Slashdot Mirror
Disney To Close 'Vault' For Good As It Moves Film Library To Streaming Service (arstechnica.com)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
If it isn't on Amazon I won't bother.
And, we're still paying the cable companies big bucks for unbundled high speed internet connections. Argggh.
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
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+ ?
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.
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.
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.