snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Disney » Disney Shuts Down School Production of 'Aladdin' (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Disney Shuts Down School Production of 'Aladdin'
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
AnglRdr, this is twice now in recent memory that you are defending copyright laws as they are, regardless of the circumstances or how ridiculous or draconian they may be.


Except that, in this case, I haven't defended it. I have stated that this case is not unlike cases that have happened before.

quote:
You do so with such fervour, that I am tempted to believe that you are not "at arms length" from copyright laws and they way they are now. Few people argue so passionately about something where they have no vested interest.

I haven't made any secret about the fact that my husband works in a creative field and that our livelyhood is dependent upon the rights he holds to his works being respected.

quote:
Now you may very well be just a person who has great respect for any law, and encourages all people to uphold it, your particular favoritism (and what I would call "unconditional support") for copyright law is suspicious.

I take issue with this, as it is a misrepresentation of my views. I have stated on numerous occassions that there are aspects of DMCA that I would like to see changed or done away with utterly.

You are right in that I do abide by the law, but that doesn't mean that I don't want some laws changed.

quote:
Maybe you should calm down - the answer to all of these people breaking the law, is to change the way the law works.

Calm down? Really? Huh...I feel pretty calm.

quote:
Or otherwise explain your stake in copyright laws "as they are today". There are many snopesters who are published authors and derive commercial benefit from their protected works. I don't see them showing the same passion here as you do.
Again, it has never been a secret. I am sorry you've missed it, but, really, would it really matter? I am passionate about a fair number of things, so I am a bit confused why this topic, of all that I post to, should arouse this sort of suspiscion.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Noemi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 05 posted      Profile for Noemi   E-mail Noemi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
No one is going to mistake a school play of Aladdin for Disney's Aladdin, so there is no loss of image brand or awareness.

We draw the line at not pursuing stupid causes like this, and yes, at violations that actually harm the copyright holder. Profit? Yes, that's harming the copyright holder. Yes, Disney has to prove that it has been harmed, as it is the accuser.

OK, but what does that have to do with this situation? It has nothing to do with Disney's copyright being violated. The issue is that there was a contract with another agency giving them sole production rights. Allowing another production would break that contract.

Noemi

--------------------
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
My blog, no guarantees about witty or intelligent content. My current projects.
Coveted Beads <---- our eBay store, new items being added somewhat regularly

Posts: 8418 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
It doesn't have to be a part of their public platform to find out where they stand on the issue. There are multiple methods to ask a candidate where they stand on an issue.

True, it doesn't.

quote:
I was unaware that by disliking a law, it was my reponsibility to MAKE a new law. That's just...really...best word for it is "stupid".

I never said you had to write the whole thing. But it is hard to get anything actually done when your goal is "Better".

quote:
And, in the end, it doesn't have to be the candidate that will vote for "my new version" it has to be a candidate closest suited to how I view the situation. No candidate is going to agree with me or you 100% on everything. You're being silly if you think that's possible.

I never said that was going to happen. But if you don't have any idea what you want the law to be, how are you going to figure out which candidate best exemplifies your position?

quote:
You do know that I'm not the only person in the world that feels this way, nor am I the only person who doesn't plan on writing up a whole new law for it, don't you?

So if you aren't the only person in the world, then someone must have a plan you like.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
As an American citizen, and not being a politician, my duty is to vote for those who make the laws, not to make them. If everyone could make their own laws, we wouldn't really need the lawmakers, now would we?

Call your Senators and Representative and give them suggestions on how you want the laws to change. Form a PAC and collect signatures for how the law will change. Lawmakers aren't going to suddenly change a law unless they know that people (or a PAC) want the law to change and what they want the law to change to.

quote:
I make it come about by exercising my right to vote and voting in those who I think are most conducive to my stance on the issues.

Has this ever been an election issue? Has any legislative candidate had this part of hir platform? How will you know which candidate will vote for your new version?

It doesn't have to be a part of their public platform to find out where they stand on the issue. There are multiple methods to ask a candidate where they stand on an issue.

I was unaware that by disliking a law, it was my reponsibility to MAKE a new law. That's just...really...best word for it is "stupid".

What it is is "proactive." My representative is on the House subcommittee that deals with copyright law. I have written her regularly about changes I, one of her constituents, would like to see brought about in the law to make it a better one.

quote:
And, in the end, it doesn't have to be the candidate that will vote for "my new version" it has to be a candidate closest suited to how I view the situation. No candidate is going to agree with me or you 100% on everything. You're being silly if you think that's possible.

I think you miss both mine and GenYus' point: if you don't like something, you do have the opportunity to give your input to change it in a way that you would like.

quote:
You do know that I'm not the only person in the world that feels this way, nor am I the only person who doesn't plan on writing up a whole new law for it, don't you?
You're certainly under no obligation to do so, but I am really curious about why you think your ideas are any different than those already in effect. I would love to see you compare and contrast your ideas with current law.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
The single most ridiculous thing I've heard all night. So if I sing "A Whole New World" badly, to a girlfriend, and she now has an extreme dislike of the song and refuses to buy the Aladdin DVD, then Disney has the right to sue me? hat if I sing it at a karaoke bar and now everyone there feels that way? Gimme a break. I think on that note I'm out. I can't argue with such horribly flawed logic.

Is it ironic that you talk about ridiculous then post something like this:

quote:
The common sense.
PS: The karayoke bar paid licensing fees to use the song when they bought the karayoke CD.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
I think you miss both mine and GenYus' point: if you don't like something, you do have the opportunity to give your input to change it in a way that you would like.

She has given her input. She wants it to be better.

quote:
You're certainly under no obligation to do so, but I am really curious about why you think your ideas are any different than those already in effect. I would love to see you compare and contrast your ideas with current law.
Her law would be based on common sense.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
asnakeny
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for asnakeny   Author's Homepage   E-mail asnakeny   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
No one is going to mistake a school play of Aladdin for Disney's Aladdin, so there is no loss of image brand or awareness.

How about if someone sees the school production, doesn't like the sets (or costumes, or direction, or musical arrangement), and decides its not worth it to see the "professional" tour?

Don't assume that there won't be a lot of overlap between the two: if Disney licenses Aladdin anything like it licenses Beauty and the Beast (or like Lloyd Webber's company licenses Cats), expect to see a great many (intentional) similarities between both productions.

The most essential difference may very well be of execution, not artistic concept; however, Disney can't assume that an audience will recognize this and be able to know that the "ugly looking costumes" (for example) are due to the lesser skills of the school's wardrobe person and not due to Disney's artistic choices. And given that the audience may see the school's show before the professional show, why would Disney expect the audience to be able to make that distinction?

There's your loss of image brand.

--------------------
Is here no telephone?

Posts: 323 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by asnakeny:
How about if someone sees the school production, doesn't like the sets (or costumes, or direction, or musical arrangement), and decides its not worth it to see the "professional" tour?

To be honest, I don't think anyone is going to judge Disney by a grade-school production. But if we allow grade-school, what about high school? College? Post-graduate theatre majors?

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
onein6billion
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for onein6billion   E-mail onein6billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by asnakeny:
How about if someone sees the school production, doesn't like the sets (or costumes, or direction, or musical arrangement), and decides its not worth it to see the "professional" tour?

My high school put on a production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" my senior year of high school. It was horrible. But, like most rational, thinking people, I did not for one hot second think that the Broadway production would be anything like my little-podunk-low-budget-high-school production.

I've paid good money to see the Broadway show twice since then, I also owned the VHS version (until my VCR ate it 2 weeks ago GRRR!) and own the full original Broadway cast soundtrack. If it comes to town again, I'll go see it a third time.

Do you really think anyone in their right mind is going to compare a school production to a professional production?

--------------------
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
"Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness." - Jon Stewart
my space on myspace--now showing "80's Video Of The Week"

Posts: 278 | From: Bel Air, MD | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
El Camino
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for El Camino   E-mail El Camino   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The school in the OP, Kidz Act, is a performing arts school, not an actual elementary school or something like that. It seems to me like a after-school acting school, not a replacement for an actual school. Really it seems to be more of a "theatre company" than a school and describes itself as such. (Link) Interestingly, recent productions include Cinderella and The Wizard of Oz. Tickets to these shows are not free: for Cinderella, admission was $10 for adults and $8 for children. The Warrnambool Entertainment Centre where the play was to be held is a decent sized venue that holds up to 583 persons.

This seems a pretty clear-cut case, and I see nothing wrong with it. Another theatre company holds exclusive rights, end of story. So what if this is a children's company, and an amateur one?
(Besides, presumably Kidz Act is a for-profit group, even if the kids are amateurs.)

And for those of you griping about copyright laws, keep in mind that this takes place in Australia, not the U.S. so U.S. law has nothing to do with it.

Also keep in mind that the article in the OP is from the Warrnambool Standard, not exactly a big name in news. It seems like a small time local paper to me, and I wouldn't really trust it to be unbiased in an issue like this.

Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
[QUOTE]Or otherwise explain your stake in copyright laws "as they are today". There are many snopesters who are published authors and derive commercial benefit from their protected works. I don't see them showing the same passion here as you do.

Again, it has never been a secret. I am sorry you've missed it, but, really, would it really matter? I am passionate about a fair number of things, so I am a bit confused why this topic, of all that I post to, should arouse this sort of suspiscion.
In response to others here, I mentioned you specifically because this is, indeed, the second time in recent memory where you are supporting (in my opinion, without reservation and unilaterally) the state of current copyright laws.

In any case, whether or not you have a vested interest in this *is* important to your argument and how you present it.

Let me give you an example - in my part of the world there is a chain of stores that sells eyeglasses without prescriptions. The chain is owned by a licensed optometrist, and the clients he serves come in and have an "unqualified" person sit them in front of an automatic refractor, which generates their prescription, which is then dispensed. This is contrary to law which requires licensed professionals provide the medical exam, upon which an eyeglass prescription is based.

If one debates this topic and likens this to end of the world, spawn of satan, puppies getting kicked, and so on, then that's one thing. But it is quite another to say these things and not reveal that one is, indeed, an optician themselves and suffers a loss of business (and income, and quality of life) because of this presumably "unfair" and "illegal" competition.

When one has a vested interest - and you clearly say that you do - then it takes away from how genuine a hypothetical argument can be. I mean, I can argue for or against hybrid vehicles, but if I own a significant amount of stock in a battery manufacturer (or an oil company), then it's no longer as hypothetical as it would seem. It's hard to argue the relative "good" or "bad" of something when you are personally involved.

These discussions about copyright have been almost exclusively about non-print media. I've said it before but for music or video, there is no such thing as "fair use", and the industry as it stands today, is in the process of achieving this "de facto". All through the better application of technology. I firmly believe that economic gain is the one and only motivator here, and that people will spend a dollar today on the enforcement of copyright, rather than allow any amount of popularity or notoriety to sell the product.

When music stores have to pay a fee for when someone may play a snippet of copyrighted on a musical instrument they intend to purchase, then I think this has gone too far. One of these days, and I'm not the only one who said this, but I figure I'll have to pay money if I'm caught in public whistling a recognizable (and copyrighted) piece of music.

Anyone who supports copyright laws in their present form, is supporting an industry which is pressing to take them to what appear to be "ridiculous" applications of these laws. And really, the great facilitator here is technology.

Remember this - once digital photocopiers came around, they were soon developed to have a built-in recognition of currency, and to not allow money to be copied. This could not happen previously - both the copying, and the detection. And yet, the technology is what develops the ability to detect the "crime".

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hero_Mike, did you actually read my post? Because your response to it indicates you have not.

Furthermore, economic gain has *always* been the primary motivator in copyright laws from the very first such laws being passed. And why shouldn't they be? Would you be willing to do your job if you could not protect your right to be paid for your efforts? I'm not sure why artists are supposed to be blessed with some altruism that isn't expected of the rest of humanity.

And, just to repeat again what I have said before:
quote:
I have stated on numerous occassions that there are aspects of DMCA that I would like to see changed or done away with utterly.


--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dr. Dave
Frosty the Pitchman


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dr. Dave     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hero_Mike Sometimes a person "in the field" may have some insight that those of us not in the field may not understand, so what you view as a "vested interest" that motivates a person's positon may also be viewed as experience or knowledge that makes the position more educated that that of others.

In general, your view of people is quite cynical. You are basically saying that anyone with a financial interest in an area must only be speaking in defence of the almighty dollar. I for one choose to deterimine my opinion of a person's credibility on her entire body of work; in AnglRdr's case that body of work is 17682* posts and I believe they reveal her to be thoughtful, insightful, and honest.

*I have not read them all. Sorry.

Posts: 400 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rehcsif
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rehcsif   E-mail Rehcsif   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So many of these posts are missing the point.

1) Disney has a copyrighted work. You cannot perform a copyrighted work in public without a license (assuming the copyright owner has not given up their rights). This has been the case pretty much forever. Anyone who doesn't realize this hasn't dealt with theater production at all. My church does musical dramas every Christmas, and a significant portion of the proceeds goes back to the copyright owner of the show, as royalties. You could argue that it shouldn't be so, since we're a non-profit/non-professional group, but that's the way it works. If people don't like it, they're free to write their own scripts or at least seek out one with a less-expensive royalty structure...

2) In this case, Disney had contracted all production rights in that area to another company. Being an exclusive arrangement, they could not grant a new license, while the other contract was still in force.

End of story. No "big mean company", just the way things work.

-Tim

ETA: Fixed horrible typos...

Posts: 1039 | From: Minneapolis | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 04 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Dave:
I for one choose to deterimine my opinion of a person's credibility on her entire body of work; in AnglRdr's case that body of work is 17682* posts and I believe they reveal her to be thoughtful, insightful, and honest.

*I have not read them all. Sorry.

In case nobody has told you this today, you have impeccable taste! [Wink]

Thank you for the very kind words; I appreciate them very much.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dr. Dave
Frosty the Pitchman


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dr. Dave     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Thank you for the very kind words; I appreciate them very much.

Don't worry, I'm certain we will snipe at one another on a politics thread sometime. [Wink]

Er, I mean, you're welcome. [Smile]

Posts: 400 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Dave:
Hero_Mike Sometimes a person "in the field" may have some insight that those of us not in the field may not understand, so what you view as a "vested interest" that motivates a person's positon may also be viewed as experience or knowledge that makes the position more educated that that of others.

In general, your view of people is quite cynical. You are basically saying that anyone with a financial interest in an area must only be speaking in defence of the almighty dollar. I for one choose to deterimine my opinion of a person's credibility on her entire body of work; in AnglRdr's case that body of work is 17682* posts and I believe they reveal her to be thoughtful, insightful, and honest.

*I have not read them all. Sorry.

Yes, I *am* cynical about people, and I do expect that money is a great motivator in many people's opinions.

I'm skeptical by nature, but that might not have anything to do with me being interested in urban legends now, would it?

Anyway, personal credibility is, unfortunately, dependent upon the issue at hand. While I have no vested interest in, say, the protection of copyrights of non-printed material, I *do* have a vested interest in printed copyrights and patents. So I freely admit that I am biased in this case, and I don't usually enter into "debate" on the subject because my mind is made up. When it comes to some of these issues, I'm quite closed-minded, and while I am entitled to that opinion, I don't think that I should misrepresent myself by speaking as a "disinterested" person.

You'd be very cynical to not admit that people's financial interests don't dictate their opinions. I'm sure that you could show photos of thousands of cancer patients to tobacco farmers, but the farmer still has to eat, and nobody was forced by anyone to smoke their crop, so they feel justified in what they do. Those of us who are neither smokers nor farmers, but pay taxes towards public health care (at least in Canada), have a different take on this, to be sure.

It makes a difference, too, how distant you are from the issue. If my cousin benefits from copyrighted music (which she does), it affects me much less if it is me or my spouse.

If you want to remain credible on a subject, admit your bias up front. And repeat it when the topic resurfaces because, well, we shouldn't be expected to remember 17000+ posts and what may (or may not) be said there.

And by the way, nice job sucking up to someone based on their post count. I see you've already got a reaction from this. Way to win your argument.

ETA - back to the OP for a moment. The way I see this, is quite simple. Are the children performing the play getting any financial compensation from it? No. How about their instructors? Well, yes, but no more so than if they performed any other play. Where the argument can be made is that if someone goes to see a show of "Disney's Aladdin" put on by a performing arts school, they may just not want to go to see it when it is being put on by "professionals", just because they are similar. Now I think there is a grey area here because