Slashdot Mirror
Disney Sues Redbox, Hoping To Block Digital Movie Sales (marketwatch.com)
phalse phace writes: About 1 month ago, Redbox started selling through their kiosks slips of paper with codes on them that lets the buyer download a digital copy of a Disney movie.But Disney says that's a no-no and this week it sued Redbox in an attempt to stop the code sales. According to Marketwatch: "Walt Disney sued Redbox on Thursday in an attempt to stop the DVD rental company from selling digital copies of its movies. Privately held Redbox last month began offering consumers codes they can use to download a digital copy of a Disney movie. Redbox charges between $7.99 and $14.99 for slips of paper with the codes to download Disney films such as "Cars 3" and "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." That is less than those movies cost to buy and download from Apple's iTunes Store. Redbox is only offering digital copies of Disney movies because it doesn't have a distribution arrangement with the studio and buys retail copies of its discs to rent to customers. Those retail DVDs come with digital download codes."
I doubt this will come down to whether or not RedBox is violating the terms. It's more likely to come down to whether or not those terms are legal and enforceable, and that's the angle you'll see RedBox use in their defense.
I for one find it insulting that I buy something and then am held to some terms of its use. It's mine, I paid for it, and you should have no right to tell me how I'm allowed to use it now that it's my property not yours. So I'd like to see RedBox win this.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I know the Supreme Court has upheld shrinkwrap licenses, but anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever can see how that decision was wrong.
I shouldn't post this early in the morning. The Supreme Court struck down the shrinkwrap license in the case that made it in front of them. And they were right to do so.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Software vendors can take away from this decision some useful tips. Vendors may want to consider giving users the opportunity to review their license terms and conditions by printing them on the outside of their software packaging or otherwise making them available at retail outlets where their products are sold. For phone orders, vendors may consider providing purchasers copies of the license agreement in advance of consummating a transaction, or at least informing purchasers at the time of purchase that the transaction is subject to the terms of the license agreement.
The codes are only for use by the owner of the disc. You cannot rent, borrow, or covertly steal a code from a friend. You must be the owner of the physical disc.
Says who? Maybe I bought the disk and refused to agree to any such restriction.
A product purchased at retail is mine, AND I have the right to re-sell anything i've purchased in whole or in part.
A retailer or manufacturer cannot legally bundle items together and prevent me from dividing the bundle and reselling --- that is, unless they make me commit to the terms prior to the sale.
The code is part of the sale. It's printed on a slip included with the disc. By accepting the code when whoever I sell it to enters it, they're agreeing to that second transaction you allude to, as well.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Use Bittorrent and avoid all the hassle.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
seems like their
they're
I have brought great shame to my family.
He effected a bored affect.
No, you haven't. The codes are one-time-use codes. If you charge me $1 to read the post, aware of the fact that I'm reading the post to get the code and watch the movie, you're guilty of fraud, not copyright infringement, because that code won't work for me or anyone else.
More to the point, it can reasonably be argued that statements of non-transferability are statements of fact rather than contractual terms binding upon the recipient, because once used, neither the codes nor the content that they allow you to access can be transferred to anyone, because the website doesn't provide that ability.
Finally, Disney's argument is utterly absurd prima facie. Here's a quick reductio ad absurdum. Consider the following two situations:
In both cases, the result is exactly the same: my neighbor has the code, and I have the disc, and we each spent $5 for that privilege. However, under Disney's fallacious logic, the first one is a copyright licensing violation, and the second one is legal use of the right of first sale, even though the result is exactly the same, and the only difference is in how the funds were transferred. Nothing in the Copyright Act can be reasonably construed to intend such an utterly bizarre distinction in legality between those essentially identical acts, and any judge in his/her right mind should laugh in their faces, declare summary judgment for RedBox, and take the rest of the afternoon off for a round of golf.
Just saying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That's not an argument.
R buys product X.
R sells part of X to U.
D, creator of X, cries foul.
R has no agreement with D.
D has no legal claim to X once R buys X.
D has no right to interfere with transactions between R and U.
Redbox is buying the discs at retail, pulling the discs and codes, renting/selling the discs and selling the codes.
They have every right to do this under the first sale doctrine. Disney cannot impose any limitation on what Redbox does with the discs or code slips once Redbox buys them. Redbox is free to do whatever the fuck they want. Worst case, Disney will claim copyright over the code and Redbox will email a picture of the slip of paper immediately and then ship the slip of paper via snail mail for a few cents more. It's the same deal with game download / DLC / demo / etc. access codes given as bundles / swag / promos.