Disney Asking Employees To Help Fund Copyright Lobbying (arstechnica.com) 172
NormalVisual writes: Disney is now asking its employees to chip in to promote the company's copyright agenda via the company's political action committee, DisneyPAC. CEO Bob Iger has sent a letter to the company's employees lauding the company's success with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the video service Aereo -- an Internet service claiming the right to retransmit [Disney's] broadcast signals without paying copyright or retransmission consent fees. Iger also expresses the company's hope that DisneyPAC will be able to influence Congress in regards to lowering corporate tax rates. Not surprisingly, the company refuses to comment on the initiative.
why not just get the foreign workers to pay for it (Score:3, Informative)
get the new foreign workers to pay for it all as part of their contracts.
why on earth would employees want to fund this? it's a company issue, not an employee issue
Re: (Score:2)
get the new foreign workers to pay for it all as part of their contracts.
To add to that -- lower H-1B wages means less disposable income to pay back to Disney for copyright fight.
Cuts both way, doesn't it Disney?
On the other hand, Disney as no need to be asking for handouts as with their new overseas workforce they're saving a bundle. Why don't they just redirect those saved payroll dollars to their legal department?
Re:why not just get the foreign workers to pay for (Score:4, Insightful)
Because greed. Duh.
Isn't that illegal? (Score:2)
For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?
Re:Isn't that illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
US corporations are allowed to solicit political contributions as long as donations aren't coerced. The relevant law [cornell.edu] bars any "threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force" when asking for donations.
Also from TFA, the letter explicitly states "Your contribution is important to all of us, but I want to emphasize that all contributions are voluntary and have no impact on your job status, performance review, compensation, or employment." and "Any amount given or the decision not to give will not advantage or disadvantage you." How much of that is going to be reflected in practice -- Disney using other 'justifications' for giving a worker crappier shifts, keep them from receiving performance awards, etc. -- to create a de facto but not de jure requirement to contribute has yet to be seen
Re:Isn't that illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
US corporations are allowed to solicit political contributions as long as donations aren't coerced. The relevant law [cornell.edu] bars any "threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force" when asking for donations.
My former employer, as US company, had us attend an event with customers, where we would be sitting at tables 8 people mixed employees and customers, and there would be a collection going around for a charity.
When I declined to contribute, things got pretty chilly at the table; people were in shock that I wasn't donating my private earnings towards a charity in order to make my employer look good.
Yeah, it wasn't political, and it wasn't direct threats, but I have never felt as shitty about a job as I did right there and then ... it was also the moment I realized I loathed that particular employer.
Re:Isn't that illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)
When I worked for NCR, HR would go around with paycheck deduction forms to contribute to the United Way - in the name of NCR.
See, the CEO gets the credit for the donations and it boosts his reputation and networking. The United Way is just one big networking system for the CEOs.
I would throw the form into the trash.
Never give money to charities - especially national or international charities. The biggest bang for your buck is to help someone in need close to you. I would drive folks to doctors who couldn't drive themselves. And being a professional, taking time out from your schedule is a much larger sacrifice than writing a check.
I also learned how the "other half" lives and how lucky I am and grateful for all the gifts and opportunities that were handed to me. Sure I work hard, but so does everyone. But my hard work means more because I was born lucky enough to have the talents and opportunities to work in a relatively lucrative career.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Different company, same charity. That time of year always made me uncomfortable working there.
Somewhat off topic but (Score:3, Interesting)
... we also had one homosexual guy that would make a speech at the kickoff meeting each time about how United Way was basically evil and we shouldn't give them a dime. The reasoning was that the United Way funded the boy scouts and the boy scouts didn't allow gay members.
I wonder if he changed his opinion when the Scouts decided to allow gays or if he still hates them and looked for other new targets to hate on. The trouble with SJW in my opinion is that they only destroy, they never create. For example they want to destroy the Scouts but they won't create another organization that did the good the Scouts did. They instead move on to destroy the next group that offends them. Like locusts.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, the scouts were accepting gays and were not destroyed as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of... The acceptance of openly gay members is left to each council to decide themselves, many of which have not. One of the major problems is the fact that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and a large number of troops meet in churches. If they allow gay members they would need to find a new meeting place.
The Boy Scouts of America is not a religious organization per se. Scouts do promise to "do [their] best to do [their] duty to God and [their] Country", but which god is left to each scout. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest private supporter of the BSA (followed by the Catholic Church). The LdS sponsored troops do allow gay scouts to join, but leaders must meet the sect's definition of "morally straight" (indeed, being a scout leader is considered a Church calling, and the positi
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in cub scouts, they weren't a religious organization any more than the YMCA was a religious organization. We even had a group in town that was scout-like but religious, as a counter part to the secular scouts. This was a few years before the whole Moral Majority wave that blurred the line between politics and pulpit. Oh and gays are allowed in churches.
Re: (Score:2)
The Boy Scouts of America is not a religious organization per se.
While technically true it does vary a lot by pack/troop with some being more religious than others. There still are religious requirements that need to be fulfilled but they aren't tied to any specific religion. For example the one I did with my oldest for his current cub scout rank was the "duty to god footsteps" [cubscouts.org]. We went to the large Buddhist temple nearby and he got to learn about their religion. He ended up telling the other scouts in his den about it and I was asked why I brought him there instead of t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of two scout leaders for the 11-year-olds in an LdS sponsored troop. Most of my own scouting experience was with LdS sponsored troops. This was kind of interesting with the Law Enforcement Explorer troop, as some participants were over 18 and smoked. Also, it was awkward for some boys the first time a female police cadet unzipped her pants while the instructor demonstrated how guns leave residue which can be picked up by black light.
Re: (Score:2)
You are Evil and Insane.
Ad hominem with no supporting evidence.
I put my decade in with the Cub Scouts, wonderful, and then with the Boy Scouts, brutal. Eagle. The day after I made Eagle, after much opposition, I quit. I was being prepared for Vietnam. Even then, the local "Boy Scouts" was Right-Wing political.
A whole decade with the Cub Scouts? I thought there were only 4 dens (Tiger, Bear, Wolf, Weblos - forgive me if I got them out of order), each lasting a year. Boy Scouts starts at 11 years old and goes through 18 years old (some Explorer programs go to 20 years old). The political leaning of your local troop will vary on your locale. In the USA, 70% of Mormons self identify as Republicans, so an LdS-sponsored troop is likely to be right-leaning.
So decades pass.
A few years back, I was at the local County Fair. There was a "Romney For President" booth, manned, or should I say, boyed, by my old Scout Troop. Cheerful, Patriotic, and now Mormon. (Our old Troop was very loosely RC; for Religious Obligations, we mowed the Church lawns, and did some odd bits of painting here and there. There was one Seminary Brother who helped us out... a genuinely nice, if conflicted, guy. Good with a paintbrush. After his Scouting chores, he went into Astrophysics, and instead of Vietnam, I went into Nuclear Physics...)
The pillars of the Boys
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he changed his opinion that discrimination based on sexual orientation is bad. He may have changed his stance on the United Way if the local Scout council started accepting gays.
The trouble with people who use the term "SJW" is that they are happy to gloss over gross injustice as long as it doesn't affect them personally, and also assume harm that the people so labeled didn't intent. In this case, nobody's trying to destroy the Boy Scouts, only make them more inclusive and do even more good.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney does exactly the same thing with the United Way. It was usually the union shop stewards at Disney World that went around trying to guilt everyone into donating. I wouldn't even accept the forms. Sure, you get the stinkeye for it, but I really didn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked for NCR, HR would go around with paycheck deduction forms to contribute to the United Way - in the name of NCR. Disney does exactly the same thing with the United Way. It was usually the union shop stewards at Disney World that went around trying to guilt everyone into donating. I wouldn't even accept the forms. Sure, you get the stinkeye for it, but I really didn't care.
Thanks for the warning, personally never encountered the practise. It occurred to me from reading your comments that if I ever did, I would take the form and donate 10 cents. Then it would be their issue because only a hypocrite would take issue with how much you donate.
Re: (Score:2)
I signed up, because it was a convenient way to donate. I didn't and don't see the problem with passing out the forms, and I have led workplace United Way campaigns (I boosted contributions considerably by strategic use of doughnuts), but guilting people into donating is something I'd never do or accept.
Re: (Score:2)
And being a professional, taking time out from your schedule is a much larger sacrifice than writing a check.
Just so long as you remember that the point of charity is to help others, not to make a sacrifice. That said, direct personal involvement can be far more satisfying, which is vital for continued charity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I picked out a favorite charity, and currently am giving them significant amounts of money. When I retire, I'm going to switch to volunteer work. Right now, the time would be a greater sacrifice, and I'd rather do good at minimum sacrifice to myself. If I feel the need to sacrifice more, I can just up my commitment.
Re: (Score:2)
My office at least offers us a perk: give 12 hours of income and get 1 day of vacation. Technically that's still a net loss, but I've always felt that the vacation day is worth more than the literal cash. The apparent percent of donations that go through United Way and actually make it to people in need also makes me a little uneasy, but it's the only deal the office offers.
Re: (Score:2)
At one company I worked at that was in a bad position, management was asked to take twice the cut I was. That made us feel better about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly I find the notion of forced public donation vile. Remember that ridiculous Ice Bucket Challenge. When a partnering company tried to guilt our staff into doing it, we just told them to ignore the email.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that ridiculous Ice Bucket Challenge.
What? I loved it, watching famous people dump ice water on their heads was fun!
Of course watching idiots do it and fail was also fun.
I'm neither famous nor an idiot, so I didn't do it because it is just entertainment for me.
But it was still fun!
Re:Isn't that illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When I declined to contribute, things got pretty chilly at the table; people were in shock that I wasn't donating my private earnings towards a charity in order to make my employer look good.
I always had that problem when a parent is hustling Girl Scout cookies to inflate their daughter's sales numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
My former employer, as US company, had us attend an event with customers, where we would be sitting at tables 8 people mixed employees and customers, and there would be a collection going around for a charity.
When I declined to contribute, things got pretty chilly at the table; people were in shock that I wasn't donating my private earnings towards a charity in order to make my employer look good.
Little late now, but you could have responded that you already contribute to the charity outside of the company. A lie? Yes. But it wouldn't have been one they could have proven or held against you.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate being coerced to "donate" to a charity. I'll donate however much I want, to whatever charity I chose. Plus rather than a random basket being passed around, if my donation is actually registered, I can get a tax receipt, so I can actually spend more on charity.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they have no idea how much or little you have contributed to other charities, or your financial situation. Peer pressure contributions are never a good thing, and the old business model of United Way was to do just that. Your take home pay should be spent on charities however you wish.
I do remember my company asking us to write political leaders in a certain city encouraging them to approve a municipal deal. While I can understand the company's position here, it felt really sleazy. It's not m
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't there a mod for irony?
Re: (Score:3)
Because we'd never use another mod again, I fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't there a mod for irony?
Indeed. AC, name thyself.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Also from TFA, the letter explicitly states "Your contribution is important to all of us, but I want to emphasize that all contributions are voluntary and have no impact on your job status, performance review, compensation, or employment." and "Any amount given or the decision not to give will not advantage or disadvantage you." How much of that is going to be reflected in practice -- Disney using other 'justifications' for giving a worker crappier shifts, keep them from receiving performance awards, etc. -- to create a de facto but not de jure requirement to contribute has yet to be seen
Easiest way to guarantee this: make contributions anonymous. But I bet they wont think of doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about I fix it for you, nudge, nudge, wink, wink "your quote, wont bother repeating" this in conjunction with the person handing it out saying, we are required to say this by law, but I know you will take the hint and not disadvantage yourself. Every time someone with total control over the other puts out that kind of message it is because they want to send out the exact opposite of the message.
Genuine company request, we request anonymous contributions from the employees to go into the employees pol
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, Bob Iger is the one who wrote the email and runs Disney. Has done so for going on 11 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
They are asking not telling ... (Score:1)
For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?
From the summary: "Disney is now asking its employees to chip in ...".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh! Ok, if that makes it legal, next time just ask someone to hand over their wallet when you mug them.
Re: Isn't that illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal in US and sycophants like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, as right thinking as your reaction is most /. readers don't agree with your take with regard to Disney's actions here and don't have the guts to admit they don't agree. Their unprincipled obeisance to Disney's power is unlike some posters to the Ars Technica (Condé Nast) forum on this story who object publicly such as user "SmokeTest":
Power-for-power's-sake supporting /.ers will pay to see the next Star Wars movie, visit Disney theme parks, buy Disney-licensed merchandise of all kinds and thus feed the system that oppresses the world via copyright and TPP. This fight goes far beyond the term of copyright both in who is affected and specific powers multinational corporations seek to gain.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was the CCP, it wouldn't have been a form, it would have been an e-mail thanking you for the voluntary contribution HR just made on your behalf. If you're lucky that is, otherwise you won't even get the mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In a practical sense, no.
There are many regulations about free speech, but particular political views can be a condition of employment in private enterprises in most states. See breakdowns of worker political rights such as http://www.workplacefairness.o... [workplacefairness.org], and review the history of corporations breaking up union activities by both subtle pressure and physical violence throughout American history.
Even if political support is "voluntary", the absence of a vocal support of leadership's views on politics, rac
Re: (Score:2)
For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?
Not really, especially now that Corporations are people and have all the rights and less responsibility than flesh and blood people.
Its a two edged sword though http://www.hrcapitalist.com/20... [hrcapitalist.com]
In teh case of a company like WalMart to "suggest" that it's employees vote a certain way, it becomes a WalMart issue, as well as a political one. There are those among us, inclusing myself, who have an issue with WalMart demanding my Tax dollars to subsidize their loww low prices every day.
http://money.cnn. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But if your company wants you to vote a certain way, they can "suggest" it, and in at will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] they can fire you for not voting they way they "suggest"
At least you will know how *not* to vote.
Won't H1Bs have to register as foreign lobbyists? (Score:3)
I thought foreigners who wanted the lobby the government had to register?
Re: Isn't that illegal? (Score:2)
"managers got reports of who contributed and who didn't"
If they do allow it, then it should be like voting: nobody knows if you did donate or how much. Anything else is subject to abuse even if they say they're just "asking"
disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that legislation needs "funding" is odious in unto itself.
Re: disgusting (Score:2)
SlySoft RIP (Score:1)
One of the first major casualties. Who/what's next?
Subvert the Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd like to see copyright changed to be 14 years automatic, then extendable by application in 7 year increments.
To me it should be 20 years full stop, like a patent. In the case of a major "pop culture" hit, the majority of revenue should be in the first 5 years. In the case of a creator, 20 years is 2/3-1/2 of a career, and more than enough time to recoup costs from one project.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. (Score:1, Troll)
Feel free to mod +5 Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried, I was joking, but yeah that's sad actually
Not a surprising request but unreasonable (Score:5, Informative)
While a corporation should and needs to protect it's assets and petition sitting governments on various, I think it's a) inappropriate to monetarily support candidates and b) coerce employees to support and contribute to the cause. In the '80s, when I was working for IBM, they sent a letter to all (Canadian, at least) employees telling them to support NAFTA which I (and many of my coworkers) thought was inappropriate but the company felt that it was in its best interests to do this.
The situation is even more despicable when it comes to Disney, who clearly don't seem to care about their employees and really not good corporate citizens. There maybe honour & prestige working for Disney but if there is an option to reduce their costs, they will clearly take it, current employees be damned.
Re: (Score:3)
"Disney, who clearly don't seem to care about their employees" has led to employees using the nickname "mauschwitz" to describe their employer. Yes, Disney's reputation is that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporation lobbies for shareholders? (Score:1)
If you don't believe in your employer's mission, quit, but profit or no, there _are_ people at Disney who work for their art and the joy it brings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and if you are not in a positions to quit and vote with your feet, what? Suck it up?
Fuck you.
If you want to know what Disney is like, go see South Park's "The Ring" episode or ask anybody who's ever worked for them just how evil they are. Example: they financially screwed and lied about Robin Williams for years. Finally, when the Mouse decided the NEEDED Williams, the new boss apologizes and all is supposed to be well. Now imagine what they get away with on people without that kind of star power...
"You real
not surprising, yet amoral (Score:1)
Next they will say you better not vote trump if yo (Score:2)
Next they will say you better not vote trump if you like to keep your job!
Huh? (Score:2)
Slave labor (Score:1)
We need Stricter Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you know, Charles Perrault's family, etc. all, have not received a cent of royalties from the Disney corporation for their copying of their stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know, Charles Perrault's family, etc. all, have not received a cent of royalties from the Disney corporation for their copying of their stories.
Well, yeah. That's how these companies work, they take everything in and give nothing out.
IP solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is my ideal IP solution. All IP (patents and copyright) must state a value. Any value at all. The owner of the IP then pays intellectual property tax a some rate. If someone else really wants that IP, they can pay the owner the stated amount and the IP becomes public domain.
This solves all kinds of issues including orphaned works, patent trolls, and the likes of Disney tying up copyrighted works that should have entered the public domain decades ago. Well, maybe Disney could still tie up copyrighted works, but at least it would cost them to the benefit of tax payers.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my ideal so-called Intellectual Property (IP) solution. All IP must be abolished immediately and rent seekers be damned.
I doubt my ideal solution will be implemented so I'd settle for copyright laws being scaled back massively. Mickey bloody Mouse is way past its copyright date. Collusion with lawmakers to extend it shows exactly why nobody trusts the establishment and why people like Trump will become the next president.
Re: (Score:2)
5 years. No extension.
I can see that there is money to be made and investments to be recovered. But we're in the time and age of instant distribution and information can travel around the globe in a matter of seconds. From filming something to the cinema it's a matter of a few weeks, months maybe. Take a look at the box office and show me ONE movie older than a YEAR still being shown in the cinemas. No later than a year after its creation the movie's available on a watch-at-home medium. No later than three
Re: (Score:2)
Shift the medium -> new copyright period.
Yes, things have to be ironed out, but the current form is beyond ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
For the Constitutional purpose, relevance is immaterial. The question is whether people or corporations will base their decisions on doing something creative on possible income 28 years from the time of publication. I haven't seen any such decisions; most people and companies seem to want payback before then.
Re: (Score:2)
It start giving a shit about Disney's opinion the moment they start to give one about mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is my ideal IP solution.
Unfortunately you have the TPP instead and I don't think they are taking suggestions.
If you object, there is an H1B to take your place (Score:2)
Just sayin'
If spoiled American workers don't want the job . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Globalism is great. If, and only if, it benefits the corporation. Or could you tell me why I can't buy a BluRay in South East Asia where they cost a buck a piece?
It's ok for them to ship our jobs there. But it's not ok for us to ship the products made here. Care to explain that?
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok for them to ship our jobs there. But it's not ok for us to ship the products made here. Care to explain that?
Yes, they are already poor, starving and begging for *any* job. They are unlikely to agitate for political change and no one should enjoy freedom unless they are obscenely wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
and spoiled American workers will be made to train their H1-B replacements [slashdot.org]!
Just sayin'
Teach them wrong, as a joke.
Pharma companies do this too. (Score:2)
source: Wife. I've read the pamphlets.
Please Help Us Fund Copyright Lobbying... (Score:2)
cute (Score:1)
do they think all those outsourced jobs in and from india / china really give a single fuck about copyright?
Not unusual (Score:2)
Disney CEO Bob Iger (Score:2)
Doesn't Iger mean ogre in German?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Does not. It's Oger.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Does not. It's Oger.
Hmmm, Bob Oger - a good name for a troll!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
I thought all large companies did this (Score:2)
My company solicits PAC donations, too. I never really thought it was a big deal and assumed that all large companies did the same.
Companies aren't allowed to contribute to PACs, after all, and those of use that work in companies are all kind of in the same boat. In my case maybe I want my company to hire lobbyist to oppose the required use of some type of 1200 MPa material in, say, mirror mounting brackets where there's no engineering justification.
If my company's PAC were evil, then I'd think twice. Barri
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:2)
Just when you think Disney can't get any scummier, they take it to another level...
Re: (Score:2)
Even without the neckbeards, the legion of screetching kids wanting to see the new premanufactured disney princess movie 2.0: you can(not) marry the prince will give em enough money and power to buy the US government over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah! True neck beards will download the movie from bittorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Several, I imagine.
Probably not GP in particular, but someone decided to defend "Neckbeards do not run anything"
Re: (Score:2)
What's the hallmark of a dictatorship? When technology is outlawed that could allow you to see certain content you're not supposed to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you name the things Unions push that don't negatively affect not only their members but everyone who never ever bothered to want to deal with them? That would make them equal.
And from there you may then tell us what makes them worse!
Re: (Score:2)