Disney Asking Employees To Help Fund Copyright Lobbying (arstechnica.com)

NormalVisual writes: Disney is now asking its employees to chip in to promote the company's copyright agenda via the company's political action committee, DisneyPAC. CEO Bob Iger has sent a letter to the company's employees lauding the company's success with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the video service Aereo -- an Internet service claiming the right to retransmit [Disney's] broadcast signals without paying copyright or retransmission consent fees. Iger also expresses the company's hope that DisneyPAC will be able to influence Congress in regards to lowering corporate tax rates. Not surprisingly, the company refuses to comment on the initiative.

Comments

why not just get the foreign workers to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

get the new foreign workers to pay for it all as part of their contracts.

why on earth would employees want to fund this? it's a company issue, not an employee issue

Isn't that illegal?

[Nabeel_co]

For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[srmalloy]

From TFA:

US corporations are allowed to solicit political contributions as long as donations aren't coerced. The relevant law bars any "threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force" when asking for donations.

Also from TFA, the letter explicitly states "Your contribution is important to all of us, but I want to emphasize that all contributions are voluntary and have no impact on your job status, performance review, compensation, or employment." and "Any amount given or the decision not to give will not advantage or disadvantage you." How much of that is going to be reflected in practice -- Disney using other 'justifications' for giving a worker crappier shifts, keep them from receiving performance awards, etc. -- to create a de facto but not de jure requirement to contribute has yet to be seen

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[DaMattster]

Unfortunately, no it isn't illegal. I worked at a company once that did this all of the time. It came through email in a company bulletin so I just created an Outlook rule for these emails to go to junk. The way I see it, I'm not going to read propaganda that looks and reads eerily similarly to what the Chinese Communist Party churns out. I don't want to align my personal agenda with that of my employer's because the net benefit is to my employer and not to me. I don't want to help my employer to manipulate the legal system in their favor.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Antique Geekmeister]

In a practical sense, no.

There are many regulations about free speech, but particular political views can be a condition of employment in private enterprises in most states. See breakdowns of worker political rights such as http://www.workplacefairness.o..., and review the history of corporations breaking up union activities by both subtle pressure and physical violence throughout American history.

Even if political support is "voluntary", the absence of a vocal support of leadership's views on politics, race, religion, gender, age, or sexuality have often been subtle workplace hindrances or benefits to salary and promotions.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Ol Olsoc]

For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?

Not really, especially now that Corporations are people and have all the rights and less responsibility than flesh and blood people.

Its a two edged sword though http://www.hrcapitalist.com/20...

In teh case of a company like WalMart to "suggest" that it's employees vote a certain way, it becomes a WalMart issue, as well as a political one. There are those among us, inclusing myself, who have an issue with WalMart demanding my Tax dollars to subsidize their loww low prices every day.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/2...

http://www.americansfortaxfair...

So I think you can take away from the "suggestions" on how you should vote, is that they won't benefit you. There has sometimes been some pressure to remove tax exempt status from churches when their preachers tell them that they have to vote a certain way to be in compliance with God's will.

But if your company wants you to vote a certain way, they can "suggest" it, and in at will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... they can fire you for not voting they way they "suggest"

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Curious, How do you know what the Chinese communist party churns out? Do you read Chinese?

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[GNious]

From TFA:

US corporations are allowed to solicit political contributions as long as donations aren't coerced. The relevant law bars any "threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force" when asking for donations.

My former employer, as US company, had us attend an event with customers, where we would be sitting at tables 8 people mixed employees and customers, and there would be a collection going around for a charity.
When I declined to contribute, things got pretty chilly at the table; people were in shock that I wasn't donating my private earnings towards a charity in order to make my employer look good.

Yeah, it wasn't political, and it wasn't direct threats, but I have never felt as shitty about a job as I did right there and then ... it was also the moment I realized I loathed that particular employer.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much of that is going to be reflected in practice

Oh absolutely none of it. You could donate your entire 401k to help Uncle Eisner keep his Mickey safe from public ownership, but you'll end up on food stamps, just after you've trained up Apu to do your job for 50c an hour and hot meals in the company shanty town. God Bless America.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure nothing is illegal for a multi-billion dollar corporation at this point. At worst they will get a slap-on-the-wrist fine that pales compared to the profits that X action generates for them.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked for NCR, HR would go around with paycheck deduction forms to contribute to the United Way - in the name of NCR.

See, the CEO gets the credit for the donations and it boosts his reputation and networking. The United Way is just one big networking system for the CEOs.

I would throw the form into the trash.

Never give money to charities - especially national or international charities. The biggest bang for your buck is to help someone in need close to you. I would drive folks to doctors who couldn't drive themselves. And being a professional, taking time out from your schedule is a much larger sacrifice than writing a check.

I also learned how the "other half" lives and how lucky I am and grateful for all the gifts and opportunities that were handed to me. Sure I work hard, but so does everyone. But my hard work means more because I was born lucky enough to have the talents and opportunities to work in a relatively lucrative career.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eisner left Disney over ten years ago.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont be a pussy.

NAME the COMPANY, and the CHARITY.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[DaMattster]

HAHAHA! If I could read and write in Chinese, I'd be a wealthy SOB. Seriously though, I have read the English translations.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Lunix Nutcase]

FYI, Bob Iger is the one who wrote the email and runs Disney. Has done so for going on 11 years now.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[jshackney]

Same here. Different company, same charity. That time of year always made me uncomfortable working there.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[jshackney]

Why isn't there a mod for irony?

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[MightyMartian]

Frankly I find the notion of forced public donation vile. Remember that ridiculous Ice Bucket Challenge. When a partnering company tried to guilt our staff into doing it, we just told them to ignore the email.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[__aaclcg7560]

When I declined to contribute, things got pretty chilly at the table; people were in shock that I wasn't donating my private earnings towards a charity in order to make my employer look good.

I always had that problem when a parent is hustling Girl Scout cookies to inflate their daughter's sales numbers.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[FlyHelicopters]

Remember that ridiculous Ice Bucket Challenge.

What? I loved it, watching famous people dump ice water on their heads was fun!

Of course watching idiots do it and fail was also fun.

I'm neither famous nor an idiot, so I didn't do it because it is just entertainment for me.

But it was still fun!

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[SeaFox]

From TFA:

Also from TFA, the letter explicitly states "Your contribution is important to all of us, but I want to emphasize that all contributions are voluntary and have no impact on your job status, performance review, compensation, or employment." and "Any amount given or the decision not to give will not advantage or disadvantage you." How much of that is going to be reflected in practice -- Disney using other 'justifications' for giving a worker crappier shifts, keep them from receiving performance awards, etc. -- to create a de facto but not de jure requirement to contribute has yet to be seen

Easiest way to guarantee this: make contributions anonymous. But I bet they wont think of doing that.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[SeaFox]

My former employer, as US company, had us attend an event with customers, where we would be sitting at tables 8 people mixed employees and customers, and there would be a collection going around for a charity.
When I declined to contribute, things got pretty chilly at the table; people were in shock that I wasn't donating my private earnings towards a charity in order to make my employer look good.

Little late now, but you could have responded that you already contribute to the charity outside of the company. A lie? Yes. But it wouldn't have been one they could have proven or held against you.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[whoever57]

Yeah, I remember working for a large US employer when it came time to sign up for United Way contributions. There was a lot of pressure to sign up. I was in a special situation, so it didn't really affect me, but I doubt that my colleagues felt that their "voluntary" contributions had no impact on their careers.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[St.Creed]

Because we'd never use another mod again, I fear.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[St.Creed]

If it was the CCP, it wouldn't have been a form, it would have been an e-mail thanking you for the voluntary contribution HR just made on your behalf. If you're lucky that is, otherwise you won't even get the mail.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked for at least two companies that have asked me to contribute to their PACs, one of those being UPS. Perfectly legal as long as a contribution isn't mandatory. UPS would hound you to participate if you hadn't (managers got reports of who contributed and who didn't iirc). So I did what most of the people I worked with would do and that was to make a one time contribution of a dollar. Once I did that they left me alone.

I think it would be illegal for them to solicit from foreign workers though I am not sure. I know in general politicians are not supposed to be getting campaign donations from foreigners for somewhat obvious reasons, and would guess that applies to PACs too.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked at a place that did this too. Not only was the United Way drive uncomfortable from the perspective that the company I worked for was begging me for money for the charity, but we also had one homosexual guy that would make a speech at the kickoff meeting each time about how United Way was basically evil and we shouldn't give them a dime. The reasoning was that the United Way funded the boy scouts and the boy scouts didn't allow gay members. Following his speech there would always be an argument that he could designate his contributions would go elsewhere, he would argue that just meant someone else's contributions would then go to the boy scouts instead and netted out to a benefit to them.

The only cool thing about it was that we got new directors a couple of times while I worked there and each time we had a new one we would all wait with anticipation to see their reaction to the annual play we all knew by heart :)

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I hate being coerced to "donate" to a charity. I'll donate however much I want, to whatever charity I chose. Plus rather than a random basket being passed around, if my donation is actually registered, I can get a tax receipt, so I can actually spend more on charity.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[NormalVisual]

When I worked for NCR, HR would go around with paycheck deduction forms to contribute to the United Way - in the name of NCR.

Disney does exactly the same thing with the United Way. It was usually the union shop stewards at Disney World that went around trying to guilt everyone into donating. I wouldn't even accept the forms. Sure, you get the stinkeye for it, but I really didn't care.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

PACs are quite common, most large companies have them. Some put more pressure on employees than others, but it is certainly voluntary and there can be penalties for penalizing those who don't play.

>

Unions, of course, are the worst offenders because they can just take the lobby money directly out of you paycheck and you can't do anything about it.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[penguinoid]

And being a professional, taking time out from your schedule is a much larger sacrifice than writing a check.

Just so long as you remember that the point of charity is to help others, not to make a sacrifice. That said, direct personal involvement can be far more satisfying, which is vital for continued charity.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll add a further anecdote. A Fortune 500 company I have worked for had it's own PAC, which they try to get everyone to contribute to. This is business as usual for big businesses. They have to get their share of the government bounty to be had from lobbying and rent seeking.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Darinbob]

Of course, they have no idea how much or little you have contributed to other charities, or your financial situation. Peer pressure contributions are never a good thing, and the old business model of United Way was to do just that. Your take home pay should be spent on charities however you wish.

I do remember my company asking us to write political leaders in a certain city encouraging them to approve a municipal deal. While I can understand the company's position here, it felt really sleazy. It's not my job to be a lobbyist or get involved with the pestilence of politics.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Alypius]

My wife guilted me into doing it, but I was admittedly confused because no one else had to hold a toaster.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my old employer was begging for contributions to help keep the company aflot with may people in fear of losing their job they donated or gave up some of their monthly salary. 2 weeks later the CEO buys a Company Ferrari.

We were not happy

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[ClickOnThis]

Why isn't there a mod for irony?

Indeed. AC, name thyself.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[phorm]

"managers got reports of who contributed and who didn't"

If they do allow it, then it should be like voting: nobody knows if you did donate or how much. Anything else is subject to abuse even if they say they're just "asking"

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden has very few charities. Taxation helping the poor made them obsolete. These charities are about guilt removal and fat salaries for its officers.
Get rid of all charities and replace them with a 90% tax on salaries and bonuses over $1,000,000.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[rtb61]

How about I fix it for you, nudge, nudge, wink, wink "your quote, wont bother repeating" this in conjunction with the person handing it out saying, we are required to say this by law, but I know you will take the hint and not disadvantage yourself. Every time someone with total control over the other puts out that kind of message it is because they want to send out the exact opposite of the message.

Genuine company request, we request anonymous contributions from the employees to go into the employees political action fund. We will open two funds, one for and one against and allow employees to anonymous choose which they wish to contribute too.

Anonymous and you job is not on the line, fully recorded, no matter what the fuck they say, job can bet every single dollar you contribute, yeah, you job is on the line. They will also force public speeches and letter writing upon the exact same basis. Bit of legal mumbo jumbo to keep the courts at bay along with peer pressure and direct personal hints from management. Disney has become quite the awful psychopathically managed company, really disgusting stuff.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

... a collection going around for a charity ...

Were receipts being issued? It shows honesty on the part of collector and allows the donor to get the tax deduction he deserves.

... make my employer look good. ...

Your employer is also deciding which form of suffering deserves your cash.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Keep punishing those who create wealth, don't be surprised when they take their wealth elsewhere or stop creating it. All those lowlifers whining how the One Percenters have it so much better than them should get into their substandard brains that without the One Percenters, the 99% would drown.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[MrKaos]

When I worked for NCR, HR would go around with paycheck deduction forms to contribute to the United Way - in the name of NCR. Disney does exactly the same thing with the United Way. It was usually the union shop stewards at Disney World that went around trying to guilt everyone into donating. I wouldn't even accept the forms. Sure, you get the stinkeye for it, but I really didn't care.

Thanks for the warning, personally never encountered the practise. It occurred to me from reading your comments that if I ever did, I would take the form and donate 10 cents. Then it would be their issue because only a hypocrite would take issue with how much you donate.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[MrKaos]

But if your company wants you to vote a certain way, they can "suggest" it, and in at will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... they can fire you for not voting they way they "suggest"

At least you will know how *not* to vote.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah worse because the union is trying to increase your wage, while the company is trying to suppress...moron...

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem (for them) is that anonymous contributions would drop from 200k to 2k in the first month.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[Quirkz]

My office at least offers us a perk: give 12 hours of income and get 1 day of vacation. Technically that's still a net loss, but I've always felt that the vacation day is worth more than the literal cash. The apparent percent of donations that go through United Way and actually make it to people in need also makes me a little uneasy, but it's the only deal the office offers.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

All sorts of people have gotten along swimmingly for thousands of years without One Percenters. In fact, more of your assets would go towards a larger public good if you weren't involved in them.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[david_thornley]

I signed up, because it was a convenient way to donate. I didn't and don't see the problem with passing out the forms, and I have led workplace United Way campaigns (I boosted contributions considerably by strategic use of doughnuts), but guilting people into donating is something I'd never do or accept.

Re: Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: United Way contributions.
You missed the part where employees filing itemized deductions on 1040 returns (or contractors with 1099s) may deduct charitable contributions from their taxes. As long as you realized the employer and its customers were slime, you got the benefit from the situation. Don't blame the messenger for your epiphany.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[david_thornley]

Yeah. I picked out a favorite charity, and currently am giving them significant amounts of money. When I retire, I'm going to switch to volunteer work. Right now, the time would be a greater sacrifice, and I'd rather do good at minimum sacrifice to myself. If I feel the need to sacrifice more, I can just up my commitment.

Re:Isn't that illegal?

[david_thornley]

At one company I worked at that was in a bad position, management was asked to take twice the cut I was. That made us feel better about it.

disgusting

[vel-ex-tech]

The idea that legislation needs "funding" is odious in unto itself.

Re: disgusting

[DaMattster]

I could not have said it better myself!

Tails Linux 2.2 Adds libdvdcss2

[Anonymous Coward]

So with this addition:

https://tails.boum.org/news/te...
https://archive.is/KhhEe

"Add support for viewing DRM protected DVD videos using libdvdcss2. Patch series submitted by Austin English (Closes: #7674)[1]"

[1] https://labs.riseup.net/code/i...
        https://archive.is/hXgYe

Is it now ILLEGAL to use Tails in the United States?

Re:Tails Linux 2.2 Adds libdvdcss2

[Opportunist]

What's the hallmark of a dictatorship? When technology is outlawed that could allow you to see certain content you're not supposed to see.

SlySoft RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first major casualties. Who/what's next?

Subvert the Constitution

[frovingslosh]

Lets just be clear, Disney's stated goal towards Copyright Law is to Subvert the U.S. Constitution and see that the clause where works eventually pass into Public Domain (a benefit the public is to receive in return for giving Copyright Protection to Authors) never actually applies.

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Pretty sure they've already achieved that. After the date has been extended repeatedly, can you really argue it's really "limited".

Personally, I'd like to see copyright changed to be 14 years automatic, then extendable by application in 7 year increments. To get an extension, you must prove you have commercially benefited from holding the copyright in the past 7 years, declare a value for such benefits, and pay a percentage fee (something like 20%) based on that value or an alternative minimum fee of something like $5000. One application should cover all derivative works provided they are enumerated on the application. Don't really see a reason to limit the # of extensions as long as the fees get paid and the work is constantly being marketed/evolving since the purpose of copyright is to enhance the arts and if it's being utilizied, it's doing that. The fees should basically be used to fund the copyright office and any excess should go to grants for new authors/artists/etc.

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Even you have fallen into the trap: your extension plan is based upon value added to the copyright owner and ignores the loss by the public by keeping the works out of the public domain, potentially in perpetuity.

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[BronsCon]

No, that AC's plan does actually seem to account for that by charging 20% of the declared value (a declaration which has tax ramifications; worse ones if, during an IRS audit, you are found to have made such a declaration in bad faith) to fund the Copyright Office and provide grants for the creation of new works. Ostensibly, works created under those grants would fall into the public domain immediately, as The People already paid for them via the grant. Additionally, if extension fees are funding the Copyright Office, our tax dollars won't be; that is another net benefit of such a policy.

As for yoru apparent fear that these extensions would be abused, consider that 14-21 years is a damn sight better than the current situation. Also consider that if 20% of the value of the copyright over the prior 7 years of profit is more than the company is willing to spend, that is likely because they don't think they'll make more than that over the next 7, which, let's admit, is the common scenario; that is to say, most copyrights won't see extensions filed under such a system.

Given the above, I can support the idea as-is. Lower the initial term to 7 years and include a provision to allow the Copyright Office to deny extension requests for low-value, no-value, or negative-value works, request proof of declared value when they think someone's pulling their leg, and deny extensions (and report to the IRS) if such proof is not provided or the proof tells a different story, and I'll fund the campaign.

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Personally, I'd like to see copyright changed to be 14 years automatic, then extendable by application in 7 year increments.

To me it should be 20 years full stop, like a patent. In the case of a major "pop culture" hit, the majority of revenue should be in the first 5 years. In the case of a creator, 20 years is 2/3-1/2 of a career, and more than enough time to recoup costs from one project.

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

To me it should be 20 years full stop

 
The other side is pushing for far beyond reasonable. Why should I push for reasonable? I think ONE DAY is long enough!

Re: Subvert the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the other side is disproportionally powerful. If you go to the extremes nobody will listen and you do not have the political and financial might to back your position, unlike them. By remaining within reason you have the little chance to make their positions look unreasonable in a public debate. It's not much but it's all you have.

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Life doesn't work like that. Most authors don't make money on works until many many years after publication. Many of the world's greatest works didn't get picked up until the author died, or was at least getting SMSes from Mr Grimm.

Trolls like yourself cannot differentiate between works and media types. But let's take a tiny leap hear, you're a pirate of them all, with the exception of the written word?

Re:Subvert the Constitution

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well if the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" I don't think someone taking a dirt nap is further incentivized to create by copyright. This likely applies to those for whom the bell is tolling as well. It is awful that such works like the Iliad, Odyssey, Divine Comedy, Beowulf, Macbeth, The Three Musketeers, etc. have fallen into the public domain. I mean how are we ever going to convince Homer to write some new stories, if only we had better copyright at the time.

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about Marvel movies and TV shows as well.

Fuck that.

[HalAtWork]

Feel free to mod +5 Insightful.

Re:Fuck that.

[fustakrakich]

Astounding! This gets modded down, while this, on the other hand sits at +5. Ah, sweet mysteries of life...

Re:Fuck that.

[reboot246]

More specifically, fuck Disney.

Re:Fuck that.

[HalAtWork]

I'm not worried, I was joking, but yeah that's sad actually

They are asking not telling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?

From the summary: "Disney is now asking its employees to chip in ...".

Re:They are asking not telling ...

[Opportunist]

Oh! Ok, if that makes it legal, next time just ask someone to hand over their wallet when you mug them.

Not a surprising request but unreasonable

[mykepredko]

While a corporation should and needs to protect it's assets and petition sitting governments on various, I think it's a) inappropriate to monetarily support candidates and b) coerce employees to support and contribute to the cause. In the '80s, when I was working for IBM, they sent a letter to all (Canadian, at least) employees telling them to support NAFTA which I (and many of my coworkers) thought was inappropriate but the company felt that it was in its best interests to do this.

The situation is even more despicable when it comes to Disney, who clearly don't seem to care about their employees and really not good corporate citizens. There maybe honour & prestige working for Disney but if there is an option to reduce their costs, they will clearly take it, current employees be damned.

Re:Not a surprising request but unreasonable

[TarPitt]

"Disney, who clearly don't seem to care about their employees" has led to employees using the nickname "mauschwitz" to describe their employer. Yes, Disney's reputation is that bad.

Re:Not a surprising request but unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because they're held there against their will, surrounded by razor wire and armed guards.

Seriously, using that word just shows is how much a spoiled special snowflake the user is.

So where is your Disney stock at today? Oh, and since Jews now run Disney, the (cheap) irony is exquisite.

Re:Not a surprising request but unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

I have often puzzled at how many (not all) Jewish people seem to have it as their life's mission to, in every word and deed, demonstrate that Hitler kind of had a point.

I don't bring that particular history up lightly. This is how civilizations return to barbarism -- the average person knows the system of his land gives him no hope for justice being done upon the villainous, so they abandon the system and just start in on the killing.

I wonder how many Disney executives, and other business/government/elite leaders realize how many of them already have their names knit into scarves.

Re: Not a surprising request but unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care. When was the last time a citizen's movement successfully overthrew the US government and its corporate lobbyist masters?

Re:Not a surprising request but unreasonable

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It has been described that way for a long time as I have a brother-in-law who's father worked for them ages ago and that term was in use then.

Boycott them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally i have not been to any cinemas since they started their battle against a free society.

Corporation lobbies for shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't believe in your employer's mission, quit, but profit or no, there _are_ people at Disney who work for their art and the joy it brings.

Re:Corporation lobbies for shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you are not in a positions to quit and vote with your feet, what? Suck it up?

Fuck you.

If you want to know what Disney is like, go see South Park's "The Ring" episode or ask anybody who's ever worked for them just how evil they are. Example: they financially screwed and lied about Robin Williams for years. Finally, when the Mouse decided the NEEDED Williams, the new boss apologizes and all is supposed to be well. Now imagine what they get away with on people without that kind of star power...

"You realize now when you work for Disney why the mouse has only four fingers -- because he can’t pick up a check." -- Robin Williams.

http://boingboing.net/2014/08/13/the-time-disney-duped-robin-wi.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/12/the-genie-is-free-robin-williams-s-complicated-relationship-with-disney.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/robin-williams-disney-feud-picasso-gift-2014-11

Immoral and pure greedhead: Disney is they name...

Re:Corporation lobbies for shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

they name = thy name

some lives matter more than others?

[Anonymous Coward]

yikes almighty? are we spiritually zombified? no wonder it's only news in england? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/salt-lake-city-teen-shot-by-police-while-carrying-broomstick-a3191026.html .. cease fire.. read the teepeeleaks etchings,, we're all natives now...

Fuck the billionaire beggars

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you you rich asshole thugs, when is enough enough for your kind?

Re: Fuck the billionaire beggars

[Anonymous Coward]

When the One Percenters are the only remaining ones and the lowlife majority is rotting in the mass graves.

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Z80a]

Even without the neckbeards, the legion of screetching kids wanting to see the new premanufactured disney princess movie 2.0: you can(not) marry the prince will give em enough money and power to buy the US government over and over again.

mormormonic boys choir new cd

[Anonymous Coward]

never before heard tones hormonically achieved. the latest release was produced on CDs made from recycled hymens,, keeping us green... on the road again..

I'm a Disney Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've never seen this letter. I get plenty of emails from Bob. I think it's bullshit.

Why don't they ask the H1B's to chip in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely, they would be more supportive of this rubbish

not surprising, yet amoral

[vpness]

full disclosure: I don't even ask for co-workers to fund my kids fund raisers, as that's an imposition on the workplace. 'Specially as I'm a manager. As the *employer* is making the ask, this isn't ethical. The bit about making this easy to do via your paycheck means that HR can, and likely does, see who contributes. The paycheck deduction makes this really, really 'wrong.' I'd actually be ~ok with the 'please consider contributing,' but not not part of the payroll process. Fuller disclosure : if I needed the job, I'd say f the mores and principles, and probably check the box and contribute. Enough to show support. While I quietly looked for other employment. --- off topic ish: that Disney's policies replace resident workers in the country where Disney makes its home, and reaps benefits unavailable to them in a lot of countries, is amoral. And understandable. As corporations are driven to maximize profits, and CEOs , to have risen to where they are, a lot of times become disconnected from feeling. I'm betting that the same guy who replaced workers didn't think once about asking the remaining employees to spend their $ on a PAC.

Next they will say you better not vote trump if yo

[Joe_Dragon]

Next they will say you better not vote trump if you like to keep your job!

Huh?

[fluffernutter]

Why would any employee help a company that has done nothing but shit all over them? I'd be surprised if there weren't quite a few actively contributing to violating copyright. Really, this one way asshattedness that corporations constantly show is completely exhausting.

Slave labor

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they take advantage of slave labor being practically legal in some other part of the world, people should take advantage of copying media being legal in some other part of the world.

AT&T did (and does this) all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do they have a PAC there is not-so-subtle corporate pressure to show up to the meetings and join the call trees to "give your opinion" to elected government officials (and this was the non-union side!!)

Another large company I worked for was big on "voluntary" donations to the United Way so they could laud what a charitable company they are. (Including having middle managers come around to our cubes and ask for donations like girl scouts selling cookies... except who's going to say no to your boss?)

My current company just likes to have us vote on what a great place we have to work at. Meh, I can live with that.

I don't have a problem with Disney doing this but it's certainly hypocritical in light of their H1B stances and laying off lots of workers at their parks and reducing shows and services while simultaneously having record attendance, one of their most profitable years and a massive ticket price increase supposedly because Shanghai Disney still isn't open and over budget. Why should their employees want to help a backstabbing company like that?

Disney is a POS. Unions are worse. They don't ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Most union members have no say in being a member let alone what politicians the union supports with campaign contributions.

We need Stricter Copyright

[wisnoskij]

Did you know, Charles Perrault's family, etc. all, have not received a cent of royalties from the Disney corporation for their copying of their stories.

Re:We need Stricter Copyright

[mikeiver1]

Team rodent at it again... Fuck Disney!

Re:We need Stricter Copyright

[stealth_finger]

Did you know, Charles Perrault's family, etc. all, have not received a cent of royalties from the Disney corporation for their copying of their stories.

Well, yeah. That's how these companies work, they take everything in and give nothing out.

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Marvel movies make way more.

IP solution

[wheeda]

Here is my ideal IP solution. All IP (patents and copyright) must state a value. Any value at all. The owner of the IP then pays intellectual property tax a some rate. If someone else really wants that IP, they can pay the owner the stated amount and the IP becomes public domain.

This solves all kinds of issues including orphaned works, patent trolls, and the likes of Disney tying up copyrighted works that should have entered the public domain decades ago. Well, maybe Disney could still tie up copyrighted works, but at least it would cost them to the benefit of tax payers.

Re:IP solution

[bool2]

Here's my ideal so-called Intellectual Property (IP) solution. All IP must be abolished immediately and rent seekers be damned.

I doubt my ideal solution will be implemented so I'd settle for copyright laws being scaled back massively. Mickey bloody Mouse is way past its copyright date. Collusion with lawmakers to extend it shows exactly why nobody trusts the establishment and why people like Trump will become the next president.

Re:IP solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good, as long as there's no fee/application process on the first 14 years so newcomers have a chance to build up a new IP.

Definitely think after that period, any protection should be applied for (not automatic), have to be renewed periodically, and have a cost associated with it so only valuable properties bother with the application.

Also think it should require the owner to prove their work has been available for purchase during the previous period or is actively being extended with new works..don't want some trust setup locking up properties for generations (probably with intentions to primarily profit via lawsuits).

Don't necessarily agree with the "forced sell at this price" provision, although do think rejecting an offer should revise the value of the property upwards and result in a higher tax/fee to continue protection.

Re:IP solution

[Opportunist]

5 years. No extension.

I can see that there is money to be made and investments to be recovered. But we're in the time and age of instant distribution and information can travel around the globe in a matter of seconds. From filming something to the cinema it's a matter of a few weeks, months maybe. Take a look at the box office and show me ONE movie older than a YEAR still being shown in the cinemas. No later than a year after its creation the movie's available on a watch-at-home medium. No later than three years every TV network that has a remote interest in broadcasting it has done so.

After 5 years, there is no more money to be made from it. If you cannot recover your investment costs by 5 years, you won't in 50 years.

Re:IP solution

[Anonymous Coward]

While I like the idea of shorter copyright terms (like most people on this site), 5 years is too short for the novel --> TV/movie adaptation monetization route. I agree for TV/movies/video games, but novels are different. And having different lengths for different works sounds like a bad plan.

Re:IP solution

[MrKaos]

Here is my ideal IP solution.

Unfortunately you have the TPP instead and I don't think they are taking suggestions.

Re:IP solution

[Gr8Apes]

After 5 years, there is no more money to be made from it. If you cannot recover your investment costs by 5 years, you won't in 50 years.

Disney would disagree with you. Into the vault you go. In 10 years, for the next x0 anniversary, print more money.

Re:IP solution

[Gr8Apes]

I think the founders had it right, 14 years (which would be automatic under Berne now, which is fine) with a 14 year application (fee) for extension. 28 years is a long time, longer than most works will ever remain relevant. And for those that do, isn't the public domain the right place for them?

Re:IP solution

[Opportunist]

Shift the medium -> new copyright period.

Yes, things have to be ironed out, but the current form is beyond ridiculous.

Re:IP solution

[Opportunist]

It start giving a shit about Disney's opinion the moment they start to give one about mine.

Re:IP solution

[Gr8Apes]

My point was that "yes, you can make lots of money after 5 years."

Re:IP solution

[david_thornley]

For the Constitutional purpose, relevance is immaterial. The question is whether people or corporations will base their decisions on doing something creative on possible income 28 years from the time of publication. I haven't seen any such decisions; most people and companies seem to want payback before then.

Re:IP solution

[Gr8Apes]

And then you view Disney's "Return to the Vault!" [Tm] program as a case in point of making things artificially scarce to maintain value over time, or even Wu-Tang's Clan's Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, which value went up because of the copyright exclusivity.

If you object, there is an H1B to take your place

[walterbyrd]

Just sayin'

If spoiled American workers don't want the job . . .

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[walterbyrd]

Bah! True neck beards will download the movie from bittorrent.

Won't H1Bs have to register as foreign lobbyists?

[swb]

I thought foreigners who wanted the lobby the government had to register?

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah! True neckbeards are too busy with their realdoll to bittorrent anything.

Is this better or worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Then getting Brendan Eich forced out of the Mozilla foundation for his private political actions?

Pharma companies do this too.

[waspleg]

source: Wife. I've read the pamphlets.

Re:If you object, there is an H1B to take your pla

[Anonymous Coward]

and spoiled American workers will be made to train their H1-B replacements!

Just sayin'

Please Help Us Fund Copyright Lobbying...

[Fluffymuffin Cocobut]

...as we continue to outsource as many of your jobs as possible. Buy DisneyABCPixar: Buy Outsourced.

cute

[Osgeld]

do they think all those outsourced jobs in and from india / china really give a single fuck about copyright?

Re:cute

[Anonymous Coward]

No but I'm sure all those outsourced jobs in and from india/china care about suddenly not being needed anymore and shipped back from whence they came.

Legal in US and sycophants like it.

[jbn-o]

Sadly, as right thinking as your reaction is most /. readers don't agree with your take with regard to Disney's actions here and don't have the guts to admit they don't agree. Their unprincipled obeisance to Disney's power is unlike some posters to the Ars Technica (Condé Nast) forum on this story who object publicly such as user "SmokeTest":

Yeah, because Disney totally can't afford lobbying unless they go to their workers with their hands out, and the state of copyright in the country is incredibly hostile to Disney. Of course they need to go to their lowest paid employees and ask them to fund their effort to further corrupt the laws to line the pockets of the executives with more cash than ever.

This is fucking disgusting. I'm done supporting Disney in any way, forever. Going to be hard not watching the new Star Wars movies in theaters, but man, this shit has got to end.

Power-for-power's-sake supporting /.ers will pay to see the next Star Wars movie, visit Disney theme parks, buy Disney-licensed merchandise of all kinds and thus feed the system that oppresses the world via copyright and TPP. This fight goes far beyond the term of copyright both in who is affected and specific powers multinational corporations seek to gain.

Re:Legal in US and sycophants like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me when an unorganized boycott gas ever brought a company to its knees. All of the arguments above against Disney certainly should compel you to action but that action isn't voting with your wallet. This is simply because it produces no good and you can't be to take moral actions which do not affect the world. It is likely these arguments compel you to action much more radical and that is precisely what you'd never see anyone on Slashdot supporting.

Re:Legal in US and sycophants like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe we just actually agree. I'm OK with a company sending out a letter like this.

Yoo hoo, Disney, regarding copyrights...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mickey Mouse should have been in the public domain years ago.

Not unusual

[CaroKann]

All big companies do this. I just ignore them. Their interests never align with mine, even though they would like me to think that they do. Perhaps if the ties-that-bind were a little bit more stable, with more common interests between employee-employer, I might feel differently. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money.

Disney CEO Bob Iger

[rssrss]

Doesn't Iger mean ogre in German?

Re:Disney CEO Bob Iger

[Opportunist]

Nope. Does not. It's Oger.

Re:Disney CEO Bob Iger

[MrKaos]

Nope. Does not. It's Oger.

Hmmm, Bob Oger - a good name for a troll!

Re:Disney CEO Bob Iger

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Iger mean ogre in German?

Nope. Does not. It's Oger.

Iger Oger Hodor You're As Outsourced As Can Be

Eh I See You Are Pee, Bye Bye You Are Free!

Re:Disney CEO Bob Iger

[rssrss]

http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Re:why not just get the foreign workers to pay for

[SeaFox]

get the new foreign workers to pay for it all as part of their contracts.

To add to that -- lower H-1B wages means less disposable income to pay back to Disney for copyright fight.
Cuts both way, doesn't it Disney?

On the other hand, Disney as no need to be asking for handouts as with their new overseas workforce they're saving a bundle. Why don't they just redirect those saved payroll dollars to their legal department?

Re:why not just get the foreign workers to pay for

[Anonymous Coward]

why on earth would employees want to fund this?

Scared of losing their jobs if they don't? Not that that is going to make any difference.

Somewhat off topic but

[liquid_schwartz]

... we also had one homosexual guy that would make a speech at the kickoff meeting each time about how United Way was basically evil and we shouldn't give them a dime. The reasoning was that the United Way funded the boy scouts and the boy scouts didn't allow gay members.

I wonder if he changed his opinion when the Scouts decided to allow gays or if he still hates them and looked for other new targets to hate on. The trouble with SJW in my opinion is that they only destroy, they never create. For example they want to destroy the Scouts but they won't create another organization that did the good the Scouts did. They instead move on to destroy the next group that offends them. Like locusts.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[Darinbob]

Last I heard, the scouts were accepting gays and were not destroyed as a result.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[Alypius]

Being an activist means always having to have something to complain about.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[dbIII]

Part of the reasoning behind it back in the bad old days was to stop pedophiles from becoming scout leaders and having an instant way to dismiss them on suspicion. Bigotry was also a thing but that was the main issue. As for the kids being gay, sexuality is supposed to not be an issue in scout activities unless something has gone seriously wrong, but for some reason the bigotry spread to picking on kids as an unintended consequence.

The trouble with SJW in my opinion is that they only destroy, they never create

Of course they do, imaginary strawmen are whatever you want them to be.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[HungryMonkey]

Kind of... The acceptance of openly gay members is left to each council to decide themselves, many of which have not. One of the major problems is the fact that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and a large number of troops meet in churches. If they allow gay members they would need to find a new meeting place. Oddly enough, some Scout councils also allow girls to join...

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[laie_techie]

Kind of... The acceptance of openly gay members is left to each council to decide themselves, many of which have not. One of the major problems is the fact that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and a large number of troops meet in churches. If they allow gay members they would need to find a new meeting place.

The Boy Scouts of America is not a religious organization per se. Scouts do promise to "do [their] best to do [their] duty to God and [their] Country", but which god is left to each scout. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest private supporter of the BSA (followed by the Catholic Church). The LdS sponsored troops do allow gay scouts to join, but leaders must meet the sect's definition of "morally straight" (indeed, being a scout leader is considered a Church calling, and the position is ratified by the congregation). The LdS Church almost abandoned the BSA when the BSA changed its policies to allow openly gay scout leaders. The BSA's stance protects itself from lawsuits, but opens up councils and local units.

Oddly enough, some Scout councils also allow girls to join...

The Explorer program is designed to be open to both young men and young women. My Law Enforcement Explorer troop was 20% female.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The Boy Scouts of America is not a religious organization per se.

While technically true it does vary a lot by pack/troop with some being more religious than others. There still are religious requirements that need to be fulfilled but they aren't tied to any specific religion. For example the one I did with my oldest for his current cub scout rank was the "duty to god footsteps". We went to the large Buddhist temple nearby and he got to learn about their religion. He ended up telling the other scouts in his den about it and I was asked why I brought him there instead of to a christian church as this seemed completely foreign to most of the other parents (mostly Catholic and Presbyterian). My response, entirely truthful, was that I felt it was important that he learn about different religions that he otherwise would not be exposed to and learn to respect them. I do think that some of the other leaders and adults suspect that I may be one of those evil atheists/agnostics but as I don't advertise it or be a dick about it no one seems to care. I do run the NOVA and Super NOVA program in the pack, am one of the 2 range officers, and assistant den leader

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[laie_techie]

I'm one of two scout leaders for the 11-year-olds in an LdS sponsored troop. Most of my own scouting experience was with LdS sponsored troops. This was kind of interesting with the Law Enforcement Explorer troop, as some participants were over 18 and smoked. Also, it was awkward for some boys the first time a female police cadet unzipped her pants while the instructor demonstrated how guns leave residue which can be picked up by black light.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[Darinbob]

When I was in cub scouts, they weren't a religious organization any more than the YMCA was a religious organization. We even had a group in town that was scout-like but religious, as a counter part to the secular scouts. This was a few years before the whole Moral Majority wave that blurred the line between politics and pulpit. Oh and gays are allowed in churches.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[david_thornley]

I doubt he changed his opinion that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad. He may have changed his stance on the United Way if the local Scout council started accepting gays.

The trouble with people who use the term "SJW" is that they are happy to gloss over gross injustice as long as it doesn't affect them personally, and also assume harm that the people so labeled didn't intent. In this case, nobody's trying to destroy the Boy Scouts, only make them more inclusive and do even more good.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[Anonymous Coward]

You are Evil and Insane.
I put my decade in with the Cub Scouts, wonderful, and then with the Boy Scouts, brutal. Eagle. The day after I made Eagle, after much opposition, I quit.
I was being prepared for Vietnam. Even then, the local "Boy Scouts" was Right-Wing political.

So decades pass.

A few years back, I was at the local County Fair. There was a "Romney For President" booth, manned, or should I say, boyed, by my old Scout Troop. Cheerful, Patriotic, and now Mormon. (Our old Troop was very loosely RC; for Religious Obligations, we mowed the Church lawns, and did some odd bits of painting here and there. There was one Seminary Brother who helped us out... a genuinely nice, if conflicted, guy. Good with a paintbrush. After his Scouting chores, he went into Astrophysics, and instead of Vietnam, I went into Nuclear Physics...)

What you LDS Freaks don't quite understand is that your goal of turning the Boy Scouts into your potential private Paramilitary Army is Old News. It didn't work for Baden-Powell, and it didn't work for Goldwater, and it won't work for You.

"Also, it was awkward for some boys the first time a female police cadet unzipped her pants while the instructor demonstrated how guns leave residue which can be picked up by black light."

Why a Monster like you is put in a position of Trust of Children, evades me.
But that is the Mormon Church, after all.
Evil, and Insane, and Hungry.

Re:Somewhat off topic but

[laie_techie]

You are Evil and Insane.

Ad hominem with no supporting evidence.

I put my decade in with the Cub Scouts, wonderful, and then with the Boy Scouts, brutal. Eagle. The day after I made Eagle, after much opposition, I quit. I was being prepared for Vietnam. Even then, the local "Boy Scouts" was Right-Wing political.

A whole decade with the Cub Scouts? I thought there were only 4 dens (Tiger, Bear, Wolf, Weblos - forgive me if I got them out of order), each lasting a year. Boy Scouts starts at 11 years old and goes through 18 years old (some Explorer programs go to 20 years old). The political leaning of your local troop will vary on your locale. In the USA, 70% of Mormons self identify as Republicans, so an LdS-sponsored troop is likely to be right-leaning.

So decades pass.

A few years back, I was at the local County Fair. There was a "Romney For President" booth, manned, or should I say, boyed, by my old Scout Troop. Cheerful, Patriotic, and now Mormon. (Our old Troop was very loosely RC; for Religious Obligations, we mowed the Church lawns, and did some odd bits of painting here and there. There was one Seminary Brother who helped us out... a genuinely nice, if conflicted, guy. Good with a paintbrush. After his Scouting chores, he went into Astrophysics, and instead of Vietnam, I went into Nuclear Physics...)

The pillars of the Boys Scouts organization are Duty to God, Duty to Country, Duty to Others. Scouts are extremely patriotic. It was wrong for the troop to officially campaign for Romney (endorsing a specific candidate can be grounds for losing tax-exempt status). It would have been more correct to have fliers saying what different candidates stand for and including polling information. I assume that RC in your response stands for Roman Catholic? So, a left-leaning Roman Catholic doesn't agree with generally right-leaning latter-day saints. What a huge surprise!

What you LDS Freaks don't quite understand is that your goal of turning the Boy Scouts into your potential private Paramilitary Army is Old News. It didn't work for Baden-Powell, and it didn't work for Goldwater, and it won't work for You.

LDS freaks? Man, you do have some anger issues. We have as much right to our beliefs as you have for yours. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wanting a paramilitary army? Boy, are you off! The LdS Church wanted an organization to teach young men how to be responsible and honorable men. The Boy Scouts of America met that requirement over 100 years ago when we became an official sponsor. The discussion regarding openly gay leaders and boys caused us to rethink our position (the other option would to have our own organization), but opted to stick with the BSA for now.

"Also, it was awkward for some boys the first time a female police cadet unzipped her pants while the instructor demonstrated how guns leave residue which can be picked up by black light."

Why a Monster like you is put in a position of Trust of Children, evades me. But that is the Mormon Church, after all. Evil, and Insane, and Hungry.

That anecdote of using black light to show residue left by a gun happened when I was in Law Enforcement Explorers back in high school. The troop was run by the Honolulu Police Department. Roughly half the troop was LdS. It was fun shooting an M-16 at the police range. It was a hoot riding along with police officers and operating the police radio. I enjoyed doing crowd control at the Carol Kai International Bed Race.

You have shown yourself to be blinded with rage against the LdS Church. You are incapable of rational discussion or debate, resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Re:why not just get the foreign workers to pay for

[Opportunist]

Because greed. Duh.

Re:Disney is a POS. Unions are worse. They don't a

[Opportunist]

Could you name the things Unions push that don't negatively affect not only their members but everyone who never ever bothered to want to deal with them? That would make them equal.

And from there you may then tell us what makes them worse!

Re:If you object, there is an H1B to take your pla

[Opportunist]

Globalism is great. If, and only if, it benefits the corporation. Or could you tell me why I can't buy a BluRay in South East Asia where they cost a buck a piece?

It's ok for them to ship our jobs there. But it's not ok for us to ship the products made here. Care to explain that?

Uhh?

[BigU 03C0mpin]

Disney still has "employees"? I thought they fired everyone for H1-B visas.

Re:Uhh?

[stealth_finger]

Isn't that who they're asking?

FedEx did the same

[Anonymous Coward]

FedEx has a PAC that they have tried to get its employees to fund. Its heavily conservative leaning. It isn't mandatory but plenty of emails have gone out about it.

They also require employees to watch United Way videos and track contributions. Executives are effectively required to give.

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why am I still employed at almost $100,000 annually to make sure things run? I've been doing it since 1984.

Your screed sounds sour, bitter, and fearful. Get your professional shit together and you may find that like me at age 59, you can still make big money in high tech. You have to 1) know what the fuck you are doing and 2) know how to get along with people, even people you do not like and for whom you have no respect. You also have to understand that 1) work is NOT a playpen, even if they build you one with foosball, climbing walls, free food, open office plan, and puffy bag chairs to spend your days in and that 2) nobody is going to care if you get your feelings hurt when you get banged up by management for not doing your job.

You may be surprised to find out just exactly how much more somebody with 40 years experience in a business knows about that business that you, from lack of experience, have absolutely no idea about. Not everything is in a text book, and life lessons usually come with no instructions. Survive that reality in industry for 40 years and get back to us.

I thought all large companies did this

[Balthisar]

My company solicits PAC donations, too. I never really thought it was a big deal and assumed that all large companies did the same.

Companies aren't allowed to contribute to PACs, after all, and those of use that work in companies are all kind of in the same boat. In my case maybe I want my company to hire lobbyist to oppose the required use of some type of 1200 MPa material in, say, mirror mounting brackets where there's no engineering justification.

If my company's PAC were evil, then I'd think twice. Barring that, though, when my industry succeeds, I succeed.

Re:I thought all large companies did this

[oh_my_080980980]

Because you never given it thought, then how do you know the PAC isn't working against your interest. And, when *you* succeed, the industry succeeds.

No penalty against false DMA takedown notices ...

[ajyand]

No penalty against erroneous and false DMA takedown and copyright infringement notices to websites and individuals makes me feel as if I am an accomplice in crime by avoiding consumption of pirated services and betting my money in the hand of companies that serve erroneous and false DMA takedown and copyright infringement notices.

Re: Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. In your dreams, masturbator boy. You also work for NASA? :)

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I hurt you when I left you, but like I said, I just don't want you anymore, I've moved on. Someone will want to fuck your anus - but that person isn't me.

Don't hate all of the neck beards just because this one doesn't want to fuck you anymore, it's just that everytime you asked me to shit in your mouth and then piss all over you after I fucked you, it felt kind of weird.

For the record, he loves it when a neck-beard chews out his ass - that is why he is so bitter.

Re:If you object, there is an H1B to take your pla

[MrKaos]

It's ok for them to ship our jobs there. But it's not ok for us to ship the products made here. Care to explain that?

Yes, they are already poor, starving and begging for *any* job. They are unlikely to agitate for political change and no one should enjoy freedom unless they are obscenely wealthy.

Re:If you object, there is an H1B to take your pla

[stealth_finger]

and spoiled American workers will be made to train their H1-B replacements!

Just sayin'

Teach them wrong, as a joke.

Wow...

[MitchDev]

Just when you think Disney can't get any scummier, they take it to another level...

Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be alot of disney characters in public domain, Disney broke that system and further made a mockery of the system by taking it to court & furthering corruption. They abuse the copyright system, business as usual.

Re:Next they will say you better not vote trump if

[Anonymous Coward]

That will never be an issue, because they will not hire you if you do not display extreme enthusiasm about extreme liberal views in the job interview.

Re:Thanks neckbeards!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I just saw the Unexpected Reference of the year.

Re: Thanks neckbeards!

[Falos]

>You neckbeards also work for NASA?
Several, I imagine.

Probably not GP in particular, but someone decided to defend "Neckbeards do not run anything"

Re:Disney is a POS. Unions are worse. They don't a

[Anonymous Coward]

another idiot butthurt over the fact that people want to band together in order to get a better deal for themselves.

outsourced

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they outsource their jobs.