609
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
609 points (97.1% liked)
Videos
14294 readers
272 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 !politicalvideos@lemmy.world 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 !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Even without taking into account Disney's legal "defence" (a cesspool of shit), anyone who has seen the news on this and kept their Disney+ subscription should be, for moral purposes, treated as someone who condones murder, as they're giving a murderous company the OK sign: "please continue doing things as usual".
People here are criticising Rossman's arguments based on Disney's "defence" being likely considered baseless, but on general grounds it's still a good point: piracy is a great way to avoid abusive contracts altogether.
(Also: if paying is not owning, piracy is not theft, simple as.)
Nah, my country just does not allow these kinds of clauses. You know.. like a sane country does.
The government that I pay taxes to doesn't allow this sort of abusive clause either. However, this is a lot like Nestlé's slavery chocolate: it's still harming someone in the world, and the business is showing signs that it would gladly do it against us if allowed to do so.
Yep, government needs to regulate businesses.
But in this particular case I would suggest the judge "asks" whoever signed off on this lawsuit to come to court and sentence that person and the lawyer to 60 days hard labor, just for thinking of the heinous use of this clause.
Besides that, clauses that extend beyond the duration of a contract should also be heavily regulated.
No, no, the problem is that once you've had a Disney+ subscription, even a free trial, you're fucked for life (and beyond), according to Disney. You (and probably any descendants you might ever have) are restricted to arbitration for ever. Cancelling the subscription at this point won't help, you're already doomed.
The only ones who can save themselves are people who've never had a subscription (and to be safe I'd stay away from anyone who's ever had one, just in case Disney somehow managed to make the contract contagious).
(Of course you can still cancel on moral grounds if you're already infected, but given the precedent Musk is trying to set with advertisers who quit Xitter, Disney will probably be able to forcibly arbitrate you into subscribing again. You and your descendants are Disney serfs now, for ever and ever.)
Great then that I have been pirating content ever since I remember.
That's correct on pragmatic grounds. I'm talking about moral grounds - if you're giving them money you're basically condoning their murder.
Yeah, the question is how long until they make it illegal to quit. As I said Musk is already trying, with advertisers.
At those times I'm glad that Musk is a muppet and that his "their violaring anrichrust!" will likely not roll well in courts, since he has a previous backstory of pissing off advertisers. And accordingly I don't think that Disney will be able to enforce their "ackshyually they cannot sue me lol lmao see Disney+ clause" redditism. (And they likely wouldn't be able to make contracts "valid for an eternity", i.e. illegal to quit.)
But I get you. They're still trying to violate human agency for profit. And I think that legal systems around the world should be curbing down those very attempts, not just telling them "no, you can't do this" but also "your company is acting on bad faith and should be prevented from conducting businesses under the jurisdiction of this government".
Bro, not gonna lie, this is a bad take. My grandparents just want to watch their soap operas, my parents really like star wars.
It's like global warming. Blaming individuals for not recycling is not the move - taking action against huge corporations is the only realistic way to make change. By blaming random people, we end up looking like crazy people.
I get that your [grand]parents want to watch their stuff. Just like I want to eat chocolate*, even if it's associated with child slavery in West Africa. But I don't think that someone's enjoyment should come at the price of ruining others' lives.
And sadly, that's exactly what happens here. Our conscious decisions to accept products and services from businesses that grossly disregard human life and dignity - like Disney and Nestlé - make us condoners. People who are still willing to pay for either have blood on their hands, like it or not.
We have other options. In your case, good ol' piracy would let them have their fun without feeding the company.
I don't think that we [people in general] should fall for a dichotomy like "either blame the company, or the individuals consuming their shit". While the blame for the individuals is considerably lower, they still have some blame - for feeding the company. We should be fighting in both fronts.
*I'm comparing the situation with chocolate because IDGAF about Disney but I care a lot about food, so it's easier for me to put myself in the shoes of your family this way.
not just murder, but the murder of specifically their own loved ones, someone having a disney+ (or any) subscription is basically an announcement that they're a fucking psychopath, or otherwise have nobody they love.