[gamblor956]

Theaters require a license to show a movie.

Disney does not generally grant licenses to theaters to show its films second-run (meaning after their initial box-office run) except as part of re-release initiated by Disney. They make extremely limited exceptions to this policy; the Rocky Horror Picture Show is basically the only film in the Disney/Fox vault that they allow to show second-run.

In this case, the theater announced they were going to show Black Panther without actually bothering to get the license ahead of time, and Disney did not make an exception to their policy.

[manicdee]

Which is to say Disney stopped the theatre from showing the movie. The reason the theatre couldn't show the movie is because Disney wouldn't allow it to do so.

[kelnos]

I think the point is that the headline makes it sound like a theater showing any random movie it wants is a normal, accepted practice, and that Disney was somehow doing something nefarious by stopping them from showing it. In essence, a clickbaity headline.

I know when I clicked on the headline, that's what I expected, and the article didn't actually say why Disney did what they did, but my impression continued to be that Disney was doing something shady. The top comment in the HN comments points out that this is just normal Disney policy, and is entirely a non-newsworthy, non-event.

If you had a different expectation, cool, but I think many people probably expected there to be shenanigans going on, when it's really just long-standing Disney policy.

(A policy I personally think is lame, but that's neither here nor there.)

(Seems like this post is now flagged, so I guess the HN hive mind agrees this is a weak article.)

[gamblor956]

Which is to say Disney stopped the theatre from showing the movie. The reason the theatre couldn't show the movie is because Disney wouldn't allow it to do so.

No, theaters can't just use any copy of a film to show a movie; those copies are jealously guarded by the distributors and are subject to strict controls, especially by Disney (and Fox too, before the acquisition). Generally, each copy of a film reel must be acquired from the distribution company and returned to it after the theater's second-run showings have ended. (For digital projectors, they use an online check-in/check-out system.)

Disney never gave the theater the film (or file, depending on the theater's projection setup) in the first place. The theater could not have shown the movie without affirmative action on Disney's part.

Disney could have simply done nothing at all, and the theater would not have been able to show the film.

[monadic2]

I don't think you understand the meaning of "can". It's not a legal term. The use also occludes the active role Disney and other license holders play in the prevention of screening movies.

[monadic2]

You described the semantic difference, not the material difference. Materially, disney is preventing screens of the movie.