Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney To Close 'Vault' For Good As It Moves Film Library To Streaming Service (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the trying-to-encourage-subscriptions dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Disney is rapidly preparing to launch its own streaming service, dubbed Disney+, later this year. While the debut date is still unknown, we now know that the service will include the entire Disney movie library shortly after the service launches. According to a report in Polygon, Disney CEO Bob Iger explained the strategy to investors at a meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, pointing at the retirement of Disney's longstanding "vault." "The service... is going to combine what we call library product, movies, and television, with a lot of original product as well, movies and television," Iger said. "And at some point fairly soon after launch, it will house the entire Disney motion picture library, so the movies that you speak of that traditionally have been kept in a 'vault' and brought out basically every few years will be on the service. And then, of course, we're producing a number of original movies and original television shows as well that will be Disney-branded."

The Disney Vault has been a marketing and sales strategy for years. After a film's initial release run, Disney would sequester the title in its vault for a long period of time. That meant that customers who didn't buy a physical copy of the movie immediately would be out of luck until Disney brought it out of the vault as a new edition or a special release run. This strategy allowed Disney to control film sales and drum up anticipation for titles that were coming out of the vault once the company decided the time was right. But it also frustrated customers who ended up paying high prices for copies of movies that were widely unavailable during their vault stints. This exclusivity will be an important factor for Disney as it competes with other streaming giants like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video.

65 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. ENTIRE entire library? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    I look forward to seeing Song of the South on the new Disney streaming service...

    NOT.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:ENTIRE entire library? by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's always somewhere on YouTube. Disney doesn't seem so eager to make copyright claims on that one, for some reason.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re: ENTIRE entire library? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Porky is looney tunes, Warner bros.

    3. Re: ENTIRE entire library? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 2

      Only a matter of time before Disney assimilate Warner Brothers into the collective.

    4. Re:ENTIRE entire library? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I expect they can do what they did with the DVD releases of Sesame Street. They can self rate it not suitable for children.
      This was a product of its time, however now we see it for the subtle message it is portraying, a message we no longer want to teach children. However I don't see getting rid of it, as a positive action, but limit it to a more mature audience, who can watch this, and understand that this is a racist premise and understand it in its time in history. Vs. exposing this to a child who will get caught up in the friendly songs, and making connections in their mind that such things are acceptable and normal.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:ENTIRE entire library? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hell, if it means I can finally see The Black Cauldron, I'm all for it.

      That movie is available on all major streaming services right now.

      The DVD is in a variety of stores.

      I think you may be a bit disappointed. The book is better.

    6. Re:ENTIRE entire library? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I see getting rid of it as a positive action, for two reasons:

      First, if they make it available some assholes are going to grab offensive shit and toss it in the middle of the stuff rated for kids. Just look at Youtube Kids for example. Trolls will always troll, but getting rid of low-hanging fruit which has minimal value to anyone helps a little.

      Second, like confederate and nazi memorials, historic markers, museums, and reenactments, there will always be a subset who come not to be a mature audience exploring this time in history, but to revel in it and embrace it as a giant "fuck you" to society.

      While I get that there's a reluctance for censorship and paving over the past, a record of what we did and why it was wrong is far more beneficial than keeping around those things that we did wrong. Creating icons of worship out of objects and symbols that can still be used to inflict harm is really the wrong way to go about it. Document what we made and what we did, why it was wrong, and then purge that old shit.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    7. Re: ENTIRE entire library? by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      Now WHAT depiction of slavery? The film is set in the Reconstruction Era, after slavery was abolished.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    8. Re:ENTIRE entire library? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they have given up on the remake. That was a very interesting movie with a few rough edges. As long as it isn't in the hands of another diversity-pusher...

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    9. Re:ENTIRE entire library? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      Those little piggies need to get some exercise.

  2. McRib by captaindomon · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's the same thing as the McRib. Just sayin'. No reason we can't have the McRib all year. NO REASON!

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:McRib by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      It's the same thing as the McRib. Just sayin'. No reason we can't have the McRib all year. NO REASON!

      Let's be honest. No one really likes the McRib. The only reason people go crazy for it is because it only comes out every couple years. If it was out year round it would be the Nickelback of sandwiches.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:McRib by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 2

      the Nickelback of sandwiches

      Look at this piece of meat
      I can eat it if I take a seat
      Maybe feel like I've been fed
      Only if I also eat the bread

      Every memory of waiting in the order line
      While the person there in front of me just wastes more time
      It's hard to say it, time to say it
      Goodbye, goodbye

    3. Re:McRib by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Look at this piece of meat I can eat it if I take a seat Maybe feel like I've been fed Only if I also eat the bread Every memory of waiting in the order line While the person there in front of me just wastes more time It's hard to say it, time to say it Goodbye, goodbye

      I am not ashamed to say I knew immediately what tune that went to even before I got to the last 2 lines. Of course, all their songs pretty much sounds the same, so....

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:McRib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People love the McRib, I worked at McDonalds when I was high school aged back in the 90s and when they were on sale people would order 20 of them and take them home a freeze them so they could eat McRibs all year long.

    5. Re: McRib by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      That is... fascinating. Wow.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
  3. Alternative sources by quonset · · Score: 2

    But it also frustrated customers who ended up paying high prices for copies of movies that were widely unavailable during their vault stints/

    Apparently these people never heard of yard sales or places like the Salvation Army or Goodwill Stores.

    1. Re:Alternative sources by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Usually only available in VHS, and working VHS players are getting hard to find and VHS looks crappy on modern TV's.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Alternative sources by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Before eBay finding stuff like that required a lot of effort. You had to physically go to the yard sale or charity shop and look through the stock (shops really need a search box by the door). So basically you trade your time for money.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Alternative sources by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not everyone likes buying scratched barely playable media.

  4. Amazon by Zorro · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it isn't on Amazon I won't bother.

  5. Piracy cracked the vault by xack · · Score: 1

    There's no hidden gems left, the pirates plundered it years ago.

  6. This is what we wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For decades people have have been clamoring for a la carte option during the cable package monopoly era. Cable companies warned why it might not be the dream come true for consumers and they were right. Now we have a la carte and all the negatives that comes with it.

    1. Re:This is what we wanted by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      And, we're still paying the cable companies big bucks for unbundled high speed internet connections. Argggh.

    2. Re:This is what we wanted by green1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, now we can subscribe to 15 different streaming services that each have 1 title we're interested in. So much better than cable....

    3. Re:This is what we wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Now we have a large carte"

      Bull-fucking-shit. What was meant by "a la carte" was being able to choose a couple cable channels to subscribe to instead of large bundles of them. No cable provider offers actually offers individual channels.

      Twisting that say Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, etc are "channels" and calling that "a la carte" is farcical. They're competing video services, along with a cable company, and if anything drive the total cost for consumers up. Each is it's own bundle of content that any given person only wants a little of. What was wanted was being able to selectively pay for desired content, not having to buy 3-4 bundles of content.

      If anything the current situation is the antithesis of "a la carte."

    4. Re:This is what we wanted by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yeah, now we can subscribe to 15 different streaming services that each have 1 title we're interested in. So much better than cable....

      The best solution is to not sign up for Disney+ and CBS all Access; etc.

      Help make those splinter sites fail! If you succeed, stuff returns to the main streaming sites. If you fail- meh, there's plenty to watch on Netflix/Hulu without signing up for all the extra splinter sites- you've saved yourself $360 a year.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  7. There's a lot more in there by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    That was my thought the first time I saw the subject line - but, there's a lot more Disney product than just "Song of the South" that today's audiences would find objectionable. There's a ton of blatantly racist (even for the time) material from WWII as well as other films through the '40s and '50s.

    It would be interesting to see how "entire" the library really is.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  8. Closing or opening? by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm confused. Is Disney going to 'close the vault' and stop selling physical media entirely? Or are they going to sell physical media of all their products all the time, since they're available for streaming anyway?

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Closing or opening? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I am expecting the end of physical media, unfortunately.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Closing or opening? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      It's means for their only streaming service all movies will always be available and not cycled on a typical ~7 year basis like they currently do. It was marketing genius for them allowing them to build anticipation for either release in cinemas or dvd. Streaming services allow them better opportunity to get more money with a subscription than a release dvd sale every now and them would bring in.

    3. Re:Closing or opening? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      What it means is that by restricting their own content to a single service (their own) they are going to watch their revenue plummet as all the people that would be happy paying a small fee to have it available on netflix instead simply subscribe a couple months a year and catch up then not pay the rest of the year. All these companies see pots of gold with their own streaming service because of netflix but they don't realize it's just a mirage and that people will do what a bunch of people I know do, they will subscribe to a single streaming service, but bounce around from service to service.

      Sure Disney might get constant subscriptions from families with young children but that's actually a pretty limited market numbers wise. But everyone else will subscribe for a month, catch up and then move on to another service and then another. Rather than having everyone pay into the pot they will only get the subscribers who want the content that month. It's going to be a much much smaller pool of people, rather than the older system of getting $10 a month from every cable subscriber. I full expect that once this Disney streaming service goes live that the next quarter the Disney stock will crater after reporting revenue (unless they lie about it) and they'll jack the price up to something like $30 and then watch the subscriber base crater like their stock price.

      They would be far better off to license their content as widely as possible.

    4. Re:Closing or opening? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. It just means it will all evaporate when the next internet worm or thermonuclear war happens.

      Good thing too. I would rather re-read some XIXth century works.

  9. It's there, just would be nice to have quality by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It's just sad to erase history simply because something is of another time and may offend people now... I think it's more important to show what it was slick, so that we know not to slide backwards...

    Would just be nice for any serious Disney fan to really see EVERYTHING they produced at the highest level of quality.

    It will be really interesting to see what traction Disney gets with this channel. I think it may do OK just from the base of all the families that love Disney channel and kids movies. But it also seems wrong to stick Deadpool and other more adult Marvel stuff behind this paywall that few fans are going to find worth paying for.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It's there, just would be nice to have quality by lgw · · Score: 1

      Not a surprise though. The only movies Disney has managed in the last decade or so with any "legs" (people paying to watch years after release) were Frozen and the Marvel movies. You can bet they're going to monetize those properties aggressively. They'll get lumped together under the umbrella of "what people we pay to watch".

      I can live without the streaming. If I can rent the DVDs, that's cool. If not, torrents are easy.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:It's there, just would be nice to have quality by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      And Zootopia, because furries.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    3. Re:It's there, just would be nice to have quality by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's just sad to erase history simply because something is of another time and may offend people now..

      It's not erased. If you long to see some racist Disney cartoons, they are readily available for your viewing pleasure, SuperKendall.

      Just a simple search.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:It's there, just would be nice to have quality by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Disney To Close 'Vault' For Good ...

      is in the headline, but the actual story seems to be that Disney plans to open the vault for good. Closing the vault would mean that they're keeping everything inside where no one can get at it, not that they're going to start keeping it all available.

      It may be fun to be able to show kids the originals of some of the old Disney movies, but it'll come down to the cost, which I imagine will be CBS-like in it's ridiculousness, only more so.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  10. Artificial Scarcity by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sad when a company has to resort to artificial scarcity in order to drive sales.

    I guess they have run out of ideas because I see they are remaking the same crap over and over again. e.g. Lion King (2019)

    Bringing this back on topic -- so if the vault is going to be closed does that mean that everything can now be finally bought as a physical copy instead of being artificially restricted or will the only way to "own" these movies is to pay for a subscription to Disney+ ?

    1. Re: Artificial Scarcity by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      There's also a subscription on a pirate enclave or something website. Not sure what the price is, but hopefully it'll be able to compete with Disney's offerings...

    2. Re:Artificial Scarcity by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      There is no such thing as "artificial scarcity" on the internet. The only thing this will do is drive up traffic to sights like pirate bay. Home of the 24 hour stream.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    3. Re:Artificial Scarcity by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Whine, whine, whine. Sure, Lion King was theirs, but a lot of their animations were from public domain stories. If you really wanted Cinderella, you could make your own. And it would be better! With blackjack! And ... uh ...

    4. Re:Artificial Scarcity by antdude · · Score: 1

      FYI. Sites, not sights. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  11. Next copyright change sponsored by Disney? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Will be outlawing the sale of "previously enjoyed" VHS/DVD/Blu-rays.

    The obligatory extension of copyright date "To Infinity and Beyond"

    Editing (or pretending it doesn't exist) anything more offensive than pg-13 from their "vault" .
    Direct to streaming crap that people wouldn't pay for any other way.

  12. No, thanks by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Unless they plan to completely stop selling Blu-Ray / DVD versions of their movies, this doesn’t impact me in the least. Even if you like Disney movies (and we generally do) - it’s going to be a lot cheaper to buy the physical media, and rip it, for the titles we’re interested in. It’s what I’ve already been doing because buying the disks was already the only reliable way to access what we wanted to see... so why would I want to start paying them more money when I wouldn’t be gaining anything I care about? Do they seriously think a large number of people are waiting to see “Boy Meets World Revisited” or “That’s So Raven: College Daze”?

    And I’m sure plenty of people here will be pointing out how easy it is to find stuff on the torrent sites... but face it, those folks are going to be doing that regardless of Disney’s (or anyone else’s) business model.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:No, thanks by Rolgar · · Score: 2

      The bit about 'closing the vault' means that you won't be able to own a single movie any more. You will have to pay for access to everything forever on you will get nothing.

      Another way of putting it is that they're changing from scarcity by only making it available every 5 years to making it scarce by only making it available through their own service. I suppose you could tell your kids that periodically, you'll be binging on Disney content for 1-3 months, and then they'll have to wait a few years for the next dosage if you're trying to control the money you give Disney. Which, if you do that, maybe you'd spend $120 a decade (or less) which might be way less than what you'd spend if you bought all of the movies you like.

      If you're concerned about the total outlay, you're probably not Disney's primary customer. They want millions of rich customers who won't blink at dropping $120 a year in order to have half of the kids favorites available without having to worry about scratched discs and storage, because for some people, $120 isn't worth fretting about.

  13. Speculation by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    This is a nice opportunity to by up as many cheap Disney DVDs and BluRay's as possible to sell on E-bay and Amazon at a later date.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  14. Digital Vault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now introducing the Disney(tm) VirtualVault(tm).

    Movies are added to your DigitalVault, every time the Disney Vault is opened.

    Keep paying your subscription fees to add more movies to your Digital Vault.

    Stop, and everything inside the Digital Vault resets to zero.

  15. I feel bad for Disney fans by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the only movie they ever made that I really like was Lilo & Stitch ("Oh good, my dog found the chainsaw!") which they were pretty hands off on.

    They seem to see their fans as sacks of money rather than people. It sucks to be in an adversarial role with the company that owns the stuff you love.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I feel bad for Disney fans by doconnor · · Score: 1

      People who love Disney will subscribe to Disney+ and have more access then they every had before, while cutting back on BluRay purchases.

  16. Re:Not another streaming service by doconnor · · Score: 1

    Four is already a lot more then most people. Maybe you should only subscribe to one or two at time and switch them up every few months.

  17. Competing with Themselves? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    Disney owns 60% of Hulu after acquiring Fox - sans Fox News.

  18. Star Wars too by MrLogic17 · · Score: 2

    Y'all seem to have forgotten The Mouse owns Star Wars too. They have a LOT of brands under their control.

    I'm sure their own dedicated streaming service sounds like a good idea to them, but in the end I think it's going to hurt their brand. Just look at what CBS has done to Star Trek by limiting streaming access.

    1. Re:Star Wars too by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Only 2-3 generations before the culture forgets it ever existed.

    2. Re:Star Wars too by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      CBS had a grand total of ONE (1) show that I would have been interested in watching (Star Trek Discovery). Not enough to get me to buy the subscription.

      Disney on the other hand, has quite a large list of things I want to watch (Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, etc). As long as they price it decently and have no ads (I could see paying $10-15/month without blinking) I will likely get a sub.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    3. Re:Star Wars too by 2.246.1010.78 · · Score: 1

      Stock star wars? Ugh. Wake me if they add the 'uncut' versions to their vault...

  19. Marvel, too by mckwant · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Streaming is completely logical for Disney. $10/mo for the entire catalog ~= six $25 DVDs/yr, and you're not bothered by physical media.

    Hell, my household would only use the Star Wars and Marvel channels, and if you included ALL the episodic animation (SW Rebels, Avengers Assemble, the underrated Lego Star Wars), I could almost see subscribing to it. If they're REALLY smart, they'll throw in ESPN+ for free. Gives Dad a reason to hook it up.

    The question is what happens when their IP doesn't even appear on wider content aggregators (NetFlix/Prime/Hulu/Whatever). If half a generation never sees it, and/or finds alternatives (e.g. Amazon's "Just Add Magic"), Disney's position moving foward is unclear.

    Here's hoping...

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig.
    1. Re:Marvel, too by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      I don't really see it as unclear. Basically Disney owns thier own library of classic Disney movies, Disney animated movies, classic cartoons, Disney channel programs, Fox's film library, Fox'e TV library, Star Wars, Marvel, ABC. They also own 2/3 of Hulu.

      What happens when their IP doesn't appear on wider content aggregators is those aggregators fail. Netflix, for all their great exclusive content is spending a fortune they don't have to create that content. They are not profitable and are living on borrowed time. Once Disney pulls their content and has their own streaming service the choice becomes Netflix or Disney and I suspect Netflix loses.

  20. Ah, the artificial scarcity by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Which is an approach egregiously followed by Disney (up till now) and - most infamously - by DeBeers: diamonds are expensive, not because they are particularly rare (which they are not) but because the lowlifes from DeBeers control the market and the supply. They have thrived on the artificial scarcity that generate and control for over one hundred years now. Talk about greed.

    1. Re:Ah, the artificial scarcity by tepples · · Score: 1

      The difference is that HPHT, CVD, and other methods of making diamonds make close substitutes. There isn't quite as much of a close substitute for Disney movies. For example, though Golden Films made an animated adaptation of The Adventures of Pinocchio, it's nowhere near the production values of Disney's 1941 animated film.

  21. Re:What will happen to the Marvel Netflix shows by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

    No mystery here. Disney wants Daredevil for their own streaming service, so they most likely raised the price Netflix would have to pay for the property. There's a two year embargo on Disney using the property once it's canceled by Netflix.. Kill it now so that in 2 years DIsney can pick it up.

  22. I can't wait to watch the Song of the South again by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    So many racist films from Disney, no longer hidden away in the vault...

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  23. Three reasons against Chaz Bono Act by tepples · · Score: 2

    I doubt we'll see another copyright term extension bill in the USA before 2024 for several reasons.

    - First, Authors Guild actually opposes it, as authors have realized how keeping things out of the public domain causes authors to have to walk on eggshells to avoid infringing third parties' copyrights.
    - Second, the 1998 extension was predicated on harmonizing copyright terms to those of the European Union. In its opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court recognized the possibility of "legislative misbehavior" but allowed the 1998 extension through because of harmonization. But no major developed anglophone market has extended the term further than the EU's life plus 70.
    - Third, the US Trade Representative doesn't appear interested in extending the U.S. copyright term. The USMCA treaty, which replaced NAFTA at the end of 2018, extended the Canadian term but did not extend the U.S. term.

    I mention 2024 because that's when U.S. copyright in "Steamboat Willie", The House on Pooh Corner, and Ravel's "Bolero" expires under current law.

  24. Jacked up monthly rate by tepples · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should only subscribe to one or two at time and switch them up every few months.

    Unless Disney decides to encourage annual subscriptions by jacking up the monthly rate so high that a subscriber can buy 2 months and get 10 free.

  25. There is no Vault by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    There are periodic and limited production runs of movies.

    That's it. Stop accepting a stupid marketdroid's false reality.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)