Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the bloodsucking-lawyers dept.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/dmca-takedowns-sent-over-pics-of-star-wars-action-figure-bought-at-walmart/

For the last decade, Marjorie Carvalho and her husband have produced Star Wars Action News, a podcast dedicated to Star Wars collectibles of all sorts. Predictably, they've had a lot to talk about, as waves of action figures and other collectibles have been launched in the run-up to the much-anticipated release next week of Star Wars: Episode VII—The Force Awakens.

On Tuesday, a Star Wars Action News staffer saw something he shouldn't have—and bought it. A 3 3/4" action figure of "Rey," a female character from The Force Awakens, was on display in a Walmart in Iowa, apparently earlier than it should have been. The staff member bought it for $6.94 plus tax, no questions asked. The following day, he posted pictures of the Rey figure on Star Wars Action News' Facebook page.

"Have we known this figure was coming?" the staffer, named Justin, asked in the post. "I just found her at Walmart—no new other figures."

A short time later, Carvalho got a surprising message.

"A friend texted my husband saying, hey, are you getting sued?" said Carvalho in an interview with Ars Technica. The image from the Facebook post was gone. "We looked and noticed we'd gotten a notice from Facebook saying our image violated copyright. It was confusing because our staff member, Justin, he took the photo."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:23AM (#275244)

    Disney (owner of the Star Wars copyrights) is probably in the right here. Now, if the photographer got together with a writer, and the photos accompanied an article about the characters in the upcoming movie, that could be fair use.

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:TOYS#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F [wikimedia.org]

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:52AM

      by edIII (791) on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:52AM (#275250)

      Perhaps, but that's not what happened.

      This was not just fair use, it was 1,000,000,000,000,000% fair use. I suggest he takes a few million dollars off Lucasfilm's hands if he can, which is fairly easy with the bad will this generates.

      Seriously. Why the fuck would you buy their product, if being excited, and using social networking and podcasts to communicate your excitement, somehow violates somebody's copyrights?

      I realize a lot of people don't understand IP at all, which isn't surprising with a propaganda campaigning trying to legitimize the ownership of something intangible as if it was a basic human right. We gave Disney certain specific rights to protect their IP, but we never intended for one second for them to have control over the personal lives of people. That's exactly what IP is morphing into.

      You want to not violate copyright? Then you better enjoy your products in the fucking dark, anonymously, and never tell anyone. If you dare even openly express pleasure in your fucking property, be prepared to pay extra for the rights to do so.

      George Lucas can suck a cock. He's already made billions from the rest of us for his trilogy, but he needs to behave as terrible as the Imperials in real life for some reason. Asshole. I haven't seen the movie, and now, have absolutely zero intentions of doing so. It's not worth supporting their actions.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by http on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:00AM

        by http (1920) on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:00AM (#275255)

        While I laud the notion of Lucasfilms being taken to the cleaners for this, it's pretty clear the propaganda is working - because you yourself are using the confounding term, "IP", in exactly the way copyright maximalists want you to use it, conflating property with copyright, and hopefully presenting trademark law and copyright law as if they were one and the same.

        --
        I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:21AM

          by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:21AM (#275288)

          ...it's pretty clear the propaganda is working - because you yourself are using the confounding term, "IP", in exactly the way copyright maximalists want you to use it...

          I really can't see a problem with abbreviating the term "Imaginary Property"...

          --
          It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:34AM (#275321)

            The problem with a blanket term is that it pre-supposes that Trademarks, Patents, copyright, Trade secrets, Plant Breeder's rights, Integrated circuit topographies, and database rights are all very similar.

            In fact they are not.

            • Trademarks are designed to reduce confusion in the marketplace. They last indefinitely, provided they do not become a generic description of the product (which competitors would then be able to fairly use).
            • Patents are limited-time monopolies on manufacturing an invention. In some ways, they are stronger than copyright in that Independent development is not a defence.
            • Copyright covers the creative expression of ideas. Facts are not subject to copyright, nor are databases (they do not meet the "creative" test).
            • Trade Secrets allow private companies to keep proprietary business methods, well, secret. Companies can lose trade-secret status by publishing the "secret". I think generally leaks do not break trade-secret status.
            • I am not familiar with Plant Breeder's rights.
            • Before researching integrated circuit topographies, I thought they were a lot like Patents due to the short term. In fact, they are more like how copyright should be: lasting 10 years and requiring registration. Including a notice of registration in your circuit topography is recommended.
            • Database rights offer a copyright-like claim on a collection of data, without actually tainting the underlying data itself (which may or may not be subject to copyright).

            All that said, I sort of find the "Industrial Protectionism" term acceptable. While it conflates many different aspects of law, it does so while explicitly explaining what they all have in common.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:30AM (#275338)

              I am not familiar with Plant Breeder's rights.

              Of course you are not, corn fucker!!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:56AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:56AM (#275331)
            The proper term is Industrial Protectionism [torrentfreak.com].
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:04AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:04AM (#275257) Homepage

        This is one of the many problems with Whites. While a non-White would laugh off the early-sale gaffe and be thankful for the free publicity (note that this would be one of the most honest examples of the "accidental leak"), Whites would be (and were!) stirred to anger in an instant because of their greedy and hateful short-sightedness.

        This is why Whites have caused all of the world's problems on a planet where they were plenty of other peaceful men who were born civilized and robbed of their riches, freedom, and pride.

        If modern civilization ends with nuclear war, chances are that Whites will have been behind it.

        Around Whites, eternal copyrights.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:31AM (#275268)

          You can't fool us, Ethanol-fueled! We all know you're talkin' 'bout the jews.

          Besides, Whites don't have negative stereotypes. That's why it's okay to chant "Black power!" but not "White power!"

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:37AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:37AM (#275273)

            Of course whites have negative stereotypes. Chanting "white power" is one of them.

      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:21AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:21AM (#275263)

        George Lucas really has little to do with running Lucasfilm. It was sold to Disney in 2912. Disney has most likely farmed out copyright enforcement to some slimy, sleazy scam operation.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:34AM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:34AM (#275270) Homepage

          George Lucas has actually referred to the involvement with his former franchise as a "divorce," [reuters.com] although since he was behind episodes I-III he threw away a lot of his own credibility and so doesn't speak with much authority in these matters.

          Mister Lucas - Just because you grow older and have kids doesn't mean that your movies have to be "goo goo-ga ga poo-poo papa" Teletubbies for adults.

          So now instead of wooden acting and infantile dialogue we're stuck with lens-flares and race-mixing propaganda.

          I'm no fan of Abrams' work, but there is one core tenet of which the both of us hold dear: Whites are the bad guys.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:05AM (#275294)

        (same AC)

        I never saw the Facebook page; did you? My comment was based only on what the story says: that photos were posted. It doesn't say there was any commentary, parody or criticism going on. Any of those would have solidly made this fair use. When you write "that's not what happened" do you mean that there was no accompanying article?

        You might want to look at Ty, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd. [harvard.edu]. Someone wrote books about Beanie Babies that were illustrated with photos of the toys. The federal district court said that was copyright infringement.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:32PM (#275856)
          Well to me that was a stupid ruling. It should go under trademark not copyright. Or design patent if they made beanie babies that were similar.

          If you own it you should be able to take pictures of it and distribute them. And even if you don't own it, if the owner puts it in a prominent public place, then the owner should not be allowed to prevent people from taking, keeping and distributing photos of it.

          Now if you don't own something you bought.
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday December 13 2015, @03:27AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Sunday December 13 2015, @03:27AM (#275660) Homepage

        Yep. If anyone is at fault here, it's Walmart, who may have violated the terms of their contract for carrying these toys by having one on the shelf outside of the contract's parameters. Tho Disney would be insane to chase away a market of that volume over one mistakenly sold toy.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:32PM

      by Francis (5544) on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:32PM (#275548)

      Disney is definitely not in the right here. The photographer owns the copyright to the images, that's well established. Now, if this were a picture of a picture, you'd have a point, but this is a picture of a toy that was on display in a publicly accessible venue for some period of time.

      Disney doesn't get to tell sites that they have to take the photos down. They can request that they take them down to avoid spoiling the movie for people, but there's no legal action they can take about it. And really, people should be passing around a hat to fund a lawsuit against Disney for filing a fraudulent take down notice. They do not own the copyright to the photo. At best they own a copyright to the box art and the actual figure, neither of which are being reproduced here.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:17PM (#275580)

        (original AC again)

        When someone takes a picture of someone else's copyrighted 3D artwork, such as this toy, there are two copyrights to the photo: the photographer's and the original artist's (the toymaker, here). The page I linked to in my earlier post explains it:

        By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.

        —:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:TOYS#If_I_take_a_picture_of_an_object_with_my_own_camera.2C_I_hold_the_copyright_to_the_picture._Can.27t_I_license_it_any_way_I_choose.3F_Why_do_I_have_to_worry_about_other_copyright_holders.3F [wikimedia.org]

        I think you missed my second post, /comments.pl?sid=11088&cid=275294#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]. Someone published a book with photos of dolls, and that was deemed copyright infringement.

        Being in a "publicly accessible venue" doesn't matter in this situation. You might be thinking of freedom of panorama. In the United States, that applies only to buildings. We're not discussing a photo of a building.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:44PM (#275611)

          My property, my rules. Copyright is not some basic human right, and this is clearly out of line. In the US, copyright's sole reason for existing is to create more innovation, and stopping people from taking photos of their own property and posting them for others to see fails to do that, as well as violates basic human rights. The DMCA is also unconstitutional nonsense.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:41PM (#275835)

      Somehow I missed the part about the comment that was posted to the Facebook page. That could make it fair use.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by jasassin on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:53AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:53AM (#275251) Homepage Journal

    We all know Disney was a dick and the company is still as evil as ever. This is just more proof. Do not pay to seem this movie, or any Disney products. I promise I won't patronize them.

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:58AM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:58AM (#275254)

      Yeah, this reminder of what they're like did it for me. I'll see it eventually, but I'm unlikely to pay for it. What assholes.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:53AM (#275283)

      Everyone on Reddit was like yeah, fuck Star Wars. but Disney owns Marvel's shit too. I didn't hear a peep about that.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by KiloByte on Saturday December 12 2015, @05:41AM

      by KiloByte (375) on Saturday December 12 2015, @05:41AM (#275313)

      I need to figure out how to boycott them even more than I already do.

      --
      Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:39AM

        by Immerman (3985) on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:39AM (#275322)

        If you swap the polarity on the temporal condensers you can actually go back and un-watch the movie without ever having watched it in the first place. If enough people participate we can actually drive the box office revenues into the negative.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Francis on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:46PM

        by Francis (5544) on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:46PM (#275556)

        You could try pirating copies and then not watching them. I'm not sure how much more boycotty you can get than that.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:31AM (#275645)

          Did that for "The Interview".

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday December 13 2015, @01:21AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday December 13 2015, @01:21AM (#275637) Journal

      I would only see these new movies as a torrent to make up for the money I wasted to see Episode I.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:04AM (#275256)
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:02AM

      by TheReaperD (5556) on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:02AM (#275285)

      Apparently, this ended up getting even more interesting as after Disney was contacted by several organizations, including Consumerist (same parent as Consumer Reports), Disney responded by rescinding the DMCA takedown then to only answer their own action by filing another takedown notice but, this time taking their whole page down and a three day ban on posting as Facebook considered this a repeat violation. It just goes to show how broken the entire DMCA is. The whole system needs to be thrown out.

      --
      Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:13AM (#275262)

    Facebook users and Walmart shoppers are already forever damned. They deserve their fate.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:23AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:23AM (#275264) Journal

      Although I kinda agree with your sentiment, the story is about copyright/trademark abuse. It would be the same story if they had found the action figure at Macy's, and posted their finding on Twitter.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:32AM (#275269)

        Hold on a second there chief. Are you condoning the use of Twitter?

        I disagree with your assessment entirely. This is a story about attention seeking narcissists getting the attention they wanted. And now they're going to fucking pay for being trendy trend following sheep.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:39AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:39AM (#275275)

          > This is a story about attention seeking narcissists getting the attention they wanted. And now they're going to fucking pay for being trendy trend following sheep.

          Just like #Occupy and #BLM!!! Anyone who gets shitted on by the powerful wanted to be shitted on by the powerful. It is self-evident.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:37AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:37AM (#275341) Journal

      Facebook users and Walmart shoppers are already forever damned. They deserve their fate.

      Harsh, dude. So, we are going to resurrect Dante so he can add a new level to the Inferno? Or do we see this as "a special hell", more of an annex than a whole new level? Creepiest thing is, I can totally visualize this. Goes into Walmart, can't get out, it turns into facebook, still can't get out, rinse, repeat. Hell is all about repetition. (Steven King, "Storm of the Century")

      • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Monday December 14 2015, @04:14PM

        by arulatas (3600) on Monday December 14 2015, @04:14PM (#276152)

        Special level of hell reserved for pedophiles and people who talk in the theater.

        --
        ----- 10 turns around
  • (Score: 1) by CaTfiSh on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:27AM

    by CaTfiSh (5221) on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:27AM (#275302)

    Two years since the supreme court managed to acknowledge my right to resell an item I purchased, but now I can't even take a picture of it??
    Seems rather regressive.

    Apparently the "First-sale doctrine" is applied to "distribution right", but not "reproduction right". In which case, some attorney felt he could have the image removed until the actual release date, never actually intending a challenge in court as to whether an picture of a figurine actually constitutes a reproduction.

    Just typical corporate sponsored barratry to buy time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:12AM (#275327)

      my right to resell an item I purchased, but now I can't even take a picture of it??

      You can, but only if you have plutocrat-sized lawyers to battle their plutocrat-sized lawyers. The laws are rigged against the small guy.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:56AM (#275332)

        To be fair Disney acknowledged the error.

        My guess is one part of the company is going 'oh geeze who did that' and the other part is 'oh they posted it up again BAN HAMMER as per my policy so I can keep my job'.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:31AM (#275358)

    That's why you don't need to mention the country things happen in...

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:59AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:59AM (#275365)

    Disney drops—then doubles down on—DMCA claim over Star Wars figure pic [arstechnica.com]
    Man who took photos of a $6.94 Walmart action figure gets banned from Facebook.

    A Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice sent by the Walt Disney Company earlier this week seems to have truly awakened The Force, and now the company can't seem to decide if it wants to be on the light side or the dark side.

    Marjorie and Arnie Carvalho run Star Wars Action News, a podcast about Star Wars collectibles. Earlier this week, SW Action News staffer Justin Kozisek purchased an action figure of "Rey" in an Iowa Walmart. The figure, which hasn't been seen elsewhere, was presumably put on the shelves by accident ahead of its official release date. An image of the figure was posted on the SW Action News Facebook page—and promptly subjected to a wave of DMCA takedown demands by Lucasfilm. Many of those who had spread the image on social media were also subject to copyright claims.
    ...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:07PM (#275417)

      > Man who took photos of a $6.94 Walmart action figure gets banned from Facebook.

      In the US you have freedom of speech as long as you don't threaten anyone's profits. Then you have to pay.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:50AM (#275650)

        In the EU you don't have freedom of speech. . .

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:58AM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:58AM (#275378) Homepage

    Well, if it wasn't for the DMCA notices I'd likely never have heard of this story or seen the photo in question. And now it's on my Facebook page!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:43PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:43PM (#275520) Journal

      So now you're doing their advertising for free. Think about it.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:58PM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:58PM (#275526) Homepage

        So should Soylent take this story down because it's free advertising for Disney?

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:04PM (#275572)

        I've thought about it. And I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to bother seeing this new movie. You know, the part where Disney/Lucasfilms actually makes money.

        Full disclosure though: I had absolutely no intention of seeing the movie before this. This just confirms I'll be watching something else.

  • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:11PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:11PM (#275418)

    I wonder how many people in the technology sector are going to vote with their dollars by buying tickets to the new Star Wars movie to show they approve of Disney doing this and purging IT workers to outsource them. Remember Sony's rootkit and how the technology industry reacted? I'm not getting a "Disney is evil" vibe. All is forgiven even if they're undermining the legal system and purging IT workers?

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:06PM (#275574)

      If you believe this incident reflects the actions of Harrison Ford in the movie, then I think the Force was never with you to begin with.

      I'll pay to see the movie. But I probably won't be buying any of the toys.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday December 13 2015, @01:27AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday December 13 2015, @01:27AM (#275638) Journal

        My wife and I went to see a movie in the theaters a couple years ago. "Interstellar," I think it was. We were impressed by the big cushy recliner seats. That was a new thing on us. Then they played about 1 hr of TV commercials before the actual movie we had purchased tickets to see. We haven't been back since.

        Torrent works just dandy for us, though mostly it's not even worth the effort to do that much for the movies they turn out these days. We're better entertained by the skits our kids put on for us in the living room. They're one of a kind, exclusive content.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:20PM (#275583)

      This incident just isn't the best exemplar of Disney's evil nature.