Slashdot Mirror
Zediva Fights Back Against MPAA
MoldySpore writes "When Zediva burst onto the streaming scene earlier this year, they managed to do something nobody else was doing. Navigating around the copyright law, they found a way to stream rental movies not currently available on other services, because they were still inside the DVD sales window, and filled a role not currently part of the competitions' services. The service grants a 'rental' of the physical movie to the user, who is then able to stream it over the internet, usually with the option to re-rent after being played. By having it be a rental service, they were able to avoid some of the legalese associated with streaming movies outside of that sales window. Needless to say the MPAA was not pleased. But instead of making nice with the MPAA, Zediva has decided to fight back in the form of expensive legal heavy-hitters from 'elite San Francisco law firm Durie Tangri,' which has forced the MPAA to hire their own team of expensive legal ninjas. Zediva argues what most technologically informed people would when looking at this service: that they are essentially a rental service who are renting physical media, and providing the DVD player and a very long cable to the renter's TV."
The MPAA wants to control the entertainment sphere of the world. They don't want competition from newer more modern companies, so they use the law to guarantee no competition can exist. They don't want the "customer" to have control, they want it so they can maximize profits for themselves.
They just don't care about us the consumer. And they hate the competition. So they win by using the law because they can't win in the market place.
Someone sneaks around behind all their dirty little tricks and they don't like it.
Comes with the territory, boys.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.
--Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Glad to hear they're fighting back. In my opinion, they have a good chance of winning, even taking into account existing precedence.
http://appleguru.org/blog/2011/04/05/zediva-movie-studios-and-copyright/
appleguru.org
I'm not taking the MPAA side here. However...
One could argue that it's streaming if you're transferring data over the wire from a location outside your legal ownership. For example, over a DVI cable would be ok because both the source and destination are usually found in one room. They're found in separate rooms for high-end setups however. Even between two homes that you own might be acceptable (two houses you own on one plot of land). But... the MPAA could argue that if the source is from another building and company rendering services not under your direct ownership, the data is being "Streamed".
Steamed being defined as receiving sourced material from a non-tangable source not in your direct and immediate possession.
Life is not for the lazy.
Kill or be killed !! Take your pick !!
My money is on the big guy !!
It's always been about controlling how a film is released. They traditional release in the most profitable form and work their way down. Streaming for all the enthusiasm of the end users has been a mediocre source of revenue compared to traditional theaters and physical rentals. Basically theaters come first with physical purchase coming second then physical rentals, streaming then cable and TV. The problem is theaters are looking dicey for the future and the studios have depending on theaters to at least break even on cost of production so profits come from the other sources. As theater revenues dry up, remember tickets sales have been dropping for nearly a decade only increased cost of tickets has kept the numbers up, they'll need new sources to replace the theater take. If they have to depend on lower profit sources you can kiss the blockbusters that people have come to expect goodbye. I know the fantasy is that somehow fan based films will take over but honestly are there more than a couple a year that are watchable and a handful that are actually good? There's no system in place to replace the studios so unless we abandon film altogether we need a compromise. If the bandwidth issues can be resolved even cable looks doomed so what are we left with? $1 a piece downloads in say 10 to 20 years? That may make sense for the consumer but if say a million people actually pay for the download, assume more piracy, then we're talking million dollar movies so expect a lot of reality type movies and not much else. Everyone is complaining about ScFi Channel and rightly so but that may be the future of all entertainment. Why? It's cheap to produce. I know everyone feels like Zediva is giving people what they want but who has more right to the content the people that created it or the company trying to make a quick buck off it? Remember all these companies including file sharing services are out to make money and the bet way is to offer content that people want but these services aren't creating anything they are simply leeching off the works of others. Honestly is it going to kill you to wait an extra month to see the new "Hangover" movie? That's really what this is about.
Hey, guys, for a good time, have a look at On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
On Command was doing literally this exact thing, but 20 years ago and (1) with VCRs instead of DVD players; (2) with the VCRs at the hotel front desk and you in your hotel room, instead of with the DVD players in California and you anywhere on the Internet.
Things did not work out well for On Command. However, the legal landscape has changed somewhat in more recent years -- a more relevant ruling might be the 2008 Cablevision DVR case (see discussion e.g. at http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/08/cablevision-wins-on-appeal-remote-dvr-lawful-after-all.ars.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
What stops the MPAA from defining what 'rental' means on the DVD's TOS and explicitly stating that this type of service does not fall under that term? Legal precedent concerning TOS on CDs has been upheld regardless if user has agreed to them.
Fools. If anything, the movie industry should welcome services like Zediva to buy DVDs in bulk since consumer sales of DVDs are down. Or at least compete by offering "official" streaming at lower prices.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Home recording and non-commercial copying of video tapes is legal. The MPAA *has* to fight this, or they forfeit whatever tenuous claims they had against people sharing anything that Zediva has ever stocked.
Netflix and Red Box have blown a hole in DVD sales. It used to be that people would spring ~$15 for a new release to build up their DVD Library. Instead of buying 2 DVD a month they can rent 10 to 30 instead. This is a seachange. Zediva should be able to get away with even fewer DVDs because their turnover is going to be much faster. They won't have to wait for people to mail their CDs back or drop it off. As soon as somebody is done watching they can roll it over to the next.
Streaming, by the way, is not going to make up for lost DVD sales. The studies gets about 80 cents per steam vs a few dollars on a DVD.
Who'd heard of Zediva before this. So, what's cost saving by getting the word out by being sued by MPAA rather than the traditional advertising approach?
You mean, he is both ok and against it.
Durie Tangri has Mark Lemley on board, probably the most renowned IP scholar currently practicing. He helped put together the google books settlement. This case will definitely be something to watch.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
How long before they (MPAA/RIAA/etc) start premptively imprisoning people buying or renting DVDs citing the potential to copy and/or stream the contents? ie: I rent a movie, I put it in a player with DVR or a laptop, and because It CAN be used to copy that MUST have been the intention. Hollywood can go to Hell.
In the Christmas season, I was able to pick up a Seiki BD player for $49. This is a retail unit with Ethernet etc. DVD doesn't have all the extras so should be considerably cheaper than $49. Working with a manufacturer, Zediva might be able to bring cost down even further to make very small dirt-cheap boards, then add a "join fee", so that customers can own their player, hosted by Zediva. Would that make a difference legally?
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041267/] "... Dr. Ordway (Warner Baxter) attempts to solve a murder in a highly interesting place: a sort of call-in jukebox where bar customers may request a particular record to be played ..." Wow, I guess this concept has precedent. Anyone old enough to remember those services actually existing? Muzak on demand.
legal fund?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Against-of-the-MPAA-arbitrariness/130838606992998
Subject line says it all. Rental is the way to go. And everyone will go that way soon. Great loophole.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Tomorrow's headline: Zediva Crushed by 800,000 Lawyers and a Giant Pile of Money (Literally)