Now that Disney is getting 20th century fox, what gaming company would they buy in their plan to control all of media?

>Allowing one big company to buy other big companies
Why Americans allow this?

not really, Warner Bros is still around, so is Paramount, so is Sony Pictures, so is Dreamworks, so is Universal. There are a lot of companies still around.

Imagine Disney buying EA...the evil that would be unleashed

Attached: image.jpg (735x485, 38K)

just reopen Lucasarts you cowards

So what small studio?

Disney cares about neither tech or videogames, at most they would buy out their animated picture studio

Disney has so much money they literally change copyright laws to their favor. why do you think mickey isn't in the public domain after Walt Disney being dead for so long

I wish

>regulating companies
what are you, a communist?

How is Mickey aloud to still be protected by copyright laws 70 years after the death of his creator, what, by the law, would mean it is now public domain?
Simple. The fact that USA is ruled by corporations and there is nothing anyone can do about this shit.

most likely WayForward or something, they've already done a shit ton of licensed games for them and they're already California based. It's the company that would make the most sense.

There are loopholes to copyright laws anyways that Disney could put into practice without manipulating the law. They could do what the studio that makes bond films did and trademark most of the shit bond is known for(seriously, while Bond is public domain, 90% of the things he's known for aren't, that's why you don't see a million James Bond things coming out)

it used to be less than 70 but Disney keeps paying to change the laws to extend the time. however steamboat willie mickey will soon be public domain and still own the rights of modern mickey and the name mickey mouse because of a loop hole they made

Attached: Steamboat-Willie-2.jpg (562x562, 41K)

wait so people will be able to use rubberhose mickey for whatever they want(as long as they don't call him mickey mouse)

fox still exist. The fox news and sports wing will still be independent while the entertainment section will get sold off
also blame murdochs crusty old ass. He knows fox will be worth shit once the boomers die off. Instead of changing and adapting,he's gonna run off with as much cash as he can get

Attached: 1545564653503.png (680x422, 342K)

>implying Disney won't extend it again like they did the last time Willie was almost public domain

Not going to wait for shit. To be quite honest I want to forget the whole thing because everytime I see these kind of threads I imagine a couple of 20 year olds masturbating furiously over the idea of Disney buying more companies while their "THE MOUSE ALWAYS WINS" folder gets bigger and bigger with reaction images such as OP's.

is it, is it really? does it feel like a Japanese company anymore? their Headquarters are situated in California, their banks are international and Sony Pictures is a wholly american enterprise, this isn't the Sony it used to be, Sony is not Toyota, their not even SoftBank or Nintendo.

Sony IS NOT a Japanese company anymore

tencent obviously

If I recall correctly, Disney still controls less than 50% of the market, even with Fox. It's just barely under but it's under nonetheless.

but user, that's how most of Yea Forums behaves. saving millions of stupid wojack edits and dumb reaction images for their "X ALWAYS WINS" folder

pretty much. you can have him do whatever you want, but don't say its mickey mouse.

that's how the whole of Yea Forums that isn't dead behaves

No govt. regulation.

This is the end result when Consevatives have their way, megacorp shits like Disney taking all the competition and then sterilizing and sanitizing and diluting the quality of all the films/video games in order to manufacture and make mega money from the masses with no heart or soul.

Thanks conservashits.

Attached: 26272278.jpg (1008x768, 184K)

More than 50% of shares are owned by Americans/American companies now.

I can't think of a company that needs to be shattered apart more than Disney. Google, maybe. The idea that a company can have more capital than a small nation is utterly disgusting to me.

I don't even know if that's a bad thing or not. I imagine things would be pretty much the same for most franchises

now count the blockbuster franchises "still around". And weep.

disney has expanded copyright laws literally every single time Steamboat Willie is threatened, no matter what loopholes they put in each copyright act, they just end up doing it again and again

How would ideology change the fact that they're a monopoly?
What would the democrats do about it?

This is actually a good thing because Comcast would've bought them otherwise. Say what you want about Disney but at least they're not Comcast.

one of the better transitions I've seen

Unlike Google people remain oblivious to how large Disney has gotten. Disney's never done anything worse than copypaste the Marvel formula onto Star Wars, but it's almost like their sheer size is hiding in plain sight.
Of the 4 central TV networks Disney now owns 2

yeah, if they play their cards right, they wouldn't even need to make their own streaming service as they could eventually just own all of Hulu

As per government regulation, somehow Fox the network is independent. They'll be beholden to Disney because they now own everything they usually show, but it's technically independent nonetheless.

Mojang

>It's traded on the Tokyo stock exchange
>HQ in Tokyo
>Chair is named Kaz Harai
>But I read some shit on Yea Forums about California and will repeat it until it becomes true

They already own 60% of it now, they're still abandoning it because it has a bad rep.

>he idea that a company can have more capital than a small nation is utterly disgusting to me.
This is a good thing you dumb tankie.
I do hate Disney though. Fuck Capeshit, and fuck Nuwars.

>Disney doesn't care about tech.
Disney r&d the most lifelike robots/animatronics on the planet, nobody gets even close, i agree they don't give a fuck about animation and art any more, and just let their acquired studios handle that, but they do care about tech, i can see Disney getting into selling commercial robots in the far future

>the sec actually let this happen
wonder how many bribes it took

Nah they just want Fox so they can have the Fantastic Four. This whole thing is a decades long proxy war between the old jews Disney and Warner Bros using DC/Marvel comics.

The Japanese government would not allow it. Also Sony is actually bigger than the walt disney company. You don't seem to realise quite how much Sony does.

the profits from the next toy story movie

Antitrust laws are a joke.

This is a stupid law though, and it’s unironically good that Disney is getting it changed. It shouldn’t exist in the first place.

“Death of the creator” is such an impractical and limiting way to decide public domain, it should be protected for however long the entity that owns the property is active, be it individual or company.

Think about it like this, Mickey Mouse is the mascot of the Disney company, and one of their primary products. Mickey Mouse cartoons, merchandise, etc, is their bread and butter. Although Walt Disney is the man that created Mickey Mouse, Disney, the corporation, now owns him, and did even when he was alive. Imagine if Coca Cola, the drink, was able to be made and sold by anyone after a certain amount of time, even if the Cocoa Cola company was still around. That’d be retarded right? Same thing applies to Mickey Mouse. There’s no reason for anyone outside if Disney to be making Mickey Mouse content (for profit) because as far as I’m concerned, as long as Disney exists, they should own Mickey Mouse and be able to enforce their protection of their ip. It’s only makes sense.

Attached: D3F609E1-C169-408C-BD66-DAF83AC1AD1D.jpg (1200x1800, 270K)

Is this a fucking joke? Disney is worth 3x more than the entirety of Sony and Sony isn't even a Japanese company.

It makes no sense unless you think that something should be the sole domain of a nebulous entity to generate exclusive revenue from. The dissemination of culture has for our entire history until recently been that of taking what was there as part of a collective grouping.

There is no reason for any single idea to ever be a perpetual revenue generator.

copyright lawyers are awful human beings that pretend they are hip and cool

Either
>You're so mentally ill you've convinced yourself Sony isn't Japanese
>You're so mentally ill you know Sony isn't Japanese but you think you're a secret agent manipulating Yea Forums opinion by spreading a straight-up lie
I can't decide which is worse

They kept voting businessmen into power, who, surprise surprise, axed as many anti-monopoly laws as they could in the 60's and 70's while lying through grinning teeth how this this would be for the economy

as long as the person that created it is alive, the creator should generate profit/income from it, wheter it is a book, invention, song or whatever, anything past that is stretching it, 70 years after the authors death with extensions is a fucking joke.

I somewhat agree, but that is a pretty dumb comparison because Coca Cola is trademarked.And it's brand is protected by the trademark, not copyright. A copyright is on a creative work, such as a song, movie, book etc. Trademark is for like a company logo or brand distinguishing thing. I do think the copyright change was a good idea, for preventing derivative work, I do not think it necessarily needs to go as far as it did.

user, what are you talking about? pure stock value? Sony's yearly revenue is substantially larger. And Sony is a KK, what are you fucking talking about? do you legitimately think that sony moving SIE HQ to California means they stopped having their holdings company in Tokyo and their main headquarters, bank, etc there?

SIE got moved because most of the work they do is better centralised there, and it's not one of the "big" parts of the company, which means the SIE president doesn't go to the dinners with the big wigs and thus needs to have his office in Tokyo.

You can still do shit with Mickey Mouse, you just explicitly can not profit from it and it has to be somewhat transformative. That fulfills the culture part that you’re talking about. What the problem. It’s not like if you make a Mickey Mouse comic or cartoon, the FBI will kick down your door.

I disagree entirely. We have a long history of people taking other people's work and expanding on it during their lifetimes, most of human history.

Sure the exact book is always yours, but the ideas within should not remain some exclusive concept.

Hopefully, Square Enix.
We can get more good AAA Disney licensed games.
Hopefully, we'll get, Star Wars JRPGs or immersive sims or Winnie the Pooh immersive relaxation sims (think flOw/flower/Journey with a little bit of Deus Ex).
And it kinda makes sense considering that Kingdom Hearts exists and Eidos is making an Avengers game.

But realistically, EA.

That exactly why I made that comparison; Mickey Mouse IS Disneys brand essentially, it’s their mascot. Mickey is Disney’s biggest character, very much their most prestigious and distinguishing character. It SHOULD be trademarked, but because it’s a creative work, it has to be cooywritten. But Mickey carries the weight of the Disney brand, just like Coke carries the weight of Coca Cola, despite then having other drinks. That’s why I think the law is stupid in the first place. Just because something is a festive work, doesn’t mean control over it should be lost after X years.

>lol, nice work you have, lemme take that because i am better at selling that than you, and no, you're not going to profit from it

Why is any of that a good thing? why is the power to increasingly centralise things with a degree of perpetuity a good idea?

>It's almost funny.
>You, who have bought so many, are now being bought yourself.
>This will hurt...

Attached: EA.png (1200x1200, 36K)

You couldn't just copy and paste it, that'd be ridiculous, and having the idea be exclusively yours for, lets say 20 years is a long time.

Yes I'm referring to market cap which is the only thing that matters besides liabilities when buying a company. Disney also has a much larger profit than Sony. And I don't give a shit if they're domiciled in Japan, if your primary stock market is in another country and companies from said country own 60% of your country, then you're a company from that country.

Because as an user mentioned earlier, it places a check on derivative work. If the Mouse was public domain, you’d have a tidal wave of absolute dogshit flood culture, because the Mouse is popular and a lot of people would see that as easy profit. Fuck that. There should be less of a focus on trying to get things into public domain and more of an emphasis on people generating unique ideas, which Disney is indirectly doing. They are doing it out of capitalistic greed, yes, but I’m fine with the end result.

>the future console wars will be disney vs nintendo

You have literally no idea how Japanese companies work. The Japanese government arrested the head of Nissan for even daring to think about merging with Renault.

And no, Sony are mostly Japanese, they're "mostly Foreign" but that's split between several nationalities, not just US.

Half of our mythology is fucking fanfiction of the original. The reason Disney want it is so they can exclusively make mickey mouse toys. Because everyone would prefer to make something unique for merchandising anyway.

>centralize things
It is not, Mickey Mouse is IP.
Nothing is to stop you creating your own mascot. this just prevents everyone else from stealing it and burning it to the ground.

the other big company was willing to be sold and meanwhile netflix replaced fox on the big leaguers, so the numbers didn't changed.
Also don't think Disney own that much of the market even with Fox, AT&T still has so much more but nobody talks about it.

It's not just a mascot, even if you released it to the public, everyone would know it as the face of Disney. It's a revenue stream. And by and large it's MUCH healthier macroeconomically to have wealth more dispersed.

>And I don't give a shit if they're domiciled in Japan
well then you're a retard. The Japanese government can and will stop hostile takeovers of domestic companies.
I know this because Yea Forums repeatedly brought it up during the darkest days of the WiiU disaster, when people felt nervous about Nintendo's future.
Nobody gives a fuck about the nationalities of the various shareholders (Of whom around 45% are Japanese anyway sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/stock/information.html) when discussing international business law.
But hey maybe if you spam threads on Yea Forums with this objective falsehood whatever drove you so insane it made you this way will magically solve itself

>Half of our mythology is fucking fanfiction of the original. The reason Disney want it is so they can exclusively make mickey mouse toys. Because everyone would prefer to make something unique for merchandising anyway.

And you can make Mickey Mouse fan fiction, you just can’t sell it. What is the fucking problem?

>Build a house for you and your family
>”Man it’s cool to have this house, I’m happy me and my family will get to enjoy it and all the room it offers”
>Go to sleep
>Wake up next morning
>20 people moved in
>”Um, excuse me, what the fuck do you think you all are doing?”
>”Well, we noticed this cool house and saw only a few people living here, it’s much better for more people if we also lived here, you’re cool with that right?”

I could see them buying Square Enix at this point since they already seem to have a decent relationship with them.

So just to be clear, you're saying if the 58% of American shareholders decided to sell their shares to Disney, which they're legally allowed to do, the government of Japan would stop them? What better way to get foreign investment into the country then by saying they can never get their money back!

Tencent. literally the largest gaming company on the planet.

Tencent is substantially larger than Disney though, not gonna happen.

20, 30 years ago people saw movies like Blade Runner (Tyrell Corporation), Robocop (Omnicorp) Terminator (Cyberdyne), Aliens (Weyland-Yutani), etc. and imagined that in the future we'd face inescapable oppression from evil-face towering megacorps that had openly cackling CEOs would telling us in live TV that doom was near. Who would have thought that the first companies close to that dystopia would be the friendly neighbor that sold dreams to children.. and that colorful group that helped people look for neat stuff online?

And it hasn't even really begun. Zoomers are in for a wild ride.

>everyone would know it as the face of Disney.
Which is the huge problem of it being public domain. New derivative works can be horribly damaging to the face of disney.
Disney has an incentive to maintain brand integrity and preserve it. Without protecting the Copyright, everyone else has an incentive to make a quick buck on it, as cheaply and easily as possible, since they didn't invest into its creation and can just steal something else tomorrow when its dead. Copyright, as it is now, incentives more creative work, which is good for the economy. Nobody will invest large sums of money into developing IP so that someone with no development costs to Recoup can make as much money off it as they can, with 0 QC.

Because they are also the dictators of what is and is not within those IPs just as much as anything else.

In the modern day things have become blurred because you can basically sell your fanfictions through donation services now (or maybe for now) which can allow an artist to make a living off this stuff. How does disney having a monopoly on mickey mouse toys make the world a better place?

>comparing physical things to abstract ideas.
>comparing multinational corporations to people.

Just look at what they did to Carlos Ghosn, anyone that has worked with any Keiretsu knows they still behave like the Zaibatsu of old, just with different tricks. (that aren't that much different)

Would you?

Do all the schlock stories about King Arthur stop King Arthur being a prominent figure in the public eye?

Hell this is almost a fucking perfect example of how this can be good, a weird Japanese bloke came around, took that basic story and then made something out of it, and created a major franchise from that.

soon the whole world will be... kingdom hearts

Yes, it's their country, and they really can write whatever laws their constitution allows. One last thing:
>Japanese people still own a plurality of Sony. The 58% figure you cite (really 55%) is literally splintered around the entire world
>This would require Disney individually approaching thousands of stockholders and requiring a vast majority of them to agree to a sale which would be stupid

>How does disney having a monopoly on mickey mouse toys make the world a better place?

See Less derivative bullshit, encourages people to generate original ideas which pushes society forward and evolves culture way more.

>Do all the schlock stories about King Arthur stop King Arthur being a prominent figure in the public eye?
Yes? furthermore King Arthur is not associated with a particular brand. I really liked Guy Ritchie's King Arthur, but it did shit in the box office precisely for this reason.
>Hell this is almost a fucking perfect example of how this can be good, a weird Japanese bloke came around, took that basic story and then made something out of it, and created a major franchise from that.
Yes, which he was licensed to do because it met the quality standards of the IP owner, and was successful because the Mickey Mouse Brand was still intact. Kingdom Hearts would not exist if Mickey Mouse was public domain. It relies on a lot of cannon that is protected by copyright.

A historical figure and a created character are not comparable.

But that's not what we have at all. There's only so many mickey mouse toys that people want. So the incentive in this regard is still there.

Yes, but that's also an incredibly specific example. When we don't know what would exist if the law was, lets say.

You (the individual creator) have exclusivity for 20 years after that it becomes public domain with a royalty from every sale attached going to you for the rest of your life and +10 years after your death to your estate. And companies can never take direct control.

There's a law that prevents foreign ownership of Japanese companies, and if there were any loopholes Disney could exploit, politicians would close it because Sony and Nintendo are the pride and joy of techno-corporate Japan.

the perfect aqusition to make them even bigger. fuck the small fish go straight to the whale.

how about EA then? or Activision-Blizzard?

Renault kinda had one, but they just fucked over the guy trying to do it.

>But that's not what we have at all. There's only so many mickey mouse toys that people want. So the incentive in this regard is still there.

I don’t even understand what you’re arguing for. I’m saying that it’s good that people can not profit off of Mickey Mouse because it encourages original ideas. You bring up toys and somehow that makes what I said not true anymore.

>yfw the masses will happily herald Disney controlling everything because of crossover movies
Democracy was a mistake.

>As of March 2012, the top 10 Sony shareholders were located largely in Japan and are comprised of various trust funds. These top shareholders include Japan Trustee Services Bank, Ltd., Moxley and Co. LLC, The Master Trust Bank of Japan Ltd., State Street Bank and Trust Company, and Mellon Bank in North America. Japan Trustee Services Bank holds the lion's share of the stocks.

Probs either Ninty or Sony. Would prefer Nintendo as we could actually see decent movies based on their franchises become another multi billion hit. But hey, Disney can't buy Jap companies.

>pixar
what i thought they were owned by disney in the first place

Because it doesn't actually encourage original ideas, there's a saturation point where people get bored of a thing. So there is an incentive to make something new because people won't be bored of that thing. Or to create something truly stand out that uses the pre-existing thing.

The incentive is by and large the same, it's just that a single corporation isn't going to make as much money from it, which is a good thing. Large concentration of wealth is a bad thing for the economy.

Pixar was an acquisition, 2006. It was a huge deal when it happened.

they were bought out in 2016

That's a strategic partnership between Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi and it will survive Ghosn since it's the largest car company in the world.

Except Disney owning Mickey Mouse does not stop others from making new things. That same wealth can be generated, just in different ways. A culture which encourages derivative work is doomed to mediocrity. Create.

>You (the individual creator) have exclusivity for 20 years
This is a huge problem because there is no individual creator, and projects are rarely independently funded. Publishers and the likes are largely necessary.
>20 years after that it becomes public domain
This is reasonable with patents. But again, the problem is Mickey Mouse is essential a trademark that is portrayed in movies and other media. He is the disney BRAND. Mickey Mouse would not exist if that was the case. Because if you make Mickey Mouse, and he has a great reputation because of all your hard QC work, and you do that QC to make money off themeparks, movies, vidya etc. What incentive whatsoever do I have to maintain that QC? fuck that I am making 20 Mickey Mouse movies, dont care if it is too frequent, dont care if they are good, dont care if they make everyone hate MickeyMouse, I am making my money and getting out, I have no investment in your brand reputation. Hell fuck it, WB can intentionally ruin Mickey Mouse just to take out competition.
> And companies can never take direct control.
The Company was always in direct control.
I mean take a modern movie. You think Disney throws them $500 million out of charity, then one dude just makes it all...?
If you want an example of public domain vs IP. Take the Tetris company, tetris is the most basic game, easy to clone, not really a brand or identity, not a logo, not the basis of a theme park. Just a basic browser tier game. And yet up until the creator got back the rights and created the Tetris Company that outlasted him. The repuation was trash, most tetris games were trash, nobody had any faith in the brand, and now it is booming. People love tetris, when something like Tetris 99 comes out it gets attention. There is actual QC attached to Tetris and it does wonders for the profitibility of quality tetris games.

>So there is an incentive to make something new because people won't be bored of that thing. Or to create something truly stand out that uses the pre-existing thing.
Creating *thing* costs time and money. Lots of it. Selling someone elses thing, does not, and impacts their ability to make money off thing as you saturate the market. The problem with your thinking, is it lacks the level of financial incentive to create.

I think you're misunderstanding the perspective I'm coming from a tad. I'm looking at it from a systemic pov. So if there are 10 Mouse toys that get sold and all are from disney, disney gets all that money, but if 10 are sold and disney sell 6 and 4 are from some other company. The same amount of toys has been sold, and the same overall incentive to create something new is there. It's just dispersed differently.

Typically you negotiate away control of what you make in your contract, in this instance what it would be is you negotiating with your 20 year exclusivity to give Disney the profits. In exchange for them paying you to make it. Which is pretty much how directorial contracts for movies work now IIRC.

Disney isn't that big on manufacturing, they want IP they can sit on forever and dribble out for easy money. Square-Enix would be a good fit.

I don't know if democracy itself is the problem. No matter the type of system, there will always be a hierarchy.

>Typically you negotiate away control of what you make in your contract, in this instance what it would be is you negotiating with your 20 year exclusivity to give Disney the profits. In exchange for them paying you to make it. Which is pretty much how directorial contracts for movies work now IIRC.
Well yeah you make the movie FOR disney. I am fine with that. But why bring it up?

Hell I'd argue the opposite, if Disney could only monopolise the profits on something for 20 years they would be incentivised to diversify more instead of rehashing the same recognisable brands over us again and again.

>I mean take a modern movie. You think Disney throws them $500 million out of charity, then one dude just makes it all...?

>I mean take a modern movie. You think Disney throws them $500 million out of charity, then one dude just makes it all...?

This bit.

They already diversify. They have Star Wars, all the Marvel shit etc. I mean yes it is all the same movie, but IP wise it is diverse. The problem is you forget this would cut both ways. Not just Disney IP. It is far more profitable to steal IP then to develop it.

Those IPs are all old as shit. We've been being hit by them for decades.

yeah but you were saying like an individual should own it, not the company he is working with. I mean if he independently makes a movie in his spare time and independently funds it sure. But this is not applicable to 99% of projects.

And what I’m saying is that style of thought is very dangerous. Like I said, it will just encourage people to hop on the bandwagon of creating Mickey Mouse toys because that is easy, the character is well liked, and they did none of the work or effort that went into popularizing that character, they are simply riding on the coattails of something bigger. The wealth would be dispersed differently, but you’d have more garbage come out, because why put in effort if you can sell on name alone? I’d much rather have people be forced to create new avenues of wealth, because it accomplishes the same thing you are talking about, but there is more original work coming out.

Yeah, are there actually any cases of people doing that, getting sued by Disney and winning though?

Nintendo

and you think if Disney had the rights to the whole back catalogue of IP, they would make new ones? or just add Batman and Star Trek to the rotation?

Hes, but he negotiates away his control, I would make that not legally possible beyond the limited exclusivity point, and ideally not even let it be creative control, just financial. So they could make all the toys, posters, etc they wanted, take the movie profits, for that 20 years.

If you want to be able to monopolise the revenue yes. Ticket sales are a big thing, but merch is where it's at and generating new revenue streams that would give you 20 years of merch would definitely be a strong incentive.

This would never work. You want to doom the entire world of creative works to kickstarter tier crap?

Have you seen the state of the AAA entertainment industry?

Well no, but only because it doesn’t happen. If they are not profiting, Disney has no reason to sue. There would be nothing to win.

>Democracy
Burgerland is more of a republic

>If you want to be able to monopolise the revenue yes.
But you can't.
You make a hit, you have a window to make as much money as possible to take advantage of it, then it is killed by the industry. you COULD take a huge risk creating a new IP and merchandise, that could flop and not be popular, potentially losing millions and millions. OR you could just ride the coat tails of literally anything possible. Disney plays it as safe as they can now. You telling me with pretty much an succesful IP their finger tips they will start taking more risks, because the window to profit off those risks shrinks? yeah that new Idea is interesting, we could try it and hopefully make toys. or we could just thank Nolan for doing the heavy lifting and make a shit tonne of batman toys, rides and movies.

yeah and it is still better than Kickstarter crap.

They would buy Warner Bros to pick up all of their movies and video game IPs

Fuck Disney

...and FUCK NIGGERS

that would be literal pottery

By that logic, black people would be thriving by now and left their old hatreds, stupidity and misinformation behind.

But stupidity is a hereditary disease. Fox news will still be thriving 100 years from now.

> Fox news will still be thriving 100 years from now.
If people still have cable in 100 years something will have gone seriously wrong.