[luutzu]

If Ten make it available online as soon as it's released overseas then that's no problem. If they try the old trick of holding things back until it suits them then that'll eventually put them out of business as consumers find workarounds (legal or illegal).

It's like the music industry when MP3 became a popular format. They spent far too much time trying to prop up the previous format (CD) rather than embracing the new one and effectively forced piracy as for many years that was the only real means of actually using the MP3 format. The industry spent a lot of time complaining about piracy but seemed to miss the point that they were the ones effectively forcing it (well, unless they thought the Discman was still going to be popular in 2016 and that devices such as smart phones would never be developed).

Ten etc would be making a rather large blunder if they did the same thing and tried to prop up broadcast TV at the expense of embracing their new role as online content providers with a "heritage" sideline in broadcasting that will likely disappear altogether at some point.

Does anyone seriously think that broadcast TV will be of any relevance in 2030? Will it even still exist?

Thinking about it, I would be very suprise if the current studio/production/distribution model are still around by 2030. May be around, but won't be as dominant.

News media are dying as we speak. Independent news network on the internet are growing in popularity.. and they are more informed and more progressive and honest in calling out the politicians.

Not many people trust corporate news media... it's on its way out.


Taking news as a model, Netflix being able to produce and distribute their own high quality movies and series... more and more independent artists, documentarians will be able to make quality movies/doco and cheaply distribute it across the world.

 

[luutzu]

You are quoting stating wages, for entry level theme park jobs, these jobs are mainly for students and retirees looking for a fun job for some extra spending money. If you think the imagineers, fireworks technicians, ride Maintance crews, animators, show directors, lighting, music, head chefs, hotel management, advertising, and all the other specialist workers are being paid the same as the street sweepers and popcorn guys you are crazy.

Seriously who plans on working a career in an entry level job??? Disney is a huge organisation with plenty of scope for advancement into areas paying very good wages, the head of animation started as a street sweeper, now not everyone is going to become head of animation, but if you looked at figures of what percentage of people that had worked at disney for 5 years or more on average they would be earning a lot more than minimum wage.

---------------

Also I looked it up, Disney gave away $333,000,000 in 2015 to charity, that's a third of a billion, that's a lot.

So trying to make them out as

I haven't look but willing to bet that the majority of Disney's staff are those on the $10 going to $13 per hour wage.

$333M sounds like a lot, and good for them to have done it. But what's that in relation to Disney's $52.46 Billion in revenue?

333/52460 = 0.6% of revenue?

What if, let say, all the stories and music and dead creators of work have to be paid for by Disney and studios who adapt them.

What would the average royalty be?

A relative unknown author would be paid, from memory, $1 a book for their book sold. Average $30 a book, so 3%?

How much does Buffett get paid for just authorising his biography? $10M up front... probably plus royalties too.

----

If Disney were forced to pay the culture or people whose stories they use... and they only pick famous, well established great work with brand and that moat of mind etc.... 5% royalty sounds fair?

But anyway... that's just for argument's sake.

For the reality of things... pay workers, all workers, at least a living wage. If they can't be asked and make rationalisations to pay as little as possible, and possible partly through them doing lobbying... then they shouldn't complaint when others are taking advantage of loopholes and dark corners against them.

We all believe in free enterprise right? Doesn't always mean corporations get to screw people all of the time.

 

[Value Collector]

I haven't look but willing to bet that the majority of Disney's staff are those on the $10 going to $13 per hour wage.

$333M sounds like a lot, and good for them to have done it. But what's that in relation to Disney's $52.46 Billion in revenue?

333/52460 = 0.6% of revenue?

What if, let say, all the stories and music and dead creators of work have to be paid for by Disney and studios who adapt them.

What would the average royalty be?

A relative unknown author would be paid, from memory, $1 a book for their book sold. Average $30 a book, so 3%?

How much does Buffett get paid for just authorising his biography? $10M up front... probably plus royalties too.

----

If Disney were forced to pay the culture or people whose stories they use... and they only pick famous, well established great work with brand and that moat of mind etc.... 5% royalty sounds fair?

But anyway... that's just for argument's sake.

For the reality of things... pay workers, all workers, at least a living wage. If they can't be asked and make rationalisations to pay as little as possible, and possible partly through them doing lobbying... then they shouldn't complaint when others are taking advantage of loopholes and dark corners against them.

We all believe in free enterprise right? Doesn't always mean corporations get to screw people all of the time.

Why would you compare a companies charity donations to total revenue? If anything you should be comparing it to their net profit after tax.

but either way, why try and down play charitable giving of a third of a billion dollars?

----------------------------

Any way I think you are clutching at straws here trying to make them look bad, and we have probably gone off topic enough, you have the right to be wrong, so I will leave you with your thoughts.

 

[luutzu]

Why would you compare a companies charity donations to total revenue? If anything you should be comparing it to their net profit after tax.

but either way, why try and down play charitable giving of a third of a billion dollars?

----------------------------

Any way I think you are clutching at straws here trying to make them look bad, and we have probably gone off topic enough, you have the right to be wrong, so I will leave you with your thoughts.

Don't companies claim tax on their givings? So more appropriate to compare to revenue than net profit.

I'm not saying Disney is bad or make light of their charity or deny their rights to make profit from their investment.

All I'm saying is that if we, and Disney & Co., believes in the free market and all that... if people are able to take other people's creative work without paying for it, that road will be taken.

And companies like Disney doesn't have any high road or moral authority because they too take things for free when they can; they too exploit loopholes and pay their people the barest minimum etc. etc.

That's just capitalism. Two edge sword.

 

[Value Collector]

Don't companies claim tax on their givings? So more appropriate to compare to revenue than net profit.

.

No, you should compare it to the amount that would have been available for shareholders if they didn't make the donation.

You don't "claim" tax on donations, you just don't have to pay tax on the dollars you donate.

If I donated $10 to a charity, what's the point of you saving "oh, but your business had revenue of $2000", the revenue is not even close to the profit, which is what the charity payment has to come from.

From the $2000 revenue, I have to pay wages, rent, insurances, cost of goods sold, etc etc, my profit might end up being 5% of the revenue, and the donation might be a large portion of that.

 

[luutzu]

No, you should compare it to the amount that would have been available for shareholders if they didn't make the donation.

You don't "claim" tax on donations, you just don't have to pay tax on the dollars you donate.

If I donated $10 to a charity, what's the point of you saving "oh, but your business had revenue of $2000", the revenue is not even close to the profit, which is what the charity payment has to come from.

From the $2000 revenue, I have to pay wages, rent, insurances, cost of goods sold, etc etc, my profit might end up being 5% of the revenue, and the donation might be a large portion of that.

Corporations aren't people when it come to giving to charity. Beside Berkshire, and even then the shareholders would still have their own motives and intersts... but in general, corporations "give" to charities for ulterior motives.

One, they can claim, alright, expense or whatever, the amount they "donate" right off the bat.

Two, donations can be kickbacks; free advertising etc. Hello Children, this is Mickey Mouse... these are his friends and we hope you enjoy this one room in this ward, room full of Disney toys and Disney characters plastered all over the walls with this massive Disneyland picture so that you can guilt your parents into taking you and your siblings to the Magic Kingdom, watch Disney movies and enjoy the toys and books and stickers... life is short children. Very very short for some...

too much?

Don't mean to bag Disney, or its shareholders, just goose and gander stuff.

 

[Value Collector]

too much?

.

Yeah, it makes you out to be a bit of a douche bag

 

[SirRumpole]

Corporations aren't people when it come to giving to charity. Beside Berkshire, and even then the shareholders would still have their own motives and intersts... but in general, corporations "give" to charities for ulterior motives.

One, they can claim, alright, expense or whatever, the amount they "donate" right off the bat.

Two, donations can be kickbacks; free advertising etc. Hello Children, this is Mickey Mouse... these are his friends and we hope you enjoy this one room in this ward, room full of Disney toys and Disney characters plastered all over the walls with this massive Disneyland picture so that you can guilt your parents into taking you and your siblings to the Magic Kingdom, watch Disney movies and enjoy the toys and books and stickers... life is short children. Very very short for some...

too much?

Don't mean to bag Disney, or its shareholders, just goose and gander stuff.

How should we view companies like MacDonalds that invest in places like Ronald MacDonald House for Cancer sufferers and of course they make sure people know who gave the money.

Are these actions altruistic or just advertising ? If they were altruistic then they could obviously give the money anonymously.

Would we allow the investment if it was from say Tooheys, and came with pictures of grog bottles all over the walls ?

Probably having Mickey mouse on the wall isn't as bad as a Ronald McDonald but where should we draw the line ?

 

[Value Collector]

How should we view companies like MacDonalds that invest in places like Ronald MacDonald House for Cancer sufferers and of course they make sure people know who gave the money.

Are these actions altruistic or just advertising ? If they were altruistic then they could obviously give the money anonymously.

Would we allow the investment if it was from say Tooheys, and came with pictures of grog bottles all over the walls ?

Probably having Mickey mouse on the wall isn't as bad as a Ronald McDonald but where should we draw the line ?

I must say it is a bit of a pet hate of mine when people down play good charitable work, it seems organisations are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they don't give back they are "Greedy corporations" if they do give back they must have some other motive or evil plan, or are trying to "profit" from tax credits.

---------------------------------

I find the "They are just doing it to reduce tax" the most annoying argument, it's like the person saying it thinks that a person can donate $1 and some how profit from that and get $1.10 back from the government, that's just stupid.

If a person donates a $1, all that happens from the tax side is that they don't have to pay tax on that $1, So if they earned $100K and gave away $10K, they will pay tax as if they only earned $90K, but they aren't profiting, they still gave away money they could have spent on themselves.

And not all charities are tax deductable, so some people will still pay tax on the full 100K even though they gave away $10K

 

[SirRumpole]

I must say it is a bit of a pet hate of mine when people down play good charitable work, it seems organisations are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they don't give back they are "Greedy corporations" if they do give back they must have some other motive or evil plan, of are trying to "profit" from tax credits.

---------------------------------

I find the "They are just doing it to reduce tax" the most annoying argument, it's like the person saying it thinks that a person can donate $1 and some how profit from that and get $1.10 back from the government, that's just stupid.

If a person donates a $1, all that happens from the tax side is that they don't have to pay tax on that $1, So if they earned $100K and gave away $10K, they will pay tax as if they only earned $90K, but they aren't profiting, they still gave away money they could have spend on themselves.

And not all charities are tax deductable, so some people will still pay tax on the full 100K even though they gave away $10K

I have no problem with organisations making charitable donations, and I applaud them for it , it's a matter of how they go about it. They can give anonymously and deduct it from their tax like individuals and that's fine.

So, I cited the example of Ronald MacDonald House. It's a very visible "donation" and it could be reasonably said that it is advertising in disguise to attract kids to a product which isn't particularly good for them.

You and I don't derive any benefit apart from a reduction in tax for charitable donations, so why should companies ? Maybe they can deduct such things twice, once for charitable donation and again for advertising.