Slashdot Mirror


The Unauthorized State-Owned Chinese Disneyland

rmnoon writes "Apparently Japanese TV and bloggers have just discovered Disney's theme park in China, where young children can be part of the Magic Kingdom and interact with their favorite characters (like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and the Seven Dwarfs). The park's slogan is 'Because Disneyland is Too Far,' and there's even an Epcot-like dome. The only problem? Disney didn't build it, and they didn't authorize it. What's more? It's state-owned!"

9 of 746 comments (clear)

  1. MOD PARENT UP by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OBL has openly written that they are out to destroy our economy. He wants us in the same boat that Russia was. So far, W. is helping him out.

    As to China, they are trying to position themselves to own the world economy and then control countries in manners that they see fit(a MUCH larger USA with a nastier attitude). It is not the stealing of ideas that is doing this. It is the fact that they have tied their money to our money at a fixed rate. If it was allowed to float, then it would have increased in a big way by now. Others have dredged up the typical neo-con argument that this helps the economy. And for a short-term, they are correct. But it destroys the manufacturing (read tax) base. Another argument is that China holds a huge amount of our cash. And they will laugh if it falls, so long as they are in control. In the past, America had large natural resources to fall in during those times. Not anymore. What this means is that when China wants to pull the rug on us, they will be in control. And that is going to happen in about another 15 years (or less).

    W.'s going to argue about the copyright and patents is almost akin to chargin Charlie Manson with litter AND making a big deal of it. It totally ignores the real problems.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. Re:too funny by femto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember that the term of copyright was only extended in the US. In China the protection term is still life+50years for personally owned works or 50 years since publication for companies. The film is public domain in China. (Incidentally a film published in 1937 is also public domain in Australia.)

  3. Actually... by henrypijames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Shijinshan Amusement Park was built more than 20 years ago. Not sure if the PRC has established diplomatic ties with USA yet, yet alone intellectual property treaties. Also, twenty years ago there was practically not such thing as "intellectual property" in China (ah, the good old days). There was a very famous brand of candy from Shanghai named "Mickymouse", with Disney's Mickymouse as its logo. Later, when China opened its market to the West, Disney realized that in China, the "Mickymouse" trademark was legally owned by the candy factory, so it paid big money and brought it back. It was reported in the newspaper that many Chinese children cried that day as their beloved "Mickymouse" candy was no more (oh, the evil Americans)...

  4. Re:even if it were true - Re:Just goes to show.. by Instine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I presume you're talking about "them" calling "us" and saying "we've decided not to buy your government-issued debt anymore." Problem is, what would they invest their 1 trillion in government funds in then? It's not like there are that many - if any - safer alternatives? Euro bonds? Uhhh ... what was that long-term growth rate again? Yen? yeah right, the Chinese? Swiss Francs? Uhh ... sure it's a hard currency, but how much of it can you liquidate when you need to? Dollars are still the best place to park savings."

    What unutterable bollox. The US is the most insane investment a person could make right now. While the sheer inertia of trading methods keeps the dollar popular, the dollar itself if far from it...

    Sterling, Euros, Yen!!!, they are all far more sensible places to put your cash these days, and the US is just terrified by this.

    Of the two, I'd buy shares in Disneyland China (and no I don't care two hoots about American copyright law if America doesn't care two hoots about a nation's sovereignty - yes I talking Iraq - and not its not irrelivant. They're haveing the equiverlant of a 9/11 every month. That, to my mind is relevant in almost any discussion until it ends).

    No I don't hate America. But I sure as hell hate its current polotics, and fundeMentalist interpretation of capitalism. Which as many posts have already pointed out, mean that in practice, China is actually closer to 'true' capitalism than they.

    Yes, yes. This is Flamebait. But so is this agressive hypocracy spouted by the money mad global expantionist, overly competative expounders of "China is evil". And its getting on my nerves. [/rant]

    --
    Because you can - or because you should?
  5. Re:If their policy on tattoos says anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What the hell is futuristic about this? We have been there for a long time!!

    Who the hell do you think conquered India? The British? Well, yes, I grant you they were British, but they sure as hell weren't the British Government. It was the British East India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey), who were big enough at the time to make Ford, Coca Cola and Microsoft look like a crocked hat.

    Note in the battle mentioned above, John Company fought against the Indian Princes and the French East India Company.

    The equivalent today would be Halliburton fighting in Iraq against the Iraquis and Shell.

    Modding this up would introduce Americans to a bit of history!!

  6. Re:*smack*! by shoemilk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Japan, and I saw this story on the news a couple of days ago. The most interesting thing was they asked an employee at the park what she thought about copying Disney Hong Kong and her response was "They copied us." It wouldn't surprise me if that isn't the official required response...

  7. Re:*smack*! by kaizokuace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    not just fairy tales. The Lion King is ripped from Osamu Tezuka's Jungle Taitei aka Kimba the white lion. If you check it out they took pretty much every shot (especially the pride rock) also they changed it from his evil aunt to evil uncle and from mother to father dieing and bam! they call it original. In 2002 or 03 there was an asian film festival in Ontario, Canada i believe, and they were going to show Jungle Taitei and Disney sued them or tried to stop them with some severe act of some kind. Talk about cover ups!

    --
    Balderdash!
  8. Re: No. by AdamKG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The reasons for Chinese imports being cheap are twofold - complete lack of environmental control and use of slave labour.
    Jesus Christ. Have you ever been to China?

    The reason for their extemely low prices is simple supply and demand. Labor is dead-cheap because there is so much of it. I got a beautiful painting about an hour outside of Guangzhou for about a buck twenty five. The painting is a very large, rougly seven-feet wide one. For the record, the painter was not a slave. It's just that that's the price he can charge, since there were literally thousands of others I could have gone to.

    Now, I'm not saying that there isn't any slave labor in China. I have no idea; there probably are some instances of it, just like there probably are instances of it here in the US. But it is simply not what drives their economy. It's not even remotely related to their success as an economy.

    Pollution is another matter. I've never been to a traditionally smoggy city in the US (say, Houston or LA) but Guangzhou had a blanket of smog a couple hundred feet above the surface at all times... I can actually remember the air being "heavy." It was a releif to get out to countryside, so we could see the sun again.
    --
    groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
  9. Re:*smack*! by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nope Pinocchio the Disney film came out exactly 50 years after Carlo Collodi the Italian author of "Le avventure di Pinocchio" died. Which means that it was in production when it was in copyright, and Disney released it as soon as they no longer needed to pay copyrights.

    Or for something more recent you might try reading the Curious Clownfish by Eric Maddern published 1987 and compare it to the Disney film Finding Nemo and ask why Eric Maddern has not received one penny from Disney.

    Disney like copyright when it suites them, and at no other time. What I would like is for Disney to be forced to pay back compensation to the holders of the Pinocchio and other copyrights with interest for the time they infringed on their copyrights based on the new exteneded copyright periods. If the mouse deservers 90 years in the eyes of Disney, then so does Pinocchio. Perhaps then they would not be so keen on extending copyrights.