Hold on i just realised
Some arbitration clauses work both ways, meaning disney can’t sue you just as much as you can’t sue them
So in theory if you signed up for a free trial or something, pirating (and distributing) any disney content would be absolutely legal
Edit:
Ok i looked up their terms of use (which was slightly harder because of the pile of articles about the latest lawsuit), and they have their bums covered:
- BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS
(…)
You and Disney agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes (…) except for: (…) (ii) any dispute relating to the ownership or enforcement of intellectual property rights. (…)
Source: https://disneytermsofuse.com/english/#BINDING-ARBITRATION-AND-CLASS-ACTION-WAIVER, accesed 2024-08-17
Edit 2: added formatting to the quote
Probably not, they say that you agree to settle your disputes with x corporation through arbitration, nothing about x corporation’s disputes with you. Don’t test the most expensive lawyers in the world, especially when they get to pick the arbitor.
I am not saying that’s a good idea, but i know that for example discord’s arbitration clauze explicitly states that it works both ways, so it’s not impossible that disney’s does too
that’s not how it works. the law does not exist to protect you; it exists to make you tolerate your exploitation and feel like it’s fair.
edit: fixed one letter.
I wouldn’t even say that. The law exists to protect the powerful and doesn’t care if it feels fair to you or not.
right but it can’t protect the powerful without gaslighting you, because the direct use of violence for control is really really fucking inefficient, and the use of pure terror for control isn’t much better. you need to build the prison in your prisoners’ heads, y’know?
That they have a specific exception for IP tells me all what they really think about their customers.
That’s why they pay the lawyers
So if you were to burn down a Disney resort, they’d have to arbitrate?
No, the terms forfeit your right to a judge/jury not theirs
Same’s true if you sell something on Etsy
The FTC has really gotten off their ass this year and I hope they take action against this arbitration clause bullshit because it needs to be illegal. Considering this is the second time this week I’ve heard about a cooperation doing this I can only assume it’s more common than we think. No fucking way a company should just be able to say “You can’t sue us if we violate your rights.”
I’ve been opting out of every single one, but some companies are assholes and make you send it in through a written letter (Meta) or worse, automatically accept it if you’ve even just used the app/site/product after they send an email to you regarding changes. The fact that massive corporations also say all matters must be resolved in small claims court and with mandatory arbitration with the company’s arbitrator is incredibly illegal sounding. Fuck you AT&T. They were the company who fought for revoking arbitration rights in contracts. The Supreme Court decided it was legal.
Ah yes, our old friends the Supreme Court.
doing a hell of a lot worse than suing them needs to be normalized.
not just agents and property of corporations who piss you off, but their executives, and any corporate lawyer or judge.
edit: to remind them why they try to gaslight us with the courts. if you care about the law, break it. if you don’t, also break it.
Putting myself in her husband’s shoes, I can’t tell how I’d feel about this meme. On one hand, it trivializes his tragedy a little bit, on the other hand, it’s evidence that society is generally outraged about this.
I’m going with the outrage side here: the fact that they are even suggesting that this is legal footing is an affront to humanity
Difference between this and helium is helium follows rules of the universe, and this fucking contract law is human-enforced.
I just watched this show for the first time while tripping with some friends… It’s so fuckin good we finished the entire season lol
What show is this?
Smiling Friends
I guess there’s more smiling going on when they aren’t talking about Disney killing people?
These aren’t the actual subtitles.
Its not the real quote, but also this episode is titled Frowning Friends, so you’re right that this scene has less smiling than most.
Uh, “The Mandalorian”? Maybe you meant smt else idk
Just don’t forget to tell your wife
Nvm im stupid, you meant the show with the guys talking, whoops
I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media, especially in what would be a critical period for Disney to invest in damage control for their public image, makes it difficult to confidently believe one thing or the other in light of that finding.
I never cared much for Disney to begin with, so I won’t waste any more time with verification. Regardless, the suit definitely shouldn’t be dismissed on their argument of the arbitration agreement alone because it would set an awful precedent, even if the suit itself happens to be toothless. I wouldn’t put it past Disney to try to take advantage of the situation to that end (They may be hoping the suit will be dismissed for arbitration because the judge already knows the suit is pointless so that future legitimate lawsuits against them for wrongful deaths in their park can be more easily dismissed on the same grounds).
I just don’t get why Disney would go to that extent when the lawsuit should have easily been disregarded as not applicable to them. Digging up an old Disney+ membership to find some terms which could apply seems like a terrible PR move for their service.
I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
I doubt Disney would be able to successfully argue that just because the restaurant is leasing space in Disney World that they have zero liability but that’s up to the court.
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
It could very well be in the contract with the pub that Disney requires allergenic options to be available and the space doesn’t have sufficient space to keep those ingredients separate. In such an instance Disney absolutely bare a significant amount of responsibility.
I read that in Charlie’s voice! Honestly, sounds legit. But…I’m single. No wife here! hahahaha…ha…ha…cries
Arrrrrr!
Hell yeah smiling friends meme format!!!
