Disney's Takedown Of Roger Ebert's Tribute To Gene Siskel
from the shameful dept
Esquire's moving article about famed film critic Roger Ebert is worth reading for many reasons -- detailing the unfortunate medical circumstances that have caused him to lose his voice, his jaw and his ability to eat, among other things, but not his ability to communicate or share his love of movies. Reading through the article, I had no intention of writing anything about it for Techdirt, but then I came to a story near the end, also noticed by Justin Levine, concerning how Disney apparently forced offline Ebert's first show after longtime sparring partner Gene Siskel died:Ebert keeps scrolling down [to his blog post commemorating Siskel, ten years after his death]. Below his journal he had embedded video of his first show alone, the balcony seat empty across the aisle. It was a tribute, in three parts. He wants to watch them now, because he wants to remember, but at the bottom of the page there are only three big black squares. In the middle of the squares, white type reads: "Content deleted. This video is no longer available because it has been deleted." Ebert leans into the screen, trying to figure out what's happened. He looks across at Chaz. The top half of his face turns red, and his eyes well up again, but this time, it's not sadness surfacing. He's shaking. It's anger.Notice that they think it's Disney again. How nice of them to repeatedly take down the videos of Ebert's tribute to his close friend. Just like copyright law intended.
Chaz looks over his shoulder at the screen. "Those fu -- " she says, catching herself.
They think it's Disney again -- that they've taken down the videos. Terms-of-use violation.
This time, the anger lasts long enough for Ebert to write it down. He opens a new page in his text-to-speech program, a blank white sheet. He types in capital letters, stabbing at the keys with his delicate, trembling hands: MY TRIBUTE, appears behind the cursor in the top left corner. ON THE FIRST SHOW AFTER HIS DEATH. But Ebert doesn't press the button that fires up the speakers. He presses a different button, a button that makes the words bigger. He presses the button again and again and again, the words growing bigger and bigger and bigger until they become too big to fit the screen, now they're just letters, but he keeps hitting the button, bigger and bigger still, now just shapes and angles, just geometry filling the white screen with black like the three squares. Roger Ebert is shaking, his entire body is shaking, and he's still hitting the button, bang, bang, bang, and he's shouting now. He's standing outside on the street corner and he's arching his back and he's shouting at the top of his lungs.
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
Filed Under: copyright, gene siskel, roger ebert, tributes
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But Disney would have practically gone out of business had they allowed these videos to remain online, right? ... Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it's been ON for a while now...
Disney boycott STILL ON.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A Disney-brand boycott is kinda toothless for anyone who doesn't.
Do you include Miramax, ABC, ESPN? All the other Disney brands? The theme parks? Otherwise, it's not really a boycott, but just your taste in content.
If so, "Solidarity Reg." I can't join the boycott, because I have a bad back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
But what's really, REALLY strange about all this is that At The Movies (Siskel/Ebert's show) was produced by WLS-TV Studios here in Chicago. I'll give you 3 guesses as to who owns WLS-TV, but you'll only need one.
That's right, Disney produced the show. So why are they taking down their own content? That's what I don't get. It can't be because disney copyrighted material is involved, since they own the rights. Did they just not want the video anymore and not bother to involve Ebert?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh really
wonder should i sue?
SHOULD i become a millionaire and stuff the cost to the end users as disney would just raise prices on stuff to cover a loss?
Do not kid your selves disney is in fact one of the worst distribution houses on earth. TO think they make kids movies makes me utterly ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sigh
The lobbyist keep throwing money that the politicians, who in turn keep passing anti-consumer laws. Voting does no good because of the two-party system (USA), and the fact they say one thing to get elected and then do another.
We have a rich history of art and literature from all over the world, centuries old, that is available to all. I fear that will no longer be the case for succeeding generations. There will be this void from the 20th century on.
It all just makes me sad, and I feel there is nothing I can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sigh
Reading stories here can get pretty depressing at times. You're absolutely right, the vast majority of people in this country do not give a frick about these very important issues and the copyright industry will get whatever it wants, just like it always has.
However, maybe you can find some solace in making fun of the Anti-Mike. That always cheers me up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sigh
Seems only 'pirates', 'infringers', and 'thieves' care enough to save it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sigh
Now that's irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sigh
I have an ever-growing list of TV shows that I'm preserving for future generations, all neatly labelled and filed away. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sigh
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/that_show_about_the_lady
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sigh
I write software and agree that it is impossible to 'steal' others patented ideas. The 'theft' is fairly complicated. I usually have a problem that needs to be solved, or a game that I want to write. I then write the code necessary to solve the problem. Perhaps this program will have to connect to the Internet for some data, or will interface with a GPS to find out where it is. Then I use this information to solve the problem. I probably 'steal' several ideas from patents along the way without knowing or caring. Of course if you don't make money no one cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sigh
I write software and agree that it is impossible to 'steal' others patented ideas.
should be
I write software and agree that it is impossible to NOT 'steal' other's patented ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sigh
Well, you could always rent blu-rays, then rip and convert them to h.264/MKV. They look just as nice without the DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sigh
Sounds like a lot of work. Aren't there people who do this for you and post the torrents on the Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sigh
There are a few things you can do about it. You can vote with your wallet and not buy games, etc with DRM. You can use P2P to get DRM free games, etc, although it's illegal. You can go outside and enjoy the world and forget about using anything created by the entertainment industry.
Disney has big corporationitis. The left cheek doesn't know what the right cheek is up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sigh
Don't forget to get No-DVD cracks for them as well (only needed if the DRM removed version isn't already cracked).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha all artistists need to eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ha all artistists need to eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I read TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Disney Did it
Fast forward to 2009.
"At the movies" is still on the air. It is still reviewing movies. But now, it is with a couple know-nothing chuckle heads. They've changed the ratings system. Instead of thumbs up or thumbs down, it "See it", "Rent it", "Skip it". "At the Movies" is a pale imitation of what it once was.
That's why they blocked the content. Corporations do this all the time. When the make a change they want all memory of the old erased. Companies spend millions of dollars making sure their current logo is displayed, and that people want the new, not the old.
That's what's happened here. It's Disney trying to hide the fact that once upon a time they created some great content. If all people know is the garbage they are currently producing, then that is all they will ever expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Disney Did it
I concur. I feel more speechless than Roger Ebert after reading that article. Disney=Evil Empire. I have lived in Florida for 8 years, moved here with two young children, and not once...NEVER have I set foot in Disneyland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Disney Did it
The reason the new guys are not using the "thumbs" is because Ebert has trademarked the "thumbs up/thumbs down" system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Disney Did it
So, it's more complicated - and a case that Disney wanted to more clearly "own" the show - than just "Ebert has trademarked" it.
In short, any large corporation will do what it thinks will make them more money, mostly in the short term, and will not act appropriately because of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Disney Did it
That's what's happened here. It's Disney trying to hide the fact that once upon a time they created some great content. If all people know is the garbage they are currently producing, then that is all they will ever expect."
If you take a look at any Disney dvd of their older "classic" films (which I would NEVER BUY but have checked a few out from my local public library) you'll notice that they *always* omit the original year of release, even on iconic status old films.
Disney = erasing history and treating consumers like morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy vs Copyright law
All the pirates on here need to just get a life. Pirates are simply too stingy to actually buy programs/movies instead of purchasing them. Piracy has nothing to do with fighting DRM, and everything to do with stealing and there's not a good way to spin piracy. Pirates drive up the cost for legitimate buyers and do more harm than good. I don't know how many torrents exist on the web that are bad and loaded with viruses. It is because of irresponsible behavior like that, that malware continues to be a problem on the web.
Now onto the real issue of the original post. It kills me to see a company take such stringent measures to prevent Ebert from posting commemorative videos of his long time friend. That is really sad to see and really needs to be brought to the forefront.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
And that has what to do with the article, exactly?
"All the pirates on here need to just get a life."
Not everyone here is a pirate, sparky....
"Pirates are simply too stingy to actually buy programs/movies instead of purchasing them."
President Bush called, he wants his idiotic oversimplification back....
"Piracy has nothing to do with fighting DRM"
Yes it does....
"and everything to do with stealing"
The Supreme Court says you don't know how to use the English language....
"and there's not a good way to spin piracy."
Like, for example, some content companies have talked about how it is great market research? Obvious wrongness is obvious.
"Pirates drive up the cost for legitimate buyers"
Let's make a deal. For every percentage point that amount of piracy is reduced, the content companies of the world will mirror that percentage in price reduction. What do you say? I didn't think so....
"and do more harm than good"
Wait, wait, wait. You just said there was no good way to spin piracy, but now you're telling me that they are doing at least SOME good? Why are you contridicting yourself?
"I don't know how many torrents exist on the web that are bad and loaded with viruses."
My antivirus software asked me to tell you not to worry, it's not concerned....
"It is because of irresponsible behavior like that, that malware continues to be a problem on the web."
My antivirus also asked me to let you and everyone else suffering from malware that he...you know...exists and shit....
"It kills me to see a company take such stringent measures to prevent Ebert from posting commemorative videos of his long time friend."
Why? Ebert is a dirty smelly raporist pirate! All he had to do was license the video he made while working for Disney FROM Disney and it would've been all good. He just wanted to STEAL the content that HE helped make, driving up the cost for others that wanted to legitimately see the tribute. There's no good way to spin Ebert's piratey theft, and it's super likely that any other version of that video is laden with a supervirus constructed by Osama Bin Laden himself which will melt the eyeballs of anyone that views it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
Agreed. He should be punished as such. He should be sued out of existence. I think an award to Disney for $300 billion should suffice to show that bastard why he shouldn't be a raporist anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
That's why Disney secretly salted his coffee with radioactive material that caused his thyroid cancer. They are able to have the last laugh because he can't talk anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
It is THEFT, plain and simple. There is not other way to spin it. All this blether about copyright, starving artists, studios making obscene profits or any other crap.
Call it THEFT and be honest about what you say.
If you take for yourself something that is someone elses intellectual property, something they though was worthy enough to protect, to get a return on and you take it without any recompense to them then it is a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
No, wait! That isn't what happens at all! So that makes you a liar!
Copyright infringement is not theft in the eyes of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
The irony of that ignorant comment! Is is those that have (largely successfully) tried to associate the word "theft" or "piracy" with copyright infringement that are "calling it something it ain't."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy vs Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, the irony is that Walt Disney built his empire by making movies of public domain stories like Snow White, Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
Except I thought the moral component of copyright issues were supposed to be beyond the pale, unworthy of being considered in what is consistently framed as an issue of economics. You chide any defenders of copyright who make a "moral" argument that they just have to get beyond the emotion and accept economic reality.
But yet, moral arguments seem to be okay from the other side?
I feel as badly as everyone else here that Ebert couldn't watch the video of his friend one more time. Assuming he never had tapes or discs of the shows they did together.
Notice that they think it's Disney again. How nice of them to repeatedly take down the videos of Ebert's tribute to his close friend. Just like copyright law intended.
Well, yes. They took down videos of shows they produced and owned, for which Ebert and Roper were paid for their performances. Presumably this was all agreed to contractually, and Ebert knew what he was doing. Apparently Ebert's relationship with Disney did not end well. But there is not indication in this piece whether Ebert ever even asked about posting this tribute to his dear friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
But don't let inability to comprehend a point get in the way of your whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
But tell me where the economic issue is in this story? Indeed, where is the promotion of progress element in this story? This story is indeed a fine example of an emotional, morally outraged response to a copyright issue.
I'll let you insults pass. I've come to expect them from people who can't deal rationally with an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
But that's the point. The complete lack of promoting the progress is why this is a story. There's no obvious reason why Disney should remove the videos. Removing them doesn't promote any progress, it just makes an old ailing movie legend extremely sad....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
Promoting progress is a very generalized concept that is not suited to small, highly individualized events.
And while I certainly have no particular love for the Disney Corporation, I question whether they would have even known that the video was on the blog at all. I note that the quoted piece said that Ebert embedded the video there and the fact that he didn't know it had been removed indicates that he embedded it from a third-party site. If Disney contested it on that third-party site, they would have no specific reason to know where it was embedded.
I also don't necessarily have a problem with making a moral argument in favor of Ebert, but if such an argument is made, then you also have to consider the moral arguments in favor of copyright, something that Mike, at least, has been unwilling to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
Does that mean I can use copyright law to keep you from eating a lasagna? I mean, eating a lasagna doesn't Promote Progress. According to your logic, I can somehow twist the law to deny you a lasagna. Prove to me that you're Promoting Progress with your lasagna. DIRECTLY.
How about, are you going to take a bath? Well, that doesn't Promote Progress. I can have 10 lawyers misinterpret copyright law so that you can never again take a bath. Unless it Promotes Progress, it can be denied by copyright law, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage
This illustrates where you don't get it. As a people, we believe strongly in freedom of speech and expression. Hidden among a mountain of expression is some content (or art) worth watching. Content like Ebert's is notably worth watching by the simple measure that many people do spend their time watching it.
Ebert wanted to say something, to express something, and his ability to do so was blocked. Legally so, of course. But many of us think that this blockage, while legal, is wrong. It goes against the fair use rationale of a man trying to express himself.
And why did Ebert not have his own local copy of the content? I don't know, but it was probably some other 'ownership' issue. He probably was limited to linking to some other embed code, which got pulled. Doesn't much matter. What I see is a limitation in Ebert's ability to expand the cannon of "useful arts".
You'll note that, above, I don't give a rat's ass about the emotional ties Ebert may have had to the content. I just lament the inability of a person to express themselves using their past works in a reasonable way. Emotion is just a sad complement to this story.
Now, let's flip your question around. "How is removing the video from his blog promoting progress?" Does the use of copyright meet the objectives of copyright? We think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whose is the video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whose is the video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should also mention that now that Disney owns Marvel the production of Thor is going through many levels of Disney hell that Iron Man never had to endure simply because the Disney engine wasn't attached to those shoots. If I were john Favreau I'd steer clear of doing another Iron Man as it's clear that Disney will fuck with it as they have Thor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright wasn't to promote progress, or make money
But no. Now it's all about control. Money and control make for a bad, bad combination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, non-commercial copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil infraction. Two different things.
In terms of REAL theft, the most “wrong” thing about it is the intent to deprive permanently, otherwise “stealing” falls under the same category as using or borrowing. When it comes to intellectual property, you can not deprive someone permanently of it.
When “stealing” information you are not depriving anyone of that information, because they still have the same amount of information as before you “stole” it. Regardless of how much it costs to create something, calling it theft simply to copy it is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"disney again"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Disney's Takedown of Ebert's tribut to Siskel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]