Disney revoking AP's if you resell merch

[King Panda 77]

Business pro-tip, it's only illegal if they get caught. They're making the same bet you are, they can't see it going that far. Take enough people's ability to go to a park away while they still have to pay for it and watch the legal fireworks.

I'll bring the popcorn.

Depends on the small print in the t&c . I would hazard more than 95% of AP owners never read them.

 

[RustySpork]

Depends on the small print in the t&c . I would hazard more than 95% of AP owners never read them.

It doesn't though, terms and conditions are like an end user license agreement they aren't laws or rights and sections found within them, sometimes the agreements entirely can be found to be illegal and thrown out when challenged in court. That doesn't stop companies from trying though.

 

[Dead2009]

So does that mean we'll no longer see collectibles hitting Ebay and Amazon for outrageous prices?

 

[mightynine]

If I pay for an annual pass that has the benefit of a discount, what I do with the merchandise I purchase with that pass is my business. Disney has the right of first sale, it isn't legal to dictate resale terms. First-sale doctrine 17 U.S.C. § 109.

I don't buy and resell merch, but I kind of want to see this play out in court.

I wonder if the language saying if it's for "commercial purposes" is their legal out there. Could they make an argument that these AP holders aren't selling it on eBay or a garage sale to clear out clutter, but actively advertising their services? These items are not being purchased for personal use.

It would be an interesting legal challenge, to be sure. Resale rights are still a grey area - for example, if I purchase a digital copy of a video game, I can't easily re-sell that.

 

[Tick Tock]

Who is next, calling Social Media folks professional photographers if they run a site with ad revenue?

Please let this be so. I've always thought there's something really shady in how Joe Vlogger can earn (if popular enough, and can sucker enough e-donations from viewers) more revenue in a single weekend of walking around the parks and filming Disney's product, than the actual CM's or imagineers earn who work, design, and build the product.

 

[Dead2009]

Well Disney allows those people to go around and film the parks (as long as it's not backstage or on the rides themselves) so I wouldn't consider it shady. Plus it's a convienent way for people who can't afford to go to the parks to see them through the lens of someone else so Disney probably sees that as a plus.

 

[Wrangler-Rick]

Perhaps Disney should just play the market - buy more of the merchandise and make it available to everyone on the Parks App. That way there would be no need for anyone to pay higher rates to buy it on EBay and Disney would make more profit. Just saying...

 

[PiXie Mom]

Please let this be so. I've always thought there's something really shady in how Joe Vlogger can earn (if popular enough, and can sucker enough e-donations from viewers) more revenue in a single weekend of walking around the parks and filming Disney's product, than the actual CM's or imagineers earn who work, design, and build the product.

Also you have some of the real popular ones crying for you to support them on Patreon. "I just filmed HM. Please donate." Down here in Orlando there are a few who make big bucks off of the parks. It makes me wish I hadn't gone into teaching and become a professional Disney World vlogger.

 

[mickEblu]

I wonder if the language saying if it's for "commercial purposes" is their legal out there. Could they make an argument that these AP holders aren't selling it on eBay or a garage sale to clear out clutter, but actively advertising their services? These items are not being purchased for personal use.

It would be an interesting legal challenge, to be sure. Resale rights are still a grey area - for example, if I purchase a digital copy of a video game, I can't easily re-sell that.

Yeah I think this is it. It’s not the random ebayers they re targeting. It’s more people advertising their services and/or people moving a lot of merchandise.

 

[PiXie Mom]

Plus it's a convienent way for people who can't afford to go to the parks to see them through the lens of someone else so Disney probably sees that as a plus.

Based on that logic I should film Mary Poppins Returns opening day and put it on YouTube so others can save money at the theater. Oh, and please subscribe and give me money on Patreon. Same principle as filming inside the parks for profit.

 

[TwilightZone]

Based on that logic I should film Mary Poppins Returns opening day and put it on YouTube so others can save money at the theater. Oh, and please subscribe and give me money on Patreon. Same principle as filming inside the parks for profit.

I wouldn't say that's the same thing.
Watching a park ride is not the same as riding it. A park ride has movements, effects, temperatures, etc. that one can't get on youtube.
A movie doesn't have these, which is why it's more problematic.
Plus there's MANY rides that no longer exist that can ONLY be found on youtube. Making it illegal or pulling it off will cause a lot of anger and boycotting. This is why nintendo suing rom sites is such a big issue right now, as for some people, that's the only way to experience some games, especially with resellers selling the games at high prices and modern tvs no longer supporting those consoles.

 

[RustySpork]

I wonder if the language saying if it's for "commercial purposes" is their legal out there. Could they make an argument that these AP holders aren't selling it on eBay or a garage sale to clear out clutter, but actively advertising their services? These items are not being purchased for personal use.

It would be an interesting legal challenge, to be sure. Resale rights are still a grey area - for example, if I purchase a digital copy of a video game, I can't easily re-sell that.

It's actually super cut and dry, when you buy a (downloadable) video game you're buying a license to use the software you're not paying for a physical object. When you buy a physical item you own all rights to that item except to duplicate it for resale. They have no legal right to differentiate commercial purposes since they're not selling you the right to use the object.

Here's some information on software: http://www.siia.net/Divisions/IP-Pr...and-Content-Usage-and-the-First-Sale-Doctrine

 

[Dead2009]

Based on that logic I should film Mary Poppins Returns opening day and put it on YouTube so others can save money at the theater. Oh, and please subscribe and give me money on Patreon. Same principle as filming inside the parks for profit.

That's not even close to the same thing.

 

[Disney Irish]

Business pro-tip, it's only illegal if they get caught. They're making the same bet you are, they can't see it going that far. Take enough people's ability to go to a park away while they still have to pay for it and watch the legal fireworks.

I'll bring the popcorn.

But they aren't taking people's ability to go to the park away, they haven't been banned from the parks. Those same people still can buy a single day ticket and enter the park and buy the items just like everyone else.

Retail scalping is a big business, so while not illegal (currently) it is frowned upon. And while I'm no legal scholar, my opinion is that it all comes down to expectation and fair play. There is no expectation of an AP to be able to buy unlimited quantities of an limited time or exclusive item for resale at a discounted price. So all that has been done is Disney has revoked their AP and the ability to use the discount that comes with it. They didn't ban them or say they can't buy the items. So really Disney is leveling the playing field and make it more fair for everyone else.

So yes I'd like to see this get challenged and then thrown out.

 

[RustySpork]

But they aren't taking people's ability to go to the park away, they haven't been banned from the parks. Those same people still can buy a single day ticket and enter the park and buy the items just like everyone else.

Retail scalping is a big business, so while not illegal (currently) it is frowned upon. And while I'm no legal scholar, my opinion is that it all comes down to expectation and fair play. There is no expectation of an AP to be able to buy unlimited quantities of an limited time or exclusive item for resale at a discounted price. So all that has been done is Disney has revoked their AP and the ability to use the discount that comes with it. They didn't ban them or say they can't buy the items. So really Disney is leveling the playing field and make it more fair for everyone else.

So yes I'd like to see this get challenged and then thrown out.

Oh come on now. They're cancelling people's passes and making them continue to pay the remaining balance according to the article. You also already can't use the discount on some of the most popular resale items like popcorn buckets. Unless there is an explicit limit on the number of items available for purchase, there is an expectation that anyone can buy an unlimited amount AP or no.

Life isn't fair, if people want the items they should have been at the front of the line.

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh come on now. They're cancelling people's passes and making them continue to pay the remaining balance according to the article. You also already can't use the discount on some of the most popular resale items like popcorn buckets. Unless there is an explicit limit on the number of items available for purchase, there is an expectation that anyone can buy an unlimited amount AP or no.

Life isn't fair, if people want the items they should have been at the front of the line.

But are they actually banning them from coming to the parks, no. So if then they still have the same access they did before, albeit by buying a day ticket, what harm is coming to these retail scalpers? The fact that they cancelled the AP and still making them pay for it is moot. That comes down to being contractually obligated to fulfill the terms of the financial agreement.

So really what is the legal issue here in your mind?

 

[The Pho]

It would be an interesting legal challenge, to be sure. Resale rights are still a grey area - for example, if I purchase a digital copy of a video game, I can't easily re-sell that.

That's because you are buying a license to access the content, not a copy itself. There's a difference between selling a license and selling a product second hand. That stuff has gone through court before.

 

[RustySpork]

But are they actually banning them from coming to the parks, no. So if then they still have the same access they did before, albeit by buying a day ticket, what harm is coming to these retail scalpers? The fact that they cancelled the AP and still making them pay for it is moot. That comes down to being contractually obligated to fulfill the terms of the financial agreement.

So really what is the legal issue here in your mind?

First sale doctrine applies, they don't have any right to tell you what you can do with items that you've purchased but I've already said that. If they have a problem with what they believe to be people capitalizing on the discount, take away the discount or limit the number of items purchased. They have the ability to see what you are purchasing, which means they already have the ability to constrain it.

They don't have the same access they did before, as it has been taken away. Yes they can buy a ticket, but why should they when Disney may be breaking the law by restricting their ability to access the parks for doing something that is within their legal rights?

 

[Disney Irish]

First sale doctrine applies, they don't have any right to tell you what you can do with items that you've purchased but I've already said that. If they have a problem with what they believe to be people capitalizing on the discount, take away the discount or limit the number of items purchased. They have the ability to see what you are purchasing, which means they already have the ability to constrain it.

They don't have the same access they did before, as it has been taken away. Yes they can buy a ticket, but why should they when Disney may be breaking the law by restricting their ability to access the parks for doing something that is within their legal rights?

But they are not telling them they can't sell their purchased items online, they haven't taken legal action against these retail scalpers. An AP is legal contract between the buyer and the seller for access to Disney’s private property at a discounted price. All Disney has done is revoked that discounted access and said if you want to do this then go buy a daily ticket like everyone else.

And I'm sure they will now attempt to limit the quantity purchased even further.

 

[RustySpork]

But they are not telling them they can't sell their purchased items online, they haven't taken legal action against these retail scalpers. An AP is legal contract between the buyer and the seller for access to Disney’s private property at a discounted price. All Disney has done is revoked that discounted access and said if you want to do this then go buy a daily ticket like everyone else.

And I'm sure they will now attempt to limit the quantity purchased even further.

They've done more than that, they've revoked their access but didn't refund. In a lot of cases that's perfectly fine. This one though, I'm not so sure.