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

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

Thu, Nov 30th 2006 10:38am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Baal, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:07am

Nothing is good enough for these big companies. They only thing they really care about is how to squeeze that extra cent from the rest of the public. I still say we outlaw the DMCA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:13am

What they really care about is retaining an outdated business model.

If they cared about squeezing more money from the public they'd find a way to use a FREE service like YouTube to promote their content. Could it get any better than that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:36am

i thought disney was the law.
funny... wasn't it big media companies like disney that pushed for the DMCA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griffon, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:37am

and with all that free time
Yeah well, what would they do with all that legal free time anyway? Go back to threatening and in some cases suing grade school teachers for having the audacity to give them free advertising by having a micky mouse poster in the classroom. Disney is so out of touch and run by their legal department it's actually scary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:38am

Pirates ftw!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:57am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:58am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 30 Nov 2006 @ 12:08pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2006 @ 12:16pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 30 Nov 2006 @ 12:22pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 30 Nov 2006 @ 12:32pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, 30 Nov 2006 @ 1:00pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2006 @ 5:58pm

Is everyone forgetting that Disney is the first and only media company that has put their movies and shows from ABC on iTunes and their websites? So this accusation that they're using "old" business models and not embracing new technologies is outdated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reed, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:18pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mousky, 30 Nov 2006 @ 8:54pm

Re:
Disney doesn't need the free advertising

Since when do companies pass up on free advertising? I hope you do not run a business that relies on advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mousky, 30 Nov 2006 @ 8:58pm

Re: um...
You do realize that content on YouTube is limited to 10 minutes and covers a fraction of your screen? It's not meant as an alternative means of distribution - it's meant as an alternative means of advertising and marketing (much like MTV and MuchMusic were when they first began).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 30 Nov 2006 @ 10:40pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Toeman, 1 Dec 2006 @ 12:17pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]