Slashdot Mirror
Disney Ditching Netflix Keeps Piracy Relevant (torrentfreak.com)
Yesterday, Disney announced its intent to pull its movies from Netflix and start its own streaming service. This upset many users across the web as the whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes." TorrentFreak argues that "while Disney expects to profit from the strategy, more fragmentation is not ideal for the public" and that the move "keeps piracy relevant." From the report: Although Disney's decision may be good for Disney, a lot of Netflix users are not going to be happy. It likely means that they need another streaming platform subscription to get what they want, which isn't a very positive prospect. In piracy discussions, Hollywood insiders often stress that people have no reason to pirate, as pretty much all titles are available online legally. What they don't mention, however, is that users need access to a few dozen paid services, to access them all. In a way, this fragmentation is keeping the pirate ecosystems intact. While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.
> You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.
It's pretty common for public libraries to have DVDs. If your library doesn't have a title, ask about an intra-library loan.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
Hum Rudyard Kipling died in 1936 and Dinsey's Jungle Book was released in 1967. I must be missing something here about the copyright expiring
The Jungle Book was first published in 1894. The copyright laws of the time had a much shorter duration. If I remember correctly, it was 14 years from date of publication with the potential for one optional extension of another 14 years.
Disney's version was taken from the public domain.