What's wrong with Disney becoming a monopoly?

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Not defending, literally just asking.

I hear the fear and disdain all the time, and I get this feeling I should agree, but I can't think of the reasons why. Maybe I'm just naive; maybe I'm not thinking hard enough; I don't know.

I understand why monopolies are bad in a 7th-grade-economics-class sense: if one producer owns everything, they can do whatever they want with the prices or quality or whatever and all the consumers still have to buy. What's more, no other producers can get a piece of the action, because one owns all the resources needed to create the product.

But can you have such a situation when the product is, say, creative talent?? I don't think it's possible to buy up all the artistry and imagination in the world...at least not forever. Disney could take everything today, and in 30 years a new independent studio could rise up regardless, especially in this day and age where, if you have an internet connection and a good enough product, it's relatively easy to find success. That's my thought process.

So, somebody poke some holes in it. What am I missing?

[Trevor]

an economy with no competition is an abhorred one most of the time and can have unintended consequences in other ways. Monopolies do more than just own everything, they make sure no more competition rises in particular areas, for Disney it's entertainment. It's not so much that Disney will take everyone with talent, they'll just make sure talent from competition isn't noticed or consumed. This will then make the company wither away and go bankrupt. Besides, we learned our lesson 100 years ago during the monopoly era why monopolies aren't good for reasons outside the economy, such as influencing the government for their own interests and causing horrific imperialism, (if you know who Dole is and why that pineapple company exists, you know what I mean).

Another example you can see is Walmart destroying small towns by coming in and soaking up all the competition, making people only buy from them and then the town loses all its money and dries up. You get people living in poor conditions and prolonging social problems that won't get fixed.

in the case of Disney, imagine say Disney acquired ownership of youtube, and all you see on it are Disney stuff, and no, im not saying you'll only see classic movies like snow white or more recent things like marvel movies, but other things Disney bought like ABC and ESPN, and then all the content creators who make simple home videos dont get noticed unless they were a Hollywood actor or something. Disney I also wouldn't be surprised about being imperialistic either like how I was saying earlier:

How we roasted Donald Duck, Disney's agent of imperialism | Ariel Dorfman

does this answer your question any?

[skicoak]

Monopolies punish the worker class.

If you're a gifted creator and the only place to work is Disney...you have to accept their wages and rules.

Disney could take everything today, and in 30 years a new independent studio could rise up regardless

And Disney would just buy them, take Pixar as an example of what happens.

[ble]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[TAMAnnoying]

Putting it simply, having opinions gives both creators and audience a choice. Having only one option means no more choice.

[therealbereth]

A few good reasons have already been stated, but I'd like to add that Disney has already bought stories that were once public domain... Take Alice, take Beauty and the Beast (a super old French tale probably based on a folk tale, no less) etc.

So by buying stories that once belonged to everyone? Disney makes it almost impossible for people to make their own adaptations of those—without involving Disney. I don't know exactly which of these stories they bought and put their label on, but it's enough to get enraged.

... I just looked it up real quick, and they own Snow White, for example.
Picture this, you're trying to write a retelling of Snow White, a story that originated from MULTIPLE iterations of a folk tale, written down by the Grimm brothers, and then Disney comes along and... shuts you down. Yours could be the greatest new twist on the story, but you wouldn't be able to publish it without Disney claiming their royalties. Snow White will fall into public domain again only between 2031 and 2035... IF they don't buy it again.

As long as Disney amasses more and more money, buys more companies and public domains, this company will seriously thwart our cultural output again and again because this company just does not care about creativity as much as it does about money.

And there are a lot of great studios that work under Disney. So it's always a question of conscience whether or not to support a movie in theaters when it has ultimately "Disney" slapped on it.

[HGohwell]

A few good reasons have already been stated, but I'd like to add that Disney has already bought stories that were once public domain... Take Alice, take Beauty and the Beast (a super old French tale probably based on a folk tale, no less) etc.

As far as I'm aware this is simply not true. There are multiple versions of Alice that had nothing to do with Disney. The same with Beauty and the Beast and notably Robin Hood. The problem is more that Disney is the most well known versions because we grew up with them. As long as you are not using aspects Disney did too heavily, they simply cannot do anything. Particularly legends cannot be owned. That's like saying Disney owns all Greek mythology just because they did a terrible Hercules adaption. Books are a little more tricky but public domain is public domain. The only major one of note is Peter Pan, which copyright was given to Great Ormond Street Hospital which is a legal mess we won't go into. Disney owns their versions, if you go all the way back to the originals and do your own they cannot stop you. Just look for 5 seconds at how many other Snow White adaptions there are. For one of the more recent one Snow White and The Huntsmen, which was supposedly pitched to Disney first and they said they didn't want to make it. If there were going to be copyright issues I'd imagine it would have been dealt with then.

On the more broad question: monopolies in creativity lead to one view point. I'll wander over to my comfort area of anime for a second, but I'm sure everyone is aware how hard it is to get real LGBT content in anime because none of the studios want to give the go ahead. One of the most LGBT inclusive anime around gets away with this because it's money is made on music and because it has huge names behind it pushing the LGBT content, meaning the studios will always make their money and can allow it. Most shows aren't this lucky. This is the same sort of problem you have if there's a monopoly in films. If one company who is anti-LGBT owns all the studios and nothing gets made without them, you have to conform or you have to make a lot of money yourself and take the risk yourself, which in the film industry can be millions and billions.

[skicoak]

A few good reasons have already been stated, but I'd like to add that Disney has already bought stories that were once public domain...

Like @HGohwell said, they can't own a character that's in the public domain.

What they do though is create a distinct version of the character and protect that intellectual property ...often by winning legal battles with the death by a thousand little cuts approach. They just drain peoples funds with repeated court cases.

[LCT_m_a_d]

I think if consumer market valued creative talent the way many other artists do, then your example would be completely flawless.

Unfortunately, a large base of any consumer market is the people who specifically aren't creators so there is less value in the underlining talent and more value in the content. While talent cannot be manufactured, content can at a a smaller consumer price and more distribution resources which specific favors a monopoly. Middle/lower income consumer are almost always willing to trade quality for accessibility and affordability.

One example is genre/themes in tapas. While tapas is in my opionion very diverse in content and there is opportunity for any comic to succeed many artists have complained that only a handful of themes have a chance of being recognized. So the style would be the monopoly.

This is why it's very important to support local

[Drewbie]

From what I have heard disney is a terrible employer. While working under them, any idea they make (Legally I assume it means put on paper) is automatically owned by them even if made during their off time. (This accounts for the disney porn room where to spite them artists draw disney characters in porn since they arent legally allowed to destroy it)(I'm not 100% sure this is real but I couldn't find any substantial proof that it wasn't)

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Middle/lower income consumer are almost always willing to trade quality for accessibility and affordability.

This is a bit off topic, but I have to object to that statement. As someone who's been a "lower income consumer" for most of my life (and probably still is), I can say from experience that that isn't true in the entertainment department.

Entertainment is a luxury, not a need, and people are usually willing to wait (or go the extra mile) for quality content. When I was a kid, we didn't indulge in those sad-looking Pixar knock-off movies just because they were cheaper. If we couldn't afford to see Toy Story when it came out (or whatever the popular movie of the day was), we simply waited for it to be released for free on public TV.

And even now that those days are kinda gone, 7 dollars for a movie ticket is not exactly horrifically expensive. Even 30 bucks for a box set of DVDs is within reach for most people, if you're willing to do some saving (or just use a credit card). And if all else fails, there's always online piracy. =/

There's a reason most smaller studios find it difficult to compete with the giants, even when their content is cheaper or easier to access: people want what is popular, what is promoted, what they are told is quality, especially when they want to enjoy themselves. If it means they only go to the theaters once or twice a year, so be it.

Even Disney doesn't always create smash hits, and if they started to let the talent and "magic" they're famous for slide in favor of mere content creation, I don't think it would go unnoticed. Maybe they wouldn't care, but I think there would be an effect.

[fattackycats]

Disney doesn't just own entertainment media, they own real estate, amusement parks, news channels etc. It's pretty insane how massive they are. I think any company getting this big is bad, no matter what the initial intent was. I think a lot of people don't understand the power with which Disney has.

Here's a link to the article of which I got this image so you can enlarge the image and read all of it for yourself.

Every Company Disney Owns: A Map of Disney's Worldwide Assets

[fattackycats]

Don't forget Universal Studios and Dreamworks. They haven't snatched them up yet!

[nostalgicroxas]

Keep in mind The Disney Co. and the animation studios it has all have an agenda and fund their money to certain areas to further it. One reason some channels like The History Channel started showing shows that utilize a formula similar to what was on The Discovery Channel and TLC is because of Disney's literal hand in it.

Companies that become larger and larger, like Amazon too, are at the mercy of treating people as part of The Machine (not unlike the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the century). What happens is people become figures in the book and if it's not enough black, then the company will take action to fix that - by firing their more expensive employees (even if it means losing valuable experience) or making their working conditions more insufferable, and then hiring workers who are younger, don't know better, don't fully understand their rights by state and law, or outsource the work to another country entirely. Watch practically any episode of Shark Tank to get a quick jist of how "business scaling" works, then 1000x it to Disney and Amazon.

Wal*Mart is not free of this BS either but they have clauses in their contracts when they build their huge stores and eventually need to sell them to move the business to a larger store. That old store that's massive when sold has a contract that says no other department, grocery store, or place of business can be at that location/inside that building, which leaves the building to become a religious place like a Church. Lots of the country has either empty Wal*Marts or they're occupied by Churches now. And this isn't a short-scale thing to stop competition - it's a 20-year-hold.

[TAMAnnoying]

I think you may be forgetting about brand loyalty here. It’s a very intrinsic part of a marketer vs consumer life style. If you have been consuming Disney products all your life and they have yet to annoy or backstab you personally in any way, why would you ever look for a new brand? People don’t tend to look for new brands unless they have a lot of buyers regret, this can cause them to go looking for other brands but if say Disney is buying every billboard in your area meaning all the little businesses are unable to promote their new brand because the platform has been taken away. How would you as a average consumer who won’t scout the entire internet, actually learn about this new brand? Ultimately most people get sour when they’be been had by a brand, but if there is no easy or effective alternative, they don’t do much to change their spending habits.

[racarter]

Monopolies suck because there’s no competition. It really has little to do with creative except...

Well look at the Marvel movies. After Disney bought Marvel, the movies gradually got less good / entertaining compared to the earlier flicks. Why? Because in the beginning they didn’t have Disney as a safety net - they had to make good movies. Now they barely even have to try because they really don’t have anything to lose since there’s not much risk involved now that Disney owns them. As such, the movies have been much more half-assed, yet still get a lot of praise for the stupidest reasons (yet also get a lot of flack at the same time).

Competition is key to business. Even in the realm of creativity.

Think of it this way - imagine you owned a comic publishing business and bought out all the other publishers. You’re literally the only option out there to buy comics from - no matter what subsidiaries the consumers go though, it all funnels back to you. Your subsidiaries give the consumers the illusion of choice, which is why you don’t just overhaul the company you buy out and change its name to your own company name.

Now given that you’re the only place to buy comics from, the only business that puts out comics... where’s the incentive for you to actually try? What are people gonna do? Shop somewhere else? Where?

Monopolies mean they can spoon feed you shit and you’ll keep coming back like a trained monkey because you want to be entertained. That harms creativity because not only do you just have to pander to whoever you think will bitch the loudest if you don’t pander to them - it means the creatives don’t have freedom to be creative because where else are they going to go work?

You’re literally the only option to consume entertainment from and for creatives to work for.

That’s a bit of an oversimplification of the issue but the problem is basically that even if 30 years from now a new powerhouse came to be - that doesn’t change the fact that we’ll never know what sort of amazing shit we missed out on in those 30 years due to squandered potential.

Competition encourages creativity in all aspects. Plus there’s monetary reasons involved as well, but I’m not knowledgeable about what governs ticket prices and the like so I can’t argue that much. Tho money wise is does mean they don’t have to pay their creatives much - cuz like I said, where else are they gonna work?

I have no issues with companies growing, of course, but when you eliminate too much competition then there’s no incentive for the company to work hard to get you to consume their product.

Unless you get lucky and have someone ethical in charge of the primary company and they remain fairly hands-off and let their subsidiaries run themselves. But inevitably that person will die or retire and a control freak will show up in their place.

Oh plus monopolies are bad because they can completely overshadow any startups or any smaller companies around that they haven’t bought out yet. Which means they’re technically not a monopoly but at the same time they’re the only ones with any real money, publicity, etc required to do anything. Disney does have mild competition like Laika (I think that’s the name?) but they do stop-motion which takes a long time to create and they can’t churn out movies like Disney can.

Long story short, new blood, competition, etc make for a better environment to encourage and promote creativity and even promote the idea that creatives are valuable which would encourage companies to treat them right.

[vfinnigan]

Yes, actually you can, because intellectual property is still property, and its creators are still creating goods and services. And creators have a right to enter the market and compete as they see fit.

[JeanGuillet]

What if all restaurants were driven out of business by McDonalds?

You're mistaken that a good internet connection and a good product is enough to find easy success. Takes a lot more than that, what matters is Marketing, Money, Connections and Luck. Monopoly means making sure the other guy can't get access to any of those things. No independent studio could challenge Disney, remember when Miramax tried to go head-to-head in the early 2000s with animated films? Or that outfit in Arizona that did Anastasia? Bankrupt, bought out, ended. And creativity suffers because those voices are snuffed out. There would have been far more creative jobs out there if those people were allowed to do their thing, jobs for the people on this forum. Disney is not doing anyone here any favors.

[nostalgicroxas]

This reminds me of a documentary I watched on the electric lightbulb's creation and the main two men who did it - primarily in competition with each other of who could make it first, better, faster, run cheaper, and reach farther. It was really fascinating.

[OttoGruenwald]

Because corporations are like governments. They will expand until they hit a wall.

Look at all the companies its swallowed. Look at what their lobbyists did to copyright. Think of IPs as patents and think of Disney as a technology company. Do you see the problem now?

If you don't trust bust Disney they're going to continue to assimilate companies like the Borg and extend copyright another decade and another decade and another decade just to keep anyone from making money on a pre-WW2 mouse cartoon.