• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Disney Keeps 80% of Streaming Revenue By Calling It ‘Home Video’

Biggersmaller

Biggersmaller

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,966
Minneapolis
Apparently Bill Nye has been suing Disney since 2017 over categorizing the streaming of his content as "home video" when his contract from 1993 states he would get a 50/50 split if it were categorized as "pay television" like if it aired on HBO. Interesting read from Variety.

For years, Disney has been keeping 80% of the revenue from older shows that it distributes to streaming platforms, leaving only 20% to be available to stars and other profit participants. It does so by classifying the revenue as "home video." Under a formula dating from the introduction of the VCR, Disney subtracts an 80% royalty to its in-house distributor to cover the costs of distribution. In 2017, Bill Nye, star of "Bill Nye the Science Guy," challenged that practice, calling it yet another example of Hollywood accounting. In a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, Nye argued that the actual distribution costs for platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime are minimal, and that Disney is essentially raking millions of dollars off the top without justification.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
adj_noun

adj_noun

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
17,201
If it was home video it would come in one of those bulky plastic boxes, Disney

S2aKmkm.jpeg


I don't see no boxes
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
Biggersmaller said:
Apparently Bill Nye has been suing Disney since 2017 over categorizing the streaming of his content as "home video" - when his contract from 1993 states he would get a 50/50 split if it were categorized as "pay television" like HBO. Interesting read from Variety.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Does the contract say "like HBO" or was that a mutual understanding they had that never got captured in writing?
 
Cels

Cels

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,773
well the question is how to handle revenues from streaming under a contract signed before streaming even existed. is streaming home video or is it more similar to "pay television" -- it's not an easy question.
 
Spacejaws

Spacejaws

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,809
Scotland
Not suprised. Disney is a scummy company, everything it does it at face value but behind the scenes they do not give a shit about creators or it's employees or consumers.
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,185
Wait, do they actually check to see how many times someone watched a show on a streaming platform to calculate revenues?
 
davepoobond

davepoobond

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,595
www.squackle.com
Principate

Principate

Member
Oct 31, 2017
11,186
Disney is one of the worst entertainment companies out there. Truly bottom of the barrel, their toxic influence on the industry is well known.
 
OP
OP
Biggersmaller

Biggersmaller

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,966
Minneapolis
Plumbob said:
Does the contract say "like HBO" or was that a mutual understanding they had that never got captured in writing?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not clear what the actual contract outlines, but the article states:

At the time Nye signed his contract, streaming and digital downloads did not exist. But pay television — cable, HBO, Showtime, etc. — did exist, and typically offered a premium licensing fee. Johnson argued that streaming is more akin to pay TV than it is to distribution of physical DVDs and VHS tapes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
BLEEN

BLEEN

Member
Oct 27, 2017
21,890
Fucking Disney. Another reason they're more trash than most trash.

You keep zero physical anything. It's not home video in the slightest.
 
maximumzero

maximumzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,922
New Orleans, LA
I don't think Bill Nye the Science Guy ever got any sort of proper home release and was instead relegated to DVDs/VHS with like 2 episodes each for ludicrous amounts of money, clearly aimed for schools and libraries.

I'd buy a proper DVD or Blu-Ray complete series set.
 
Spacejaws

Spacejaws

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,809
Scotland
Biggersmaller said:
It's not clear what the actual contract outlines, but the article states:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yea reading this the terms sounds way more similar to a premium channel with content you pay a subscription but don't own than a physical medium you keep in your home and watch without access to a providers license. Disneys clearly wrong here and doesn't give a shit.
 
Joni

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
davepoobond said:
I'm curious why you wouldn't. I would actually say it is a "paid home video service" and doesn't fit into either category. Disney should have tried to take 100%
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Plumbob said:
It certainly isn't "home video" which is defined as "a film on videotape for viewing at home."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Tight Shoe said:
why not?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would argue streaming is closer to the concept of having something available at home for viewing whenever you want versus having a television channel with regular broadcasting hours that you just need to pay to access unlike free channels. It probably would have been better to go back and update contracts for such elements, but in the context of what pay television was back then, it is nothing like streaming.
 
Spacejaws

Spacejaws

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,809
Scotland
Joni said:
I would argue streaming is closer to the concept of having something available at home for viewing whenever you want versus having a television channel with regular broadcasting hours that you just need to pay to access unlike free channels. It probably would have been better to go back and update contracts for such elements, but in the context of what pay television was back then, it is nothing like streaming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And it's completely nothing like home video, but Disney labeled it as such because they knew they could get more of the pie instead of doing the normal thing and reworking the contracts with both parties.

They are advertising their cake as bread to avoid the tax.
 
HStallion

HStallion

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
62,262
Joni said:
I would argue streaming is closer to the concept of having something available at home for viewing whenever you want versus having a television channel with regular broadcasting hours that you just need to pay to access unlike free channels. It probably would have been better to go back and update contracts for such elements, but in the context of what pay television was back then, it is nothing like streaming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And streaming is like home videos? I'd argue the idea behind HBO and streaming is pretty damn similar. You pay to view media from exclusive to a particular "channel" that you don't physically own but can still view in your own home. Just because there aren't set hours for programming doesn't really change anything.
 
Dhx

Dhx

Member
Sep 27, 2019
1,697
Joni said:
I would argue streaming is closer to the concept of having something available at home for viewing whenever you want versus having a television channel with regular broadcasting hours that you just need to pay to access unlike free channels. It probably would have been better to go back and update contracts for such elements, but in the context of what pay television was back then, it is nothing like streaming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

With home video, you pay once and have the content forever. Buying a video on iTunes would be the digital analogue.

With a premium channel you pay monthly for access to premium content (including On Demand) exactly like a streaming service. When you stop paying, you lose the content.
 
Sirhc

Sirhc

Hasn't made a thread yet. Shame me.
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,051
Shitty practice for sure, seems like a contractual hell hole being pre-streaming, hoping the court has the define new terms for streaming in the contract to help creators get a better split as the split for home video assumes significant production costs.
 
skeptem

skeptem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,747
Joni said:
I would argue streaming is closer to the concept of having something available at home for viewing whenever you want versus having a television channel with regular broadcasting hours that you just need to pay to access unlike free channels. It probably would have been better to go back and update contracts for such elements, but in the context of what pay television was back then, it is nothing like streaming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we were talking about buying a digital copy of a product. Like lets say you buy Season 3 of Bill Nye on Amazon digitally. Yes, I would agree with you.

You subscribing to a streaming service is no different from subscribing to a channel that has on demand programming.
 
Joni

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
Sirhc said:
Shitty practice for sure, seems like a contractual hell hole being pre-streaming, hoping the court has the define new terms for streaming in the contract to help creators get a better split as the split for home video assumes significant production costs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is covered in the SAG-AFTRA contracts nowadays.
 
Sirhc

Sirhc

Hasn't made a thread yet. Shame me.
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,051
Joni said:
It is covered in the SAG-AFTRA contracts nowadays.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am sure, but for older contracts like this having the terms legally defined will allow others to pursue contract amendments to get a more equitable share, hoping they set a good precedent for creators.
 
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,694
I would consider something home video if I could buy a copy of it that's mine regardless of if I'm subscribed to any particular service. If I have a subscription to continue to legally watch something, it's pay tv.
 
Window

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,283
Nye argued that the actual distribution costs for platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime are minimal,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regardless of whether Disney is being fair, that seems like bad approach to make his case? Surely distribution costs for these platforms are anything but minimal with massive amounts of network infrastructure and carriage costs they incur.
 
PeskyToaster

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,313
I'm not a lawyer but on the surface, streaming has much more in common with premium television like HBO than 'home video'. I would think a major defining difference is that I own the home video while there is no ownership with streaming or cable tv.
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,857
Cels said:
well the question is how to handle revenues from streaming under a contract signed before streaming even existed. is streaming home video or is it more similar to "pay television" -- it's not an easy question.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bullshit if I pirate the government won't make distinctions but suddenly here they do, only in america.
 
Saucycarpdog

Saucycarpdog

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,342
Can't hate the hustle am i rite? /s


(No seriously I've seen people on this forum say this about Disney's tactics)
 
Bus-TEE

Bus-TEE

Banned
Nov 20, 2017
4,656
Typical Hollywood accounting etc, etc but this is particularly galling even if it is very 'on brand' for the way Disney does business.
 
LukeOP

LukeOP

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,749
Dhx said:
With home video, you pay once and have the content forever. Buying a video on iTunes would be the digital analogue.

With a premium channel you pay monthly for access to premium content (including On Demand) exactly like a streaming service. When you stop paying, you lose the content.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Streaming is 100% nothing like hbo or showtime was back in the day. Did you guys actually experience back in the day when we only had free tv and cable?

Bill Nye is trying screw Disney here.
 
CrunchyFrog

CrunchyFrog

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,457
Joni said:
I would argue streaming is closer to the concept of having something available at home for viewing whenever you want versus having a television channel with regular broadcasting hours that you just need to pay to access unlike free channels. It probably would have been better to go back and update contracts for such elements, but in the context of what pay television was back then, it is nothing like streaming.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it's pretty clear though the spirit of the contract was to (rightfully) recoup manufacture and distributing costs for home releases on Disney's part with a physical product versus pay TV which merely involved sending a copy of the film to the broadcaster. That's absolutely analogous here. On top of that, streaming also entails the same kind of temporary use license as pay TV as opposed to the one time permanent media sale of a home video purchase (Disney's only transaction to be recoup costs), meaning Disney will continue to profit from that customer transaction ad infinitum. This is absolutely Hollywood accounting, and while potentially not a contract violation per se it's at the very least disingenuous and self-serving on Disney's part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.