In the video, the speaker discusses a legal case involving Disney and a patron who died after being served food that did not accommodate their allergies, despite assurances from Disney and the restaurant. The key point is that the patron's ability to sue Disney was hindered by a forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ agreement, which the speaker argues effectively protects Disney from liability. The speaker emphasizes the irony that if the patron had pirated Disney content instead of paying for it, they might have had a better chance of seeking justice in court. This situation is used to highlight broader frustrations with corporate practices, such as restrictive digital rights management (DRM) and the way companies redefine terms like "purchase" to limit consumer rights. The speaker expresses anger at the notion that paying customers are often treated worse than those who pirate content, arguing that this creates a system that punishes people for doing the right thing. They call for a reevaluation of how companies treat their customers, advocating for fairer practices that do not penalize those who choose to pay for content. The video concludes with a strong critique of corporate policies that prioritize profit over consumer rights and satisfaction.

Which isn't helping enough

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 21 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The video is 2 part, first is the summary of the case and another is about why this argument from Disney is the biggest pro piracy argument.

Basically, the case is about a doctor who had a food allergy and went to a Disney owned restaurant that promised to cater to people with food allergies. The doctor asked staff 5 times to make sure they were aware of her allergies, and all 5 times they said yes. It's literally the most straightforward wrongful death case ever. But then Disney decided they want to fuck more people over, so they made an argument that the case should tossed and move to arbitration because her husband signed up to Disney streaming service on a free trial, years ago. And Disney is ignoring a lot of other facts, like that husband is not the one suing, her estate is, he cancelled the trial before the period ended, so he wasn't even a subscriber at the time. The streaming site has an arbitration clause, but Disney park doesn't so it doesn't even matter. If the case can't go forward, it will be only because US is a corporate-owned shithole, legally it's a moot argument.

As far as piracy, it just highlights how fucked up everything is since if the husband just pirated, DIsney couldn't have used that argument in court. So Disney created a situation now that if you want to be able to sue them for your loved one's death - pirate Disney. It's the most pro piracy argument that even the biggest normies can relate to.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's the most pro piracy argument that even the biggest normies can relate to.

Devout "Disney families," the kinds with the stickers on their SUVs, may still see that as "stealing the magic." maybe-later-honey maybe-later-kiddo

[–] D61@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

“Fuck your magic, free Lilo and Stitch”

I shout as I start downloading Lilo and Stitch from a torrent

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago

:SickoStitch:

load more comments (34 replies)