Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zediva Fights Back Against MPAA

Posted by Soulskill on from the alleged-mistreatment-of-electrons dept.

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."

82 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. It's all about control. by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's all about control. by brit74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Sigh) As much as I hate defending the MPAA because they do want to extend copyright as far as they can, it doesn't mean they're guilty of everything.

      The MPAA wants to control the entertainment sphere of the world.
      No, they're fighting to control the content they created. No need to exaggerate.

      They don't want competition from newer more modern companies, so they use the law to guarantee no competition can exist.
      No company wants competition to exist, but what's going on here has nothing to do with driving out competition. Anyone can create a movie production company.

      They don't want the "customer" to have control, they want it so they can maximize profits for themselves.
      Yes, companies want to maximize profits (what company doesn't?), and, yes, there are many cases where we don't want them / shouldn't let them maximize profits in certain ways (for example, we broke up the movie company / movie theater monopoly because it worked to block any competition). Personally, I always thought the movie rental business was always really weird. Apparently, they can buy one copy of a movie and rent it as many times as they want. With this new "rental" business, I can see why movie companies would (legitimately) have a problem with this business model - it's a super efficient way of renting movies that would allow movie-rental companies to rent a single movie a dozen times a day. But, then, I can see why movie companies have a problem with the traditional movie-rental business, so I don't know.

      Anyway, my main point is that the MPAA might hate competition, but they have zero control over what other people or companies create. They're only fighting to have control over the stuff they themselves created. No need to exaggerate, as if the MPAA owns all movies created everywhere by anyone.

    2. Re:It's all about control. by elucido · · Score: 2

      The RIAA hasn't created a damn thing. Artists create, RIAA pimps artists on a massive scale.
      They own the rights to the creations, but they don't create a damn thing.

    3. Re:It's all about control. by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      The movie rental industry is based on a very simple arrangement actually.

      I agree to sell you a copy of a movie which I own(this is still legal for movies even if you can't do it for all media). As part of the terms of sale I agree to buy the movie back from you at a set price within a set period of time given certain constraints.

      The movie companies back in those days weren't quite as arrogant as they are today and decided if you can't beat em join em, so they sold movies to the rental places at extremely high prices before they released them to the general public. To the best of my knowledge the price isn't as high now, but that's more because the movie industry needs video rental now.

    4. Re:It's all about control. by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "No, they're fighting to control the content they created. No need to exaggerate. "

      This is why they have 'emergency funds' for those artists whose copyright they 'accidentally' infringe for nothing, then? Yea, I don't think so. Witness Canada's version, which recently got busted doing exactly that.

      "Anyone can create a movie production company."

      Assuming they have the money. You forget how hard Hollywood worked (and violated many patents while dong so) to become what they are today. They set a rather high barrier to entry in one form or another.

      "No need to exaggerate, as if the MPAA owns all movies created everywhere by anyone."

      They've been busted distributing a movie internally against copyright. Your words are meaningless in the face of their currently in-light actions.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:It's all about control. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The movie rental industry is based on a very simple arrangement actually.

      I agree to sell you a copy of a movie which I own(this is still legal for movies even if you can't do it for all media).

      Right of first sale still exists and conditionally covers all media as far as I know. (Conditionally because there are certain software packages that are leased, which can't be resold, such as on Steam)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:It's all about control. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      First sale rights no longer exist if the product was made outside of the US, as far as the US is concerned: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/supreme-court-lets-ban-on-gray-market-imports-stand.ars

    7. Re:It's all about control. by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      You are wrong, they do want to control it, but only after it gets 100,000 views. Then they will find any little bit you did in there that they can claim copyright on.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    8. Re:It's all about control. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Try to find a theatre that will show your movie. If you aren't working with the system, using a distributor, then you are blocked from having an audience. They do have control. You could get it on YouTube, but they control the more physical distribution methods. That is why they are fighting against the internet in anyway they can. It takes their control away.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    9. Re:It's all about control. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Note that this only applies to the ninth court.... SC did not actually rule.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. Good ol' MPAA by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  3. There Is No Cat... by NotSanguine · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:There Is No Cat... by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 2

      very, very long cat

      Can't resist, have to say it: "Longcat is loooooooooooooooooooooong!"

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    2. Re:There Is No Cat... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      What does Schrödinger have to say about people pulling his cat's tail? The next thing we'll see on the intartubes, is people slapping monkeys . . .

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:There Is No Cat... by derfy · · Score: 1

      What does Schrödinger have to say about people pulling his cat's tail? The next thing we'll see on the intartubes, is people slapping monkeys . . .

      Without asking him, I'm sure he's either ok with it or against it.

    4. Re:There Is No Cat... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the way it works is that he's both ok with it AND against it, until you ask him.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:There Is No Cat... by i.am.delf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because of quantum entanglement, if you have a long cat in a long box when you open the end in New York and find a tail, the end in Los Angeles is definitely a head.

    6. Re:There Is No Cat... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      But what if your longcat is peer-to-peer?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:There Is No Cat... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Did I leave my chat camera on again? Dammit.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:There Is No Cat... by RadiantPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Then you scratch the cat's head and the person on the other end notices the tail twitching.

  4. Glad they're fighting back by appleguru · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Glad to hear they're fighting back. In my opinion, they have a good chance of winning, even taking into account existing precedence.

    ...Pardon the shameless plug, but I wrote up a good summary of the issues, existing case law, and how Zediva differs on my blog here:

    http://appleguru.org/blog/2011/04/05/zediva-movie-studios-and-copyright/

    --
    appleguru.org
    1. Re:Glad they're fighting back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not a plug, it's blatant advertising aimed at drawing readers away from here, to your blog.

      If you wanted to add to the conversation, you would have summarized your blog here for all of us instead of just saying "hey go to my blog for my thoughts". Then at the end you could have said "To read the unsummarized text: blogURLhere". That's a plug.

      Sorry for the ARRRGness of my post...

    2. Re:Glad they're fighting back by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      Can you actually name a case in recent history in which some programmer managed to skirt a legal restriction by being clever, and actually got away with it? Because none come to mind for me.

      The legal system does not work like we think it does. It's not about logic. It's not about unambiguity. It does not work like programming. Our proof is just not the way legal reasoning works.

    3. Re:Glad they're fighting back by appleguru · · Score: 1

      Heh, karma is going to burn for this... Pardon me for not having the time to write and in depth summary of my summary (from my iPhone...). When you've actually read what I have to say feel free to come back and hate. Ps, my post did exactly what you suggested: I stated my opinion of this development (good for zediva for fighting back!), summarized my blog post ("a summary of the issues, existing case law, and how Zediva differs"), and provides a link to read the details. No one is forcing you to click the link... Or to read my /. posts for that matter.

      --
      appleguru.org
    4. Re:Glad they're fighting back by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      I, for one, don't mind your shameless plug as it is at least somewhat informative.

      I'm curious, however, as to one of your arguments:

      The consumer is the one pressing play. Therefore, the one âoeperformingâ the work is the end user, and not Zediva (in the Redd Horne case, the store clerks were pushing play). In Zedivaâ(TM)s case, the consumer is the one playing a movie that they have rented, on a player that they have rented, to a display in their own homes.

      If Zediva is renting out both the DVD and the player somehow - then how does that DVD get out of the DVD box and into the DVD player? Are they auto-loaded? If so - who stocks the auto-loader?

      This is aside from technical questions relating to whether they really are just renting out the DVD (given that they effectively transcode its content for viewing, and then stream it to the user.. no matter how much they like to avoid the legal definition of streaming, somehow), and whether or not they really have a whole server farm of actual DVD players playing back actual DVDs (i.e. one DVD + player per viewer of that DVD, and not just a single disc image on HDD/in RAM that gets played back with a user limit so as to be able to claim limited DVD playback), given that you can't access - for example - special features (as per their own FAQ).. which should be entirely possible if this were really just a DVD player being controlled remotely somehow.

    5. Re:Glad they're fighting back by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "When you've actually read what I have to say feel free to come back and hate."

      No, we'll hate because you are detracting from the purpose of this site. Keep the fucking discussion here or get the fuck back inside your reality distortion field and stay quiet.

      You're exhibiting the same thieving mentality of Jobs. It isn't welcome here.

      Fuck yes I burned my moderation in this thread just to respond. People like you are a blight.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Glad they're fighting back by appleguru · · Score: 1

      From a copyright perspective does it matter who loaded the disc (Machine, human, Zediva employee, trained monkey or otherwise)? The law in question gives specific exclusive rights to copyright holders for public performances. If blockbuster wanted to rent you DVD players with the discs already in them I don't see any laws that would prevent it.

      Regarding your point about avoiding the "legal definition of streaming," they aren't. There are no laws preventing streaming media. The applicable copyright law is against public performance. So as long as your space-shifting "streaming" can be considered a private performance (as I argue it can in Zediva's case), then no laws have been violated.

      RE special features: it is entirely possible, and will be coming in future versions. But for now they've limited the buttons to play, pause, fast forward and rewind. You really are controlling the actual disc in an actual DVD player.

      --
      appleguru.org
    7. Re:Glad they're fighting back by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Alternately, manually load the DVDs into the players, no autoloading needed - if you want to watch a certain movie, you're rented the player that has that DVD in it.

    8. Re:Glad they're fighting back by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, bummer.. I thought you did get special features. (I heard this discussed on the HDTV & Home Theatre podcast recently.)

      That would be a benefit to me, especially if they have the 'real' DVDs, and Netflix (voluntarily) often has the rental versions of DVDs with no extras.

    9. Re:Glad they're fighting back by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      It may have helped that Google has an army of lawyers that vet everything prior to release to make sure they can legally handle it. But you're missing my point, which is that whenever a handful of programmers come up with what would be called a legal hack if it worked, they indubitably get laid a massive legal smackdown, and we all sit around acting surprised.

      It doesn't require any contortions of logic to see that the Google services you mention above fall under fair use. It does require logical contortions to see how renting someone something but not giving it to them, instead giving them a different electronic representation thereof, would be the same thing—in a legal sense. This means: not as we conventionally understand things, not "in truth," not "in reality," not taking into account whatever dirty tricks this plaintiff engages in. In the law's idea of things like ownership, transferral, right, equity and equality.

      It's like someone, somewhere once told us all that the government or the law exists to make things fair, and we really believed it, and act all indignant when it's used for its true purpose: violence.

  5. Define "Streaming"? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Define "Streaming"? by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or - bear with me for a moment - we could abolish the ridiculous concept that media is somehow different depending on how you access it (and should thus priced, released and controlled differently) and realize that it's the same legal object, whether it's played in a theater, bought on DVD, bought on pay-per-view, watched on broadcast TV, downloaded, or streamed.

      Seriously, when you think about it, the entire concept is ridiculous. The whole system is preposterous. Staggered release by region. Staggered release by medium. Street dates. Pre-screenings. No-resale clauses. It's all patently absurd.

    2. Re:Define "Streaming"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes it is being streamed, no doubt about it. 'Streamed' as in transferred over a cable, or a set of wires, or wireless. But isn't that what a HDMI cable does? This is not broadcasting. It is the per-view rental of the content, exactly as a video store would do. Only the delivery method has changed.

    3. Re:Define "Streaming"? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately (fortunately?) it is not the job of lawyers or judges to legislate. Their job is to interpret the existing law correctly.

      They sometimes (often) deviate from that into declaring new laws, but that is NOT their job, and we are better off when they dont.

    4. Re:Define "Streaming"? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Streamed" an old word with a new meaning here. There is no legal definition of this "streaming" in this context. If there's some sort of contract Zediva signed in order to get the rights to rent the movies and that contract that forbids "streaming" then I would hope that the meaning of "streaming" is defined in the contract.

      Where the MPAA will have a firm legal ground is if Zediva purchased rights to rent one copy of a movie and then ended up "renting" to multiple customers simultaneously. Ie, if you go to blockbuster and they don't have any copies of your movie on the shelves then your out of luck; if they have 20 copies of the DVD on their shelves then they have purchased the rights to rent out at least twenty copies. The studios are going to purposely limit the number of rental DVDs in the market in an attempt to drive up sales of DVDs, and Blockbuster can't legally copy those DVDs to make more.

      So the question is what is Zediva actually doing? If they have 20 DVDs and they physically play them in physical players which are then streamed over the net, then they're probably ok legally. However if they have 20 licenses but 100 people can watch the movie at the same time then Zediva is violating the license and acting more like a broadcaster than a rental firm. The physical DVD player scenario doesn't sound convenient to either Zediva or the viewer so I doubt this is the model they use.

    5. Re:Define "Streaming"? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If you re-read what I said, I've already covered that using DVI as an example. HDMI is pretty much DVI with the exception that it also passes audio too. My point being in an inverted manor would be this. Even if it was possible (which it's not), you could run a direct HDMI link from Zediva to your house and it might constitute as "Streaming". However, run that cable 100 miles between two homes you own, and it would not.

      Simple put, I'm making the point about location and ownership that defines whether or not the digital content is constituted as "Streamed".

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Define "Streaming"? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The people using this service "Own" the DVD player (renting it), they own (rented) the disk, and they own (rent) the wires delivering the picture to their tv. There is no difference between what they are doing and driving to the movie rental place (with a tv in your motor-home but no dvd player) and plugging their player into their wall plug then running the cable out the window to your tv (in the rv). At no time does the signal leave your (rented) property.

    7. Re:Define "Streaming"? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes some may sound absurd but it's legal because of copyright. The copyright owner controls the ability of others to make copies. That means that your local TV station can not just buy one copy of the DVD and then broadcast it that night to a thousand viewers.

      In that sense the manner of viewing is indeed vital. Each copy needs to be granted. Sometimes it's a blanket grant, such as allowing a broadcaster to broadcast after they pay a fee which is based upon the size of the expected viewing audience. Sometimes it's a very limited grant such as buying a DVD and only being able to use it yourself but not for public viewing (no projection onto the side of the dorm for college movie night). A video rental house are not able to legally make copies, but they can always buy multiple copies of the same DVD so that they can rent to multiple people.

      It sounds absurd that there are different regions. But the ability to make a copy is under the control of the owner. If they decide they want their copies to have a special encoding then that is their right and no one else has the right to make an additional copy without the protection attached. Of course I think that once you buy it you have the right to take it across borders or to put it in a player that ignores the region encoding or to make a archival copy for your own personal use only.

    8. Re:Define "Streaming"? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      It is. From people who have used the service : when you "rent" a movie from them, you see the output of an actual DVD player in a warehouse somewhere, connected via some type of standard output cable to a server that digitizes the stream and compresses and sends it to you. The player app allows you to send remote commands to this player just like pressing a remote control. You can't skip the commercials at the beginning or FBI warnings.

      Zediva is doing the best they can to provide their service in a way they think might be legal.

      If you go idle for more than an hour, your player/dvd combo that you rented is reset and made available for someone else to use. This is the big difference that hurts the MPAA. With Netflix, if you rent that DVD that Netflix paid about $10-$15 for, you will have it in your possession or it will be in the mail for days. No one else can rent it then. If you go to RedBox, you will have it for up to 24 hours AND due to the fragmentary nature of the kiosks there will be a lot of disks in a RedBox machine sitting idle.

      Zediva eliminates this, so they have to buy a fraction of the DVDs of Netflix and Redbox. We can argue technicalities all day but it does give the people making the movies less money. In the long run, that is bad for the movie industry.

    9. Re:Define "Streaming"? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying that "distributing without permission" should be legal. I was saying that MAFIAA needs to realize that they're only hurting themselves by insisting on spreading their content as thin as possible by restricting everything. They need to switch to a single, unified release - when a movie comes out, it comes out everywhere, in every way. That would reduce piracy (half the movies I've pirated was just because I didn't want to spend a fortune at the theater to watch it, but couldn't get it otherwise), and you know what? it would make their advertising more effective.

      And for what it's worth, the company in question actually does have permission, implicitly, to rent out the movies. They're paying for the same license Blockbuster or the ilk use. They're exploiting a loophole, certainly, but it's a loophole that only exists because of legal sleight-of-hand in the first place.

    10. Re:Define "Streaming"? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      they own, say, five legal copies then rent them out to five paying customers at a time

      If they rent to five customers, and the sixth customer gets a "Sorry" error screen, then that is fine. If they have five legal copies and rent out more than five copies simultaneously, then the MPAA has a perfectly valid case.

    11. Re:Define "Streaming"? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should you be allowed to, essentially, distribute a copy of a work when you don't have the permission to do so?

      Why not? Why should anyone need any permission to do that? We can borrow recordings from public libraries. We can invite our friends over to watch. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing over the Internet?

      we have to have some control over the media we create

      No, we don't.

      else the term "profit" will mean almost nothing.

      Of course I knew that's what you were getting at. There are ways to profit from artistic endeavor without copyright, without any control whatsoever over what people do with works of art. The way you talk, you'd think copyright is the only way anyone can make art without starving. Not so!

      And there's really no choice. We'll have to move to a different business model. Neither legal nor technical methods can enforce restrictions on the ability to make copies. Declaring that everyone may be a pirate, and suing us by the thousands, has been an abysmal failure. DRM is a stupid joke.

      You ought to be thankful the universe doesn't work the way the entertainment cartels evidently wish it to, for if it did, we'd all be much poorer.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    12. Re:Define "Streaming"? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I think your signature has some issues with your post.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    13. Re:Define "Streaming"? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      They sometimes (often) deviate from that into declaring new laws, but that is NOT their job, and we are better off when they dont.

      You really should learn something about how the legal system works before opening your mouth. Case law is, and has been for roughly 1000 years (essentially since the Norman Conquest of England), a fundamental feature of our judicial system. In the absence of applicable statutes and case law judges extend existing statutes and case law to create new case law. Case law can be overridden by statute, and has some weird jurisdiction issues, but is otherwise binding law in any common law system (the US and the UK being the prime examples). Judges are SUPPOSED to write new case law when necessary. Of course, they do sometimes fuck up (creating case law when they shouldn't, or creating blatantly irrational/nonsense case law *cough*soylent green is corporations*cough*, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS their job. You arbitrarily stating otherwise on the internet does not change 1000 years of consistent practice.

    14. Re:Define "Streaming"? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Call me a cold-hearted bastard, but I can't seem to summon up any sympathy for the poor, downtrodden movie industry on this one.

    15. Re:Define "Streaming"? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      .... It's all patently absurd.

      They own the patent on it?

      figures

      --
      Be seeing you...
    16. Re:Define "Streaming"? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      You mean copyrightly absurd.

      --
      expandfairuse.org
    17. Re:Define "Streaming"? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      One could argue that it's streaming if you're transferring data over the wire from a location outside your legal ownership.

      You can play a rented DVD on a rented DVD player connected to a rented television in a rented apartment. Taken to the extreme it would be "streaming" for Amazon to transfer data to you in the form of a plastic disc, unless you want the government to start deciding which methods of wired (and wireless) communications count for the purposes of streaming. Given the wave/particle duality of light you could argue that a completely optical network actually does distribute physical photons just like Amazon ships DVDs.

    18. Re:Define "Streaming"? by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      in the future, yes you will, if they have their way. not only that, but you'll be paying every single time you view any single part of it.

      --
      ...
    19. Re:Define "Streaming"? by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Of course you do! I'm talking about you ripping your DVD and giving me a copy of your ripped DVD, while you keep your original DVD. I have nothing against lending things, in fact I love it.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    20. Re:Define "Streaming"? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      What this company is doing is obviously infringement

      Why is this "obviously" infringement? I think they've taken a clever approach to the problem. They are literally renting you a DVD player *and* a DVD.. nobody else is using that player or DVD while you are watching it (and from previous discussions of it, I think you actually have a very long time to watch the movie).

      It is being "copied" when being streamed to you, but you could argue that the cable between your DVD player and TV is making a copy too.

      It seems to me essentially the same as DVD rental places, which we know are covered by the First Sale doctrine.

      (BTW, at least according to "typical slashdot mindset", I usually side much more on the MPAA side.. I think they should go after all of the people illegally torrenting media.)

    21. Re:Define "Streaming"? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone need any permission to do that? We can borrow recordings from public libraries.

      You can do that *because* of the First Sale doctrine. That is the (legal) permission being given.

    22. Re:Define "Streaming"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course I knew that's what you were getting at. There are ways to profit from artistic endeavor without copyright, without any control whatsoever over what people do with works of art. The way you talk, you'd think copyright is the only way anyone can make art without starving. Not so!

      I'm tired of this.
      Prove your point! Make a company and start earning money with copyright free (copy left) art work, be it movies, music or other art.
      Go on ... show me that you make 10,000 artists earning their living via your "business model".

      You seem to be completely clueless and only seem to want others peoples work for free.

      And there's really no choice. We'll have to move to a different business model. Neither legal nor technical methods can enforce restrictions on the ability to make copies. Declaring that everyone may be a pirate, and suing us by the thousands, has been an abysmal failure. DRM is a stupid joke.

      That is right ofc.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Define "Streaming"? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of it too. Tired of this accusation that we're just a bunch of freeloaders, and tired of these cheesy challenges of the sort you just made. If someone did what you say, would you really be convinced? I doubt it. Because it is already being done with software development, and you are overlooking it. As just one example, there's a company called Red Hat that is earning money with copyleft software. They employ quite a few software developers. There's also the Humble Indie Bundle. I bought that. And those being games, there was indeed art in there. I've bought many games and music CDs over the years. But see, that won't convince you either. I'm sure you'll still call me a freeloader.

      Further, the environment is extremely hostile. This is not a level playing field in which the best ideas win. In this chicken and egg problem, the law should be changed first. But it won't be. It'll be the last thing to catch up.

      Nor are most artists doing all that well with the existing system! The cartels have screwed them too.

      Plus, artists are appallingly backward. What struck me the last time I popped into an art festival was the ludicrousness of their expectations. They all seemed to be hoping some rich idiot with more money than sense would come along and scoop up their precious painting or scupture for absolutely crazy prices like $3000 or $15000. And if that does happen, it will disappear into the obscurity of a private collection. And it is that expensive in part because of the "artistic" techniques they insist on using. As a tool for creating and working on art, the computer cannot be ignored, but most were ignoring it. This is absolutely the wrong way to go about art. We should have organizations pool money, buy the art, and then scan, copy, and distribute it to the world. I'd be happy to toss $10 into a pool with thousands of others to buy some good art. For their part, they could do a lot to help by providing their works in a digital format to make the aforementioned distributing easier. In fact, I insist. Or they shan't see any of my money. But noooo, they're so afraid of piracy they'd rather starve. They put up signs begging people not to take photos, or threatening them if they do. The best offer they have at a reasonable price is a deliberately low quality print. That is no way to treat customers. Then there's the egregious crap the typical museum pulls. Long though copyright lasts, they tend to have a lot of stuff that most definitely is no longer under copyright. But all the same, they try to keep everything locked up, try to tell us that we can't take photos of our own belongings.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    24. Re:Define "Streaming"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As just one example, there's a company called Red Hat that is earning money with copyleft software.

      I knew you would come up with this ;D
      And if you would know what red hat is doing, you would know it does not support your point.
      They make money from someone elses work. Because someone else made it copy left. And exactly that would happen to every artist if there was no copyright.

      They all seemed to be hoping some rich idiot with more money than sense would come along and scoop up their precious painting or scupture for absolutely crazy prices like $3000 or $15000.

      And? Why don't you make the math?
      If I work for a year on a sculpture, it does not matter how much it is "worth" according to "market value" I nevertheless invested (depending on living costs) 20k to 30k dollars.

      The rest of your post makes sense: but you fail to see: exactly that can be done with current copyright law. Just instead of a "copy left" clause, put a "This is distributed and copy righted under the bzipitidoo trust (terms are here)".

      You can easily form such an organization and do what you want: as long as there is copy right. If copy right is gone ... you can't do that anymore.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Define "Streaming"? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but AFAIK "case law" and "precedent" is supposed to simply be either A) interpreting and clarifying existing law, or B) abolishing existing law on reasons (ie, for constitutionality reasons).

      It is NOT (again, AFAIK, IIRC, IANAL) supposed to be about creating new law-- that is what we call legislation, and that is what we have legislators for. There is a reason we have 3 branches in our government, and it wasnt to consolidate 2 roles of the government into the Judicial branch.

  6. Everything old is new again :) by AEton · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Everything old is new again :) by fermion · · Score: 1
      Interesting read. One thing I noticed is that a key issue was the relationship between the viewer and hotel, which made it a transmission to the public, which requires an explicit license. I wonder if something that was set up like a co-op, with a buying, a stake, and a monthly fee would change this relation so transmission would be allowed. That would be like a neighborhood buying DVDs and them sharing them amongst themselves.

      At the basis is an attempt to minimize third party profit on movie products. The studios though blockbuster was bad, and now they have netflix, and probably have no idea where it will end. As most of this is caused by physical DVD sales, they would be good to stop making DVDs and just stream everything.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Everything old is new again :) by BillX · · Score: 1

      So basically, the entire issue lives or dies according to some small linguistic / legal hack?

      True story: A local artist / hackerspace group in my town has a significant contingent of folks who homebrew beer, and decided to throw an event where the folks who brewed would each bring some in to sample & share - the brewers would donate a batch, and the non-brewers who wanted to sample some would toss in a few bucks at the door to cover the venue and everything. Long story short, the lawyers told 'em they couldn't do this, because they don't have a liquor license and this would constitute selling liquor. But instead, the lawyers said, they could have the brewers donate a batch, and the non-brewers toss in a few bucks at the door - for a "one-day membership" "in a club", at which "free beer would be served", and they'd be completely in the clear.

      Come to think of it, this does sound extremely similar to the Cablevision case, in which a huge amount of legal wrangling centered on which end would "initiate" the recording on the remote-hosted DVR (which already both encoded and streamed the content individually on a per-user basis, rather than the much more logical, if more questionable, encode-once-stream-on-demand approach), since this apparently would make all the difference in the world.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  7. Bad idea by lyinhart · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Bad idea by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      If Zediva is indeed buying physical copies and controlling the rentals such that the amount out available for streaming matches their physical count, I don't see how they could be in violation. I didn't RTFA, obviously, and once lawyers are involved, all common sense is out the window, though...

    2. Re:Bad idea by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Technically and logically speaking, they aren't in violation. Legally speaking, who knows.

  8. Re:What stops the MPAA from changing the DVD TOS? by rbollinger · · Score: 1

    Putting Terms of Service on a DVD doesn't really make sense to me. Terms of Service apply to an actual service provided, such as an online subscription or an communications contract. A violation of Terms of Service will revoke your privilege to use the service. Owning a DVD is not a receiving a service. What would they do if you violated the TOS, revoke your privilege to watch the DVD's you own?

  9. If this is just a VCR with a long cable... by lolcutusofbong · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:If this is just a VCR with a long cable... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      How? The client computer isn't making a copy any more than your TV makes a copy of what the DVD player sends it. The 'really long HDMI cable' argument is extremely apt.

  10. Sigh, no. by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sigh, no. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Either way sounds like too much money.

      Welcome to capitalism, charge what the market will bear or STFU.

    2. Re:Sigh, no. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      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.

      [Mythbusters]Well there's your problem![/Mythbusters]

      Seriously, there's no difference between renting a DVD and paying for time-limited stream access. If the prices are different, then the prices are wrong, simple as that.

    3. Re:Sigh, no. by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Really? No difference? One can run on nearly all types of DVD hardware, requires a physical store, and lets renters walk around and browse (at least the old model did). Streaming and DVD rentals are two different markets with different demographics. Even though the end product is the same, there's a huge difference with the whole experience.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    4. Re:Sigh, no. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, and what I meant (and should have said) is that the price paid to the studio should be the same.

    5. Re:Sigh, no. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The studio isn't paid *AT ALL* beyond the original purchase when DVDs are rented. (I'm referring to the "buy a normal commercial DVD, rent it" scenario. The "rental DVDs" issue is different, and is due to voluntary agreements between rental companies and the studios.)

      The studio *is* presumably paid per rental for streaming (or possibly a single fee license, depending upon the agreement), since that doesn't fall under the existing laws and of course multiple copies of the stream could be being used simultaneously.

  11. Cheaper than advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Cheaper than advertising by operator_error · · Score: 1

      Who'd heard of Zediva before this.

      People that read the NY Times, for example.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/technology/personaltech/17pogue.html

  12. Good Team by speedplane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  13. Re:What stops the MPAA from changing the DVD TOS? by Betaemacs · · Score: 1

    Sssshh! If they announce that new "feature" it's all you buddy.

  14. Re:What stops the MPAA from changing the DVD TOS? by speedplane · · Score: 1

    A Terms of Service is really just a contract. A contract can cover anything from buying services, products, or virtually any agreement that you can imagine.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  15. Re:It was never about technology by Betaemacs · · Score: 1

    You've got that backwards. Theatre revenues have been drying up due to crap offerings, horrible visual / audio experience, inconvenience and high prices. The solution is not to stop technological progress or force everyone to stick with the old inefficient (but profitable) distribution method. If the existing MPAA companies cannot adapt to providing quality products at the convenience / price point that the market will bear, some other company will. When the dinosaurs died off the little furry guys moved in and have done fairly well.

  16. The Crime Doctor's Diary (1949) by Thad+Zurich · · Score: 1

    [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.

    1. Re:The Crime Doctor's Diary (1949) by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      interesting.. and one of the reviews of the movie talks about a similar service being used in a previous Doris Day movie.

  17. Where can I donate to their by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    legal fund?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Where can I donate to their by RadiantPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Here, I presume.

  18. Bravo Zediva by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    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