Disney Loses in Redbox Copyright Row (bbc.com)

Coming soon the Sequel! by Zorro · 2018-02-22 06:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Darth Mouse Strikes Back!

Re:Coming soon the Sequel! by msauve · 2018-02-22 08:30 · Score: 1

Disney, copyright misuse? That's a tautology.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re: Coming soon the Sequel! by aliquis · 2018-02-22 08:39 · Score: 1

Sounds like attack if the clones

Copyright misuse? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

A judge ruled against Disney on a copyright case?

Please send him gifts, chocolates, etc!

Re:Copyright misuse? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Even if such wording was added... how enforceable would that be?
Simpler example: Combo DVD/Bluray packs which include two different discs with two different copies of the film. With updated wording, would the purchaser of such a thing (a parent or a company) suddenly be required only to loan/sell the pair together? I struggle to imagine an enforceable contract on the back of a plastic box which says I can't loan/give/sell the DVD to one neighbor and the Bluray to another... who can then both watch the films simultaneously & independently.
Re:Copyright misuse? by viperidaenz · 2018-02-22 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative

No, when they bought the DVD they bought two copies, a downloadable one and a physical one.
There's no other way to interpret it. Once you use the code, you can't give it to someone else when you give them the DVD. It's a separate copy.
Re:Copyright misuse? by suutar · 2018-02-22 08:36 · Score: 1

They can't make it physically impractical. They can make it into a situation where they can sue and win, yes.
Your simpler example has one flaw that I see, btw. Downloading a movie is inherently a copy operation. Giving you permission to make that copy under certain circumstances is very different from giving you an extra physical object and trying to dictate its use, as far as copyright law and first sale doctrine are concerned.
Re:Copyright misuse? by suutar · 2018-02-22 08:41 · Score: 1

I don't see it as a single license. I see it as "here's a physical object, and it has an embedded license to watch the media encoded in it. And here's a code, and an implied (or maybe explicit) license to use that code to make one electronic copy of the movie." The first sale doctrine and lots of case law determines that the license to watch the disc goes with the disc, but the license to use the code does not have to be transferable. They just didn't use the right verbiage to make the way they said "it's not transferable" actually stick.
Re:Copyright misuse? by spire3661 · 2018-02-22 09:31 · Score: 2

Actually, at the base level, you are allowed to make personal copies *ad infinitum*. Copyright is much more focused on distribution to others than the actual operation of copying.. You dont need permission to copy anything you have the legal right to. (Sony v Universal).

--
Good-bye
Re:Copyright misuse? by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-22 10:20 · Score: 1

Even if the license of using the code to watch/download the movie is not transferable, the piece of paper with the code written on it is.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Copyright misuse? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-02-22 10:24 · Score: 1

However, the judge rules "the wording on the packaging did not create an enforceable contract." It seems to me that they just need to update the wording to make it enforcable as intended (1 license that is shared across both formats)
If they could do that it would effectively outlaw reselling the disk if the digital copy is used. Fortunately, I don't think a little bit of rewording can do that.
Re:Copyright misuse? by suutar · 2018-02-22 11:09 · Score: 1

Sure, but they don't have to make "allowed to use the code" contingent on having the piece of paper. They can make it contingent on "was the first person to buy the box containing the code from a retailer". Sucks, but if they word it right, legal.
Re:Copyright misuse? by suutar · 2018-02-22 11:22 · Score: 1

True. But you don't have a legal right to make that copy. You simply have permission, hemmed in with whatever restrictions Disney applies. Certainly you have a legal right to distribute the piece of paper however you wish; first sale doctrine on physical objects and all that. But just having a piece of paper with a code does not grant a right; I can write codes on paper all day and it's not going to save me in court.
Disney lost this one only because they didn't write their restrictions correctly for the result they wanted.
Re:Copyright misuse? by rworne · 2018-02-22 19:52 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen the DVD/Blu-Ray displays at stores?
I remember when some of the classic Disney animated films came out, the store display said quite plainly that you "own it" - Not license it. See here (top photo) for a Disney Store advertisement for Snow White. Not only do you own it, the display says you own three different versions of it - the physical media, A digital copy, and what I assume is their multi-platform watch anywhere service version.

--
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Re:Copyright misuse? by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-23 08:34 · Score: 1

In a contract yes. But not in a sell over the counter.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Mister+Liberty · 2018-02-22 07:05 · Score: 1

for instance in the proprietary software and licensing business, or if this was a straightforward case.
Any experts?

Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by arth1 · 2018-02-22 07:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

He also sided with Redbox's argument that Disney was misusing its copyrights by trying to restrict the reselling of copies of its movies after they had already been sold.
Yes, the First Sale doctrine is still valid, despite many copyright holders thinking it doesn't apply to them.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by ArtemaOne · 2018-02-22 08:01 · Score: 2

You aren't making any sense. They don't rent the code and it states that very clearly. They SELL the code and RENT the disc.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by DamnOregonian · 2018-02-22 08:04 · Score: 2

The codes are one-time-use. Redbox doesn't rent them- they sell them.
They're increasing their monetisation of the retail assets they are buying. Rent physical media, sell code they weren't going to use.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by superdave80 · 2018-02-22 08:06 · Score: 1

That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone. How can they give that code to multiple people?
Who said they were reselling to multiple people? The article stated:

It purchases retail copies of Disney movies that include a piece of paper printed with a digital download code, which Redbox then removes to resell in its own packaging.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 09:00 · Score: 1

You aren't making any sense. They don't rent the code and it states that very clearly. They SELL the code and RENT the disc.
They buy one copy of the code. They sell it many times. Does the First Sale doctrine cover that? I thought the question made perfect sense.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by itsdapead · 2018-02-22 09:03 · Score: 1

Not an expert, but:
Copyright is about the right to copy (there's a cunningly hidden clue in the name) - in this case, Redbox haven't copied a thing - just re-sold original goods they've bought from Disney or their authorised distributors, so there's no obvious copyright violation. I think that's the 'copyright abuse'. The Judge has found that the text on the box doesn't create an enforceable contract not to re-sell the codes - but its not clear from TFA that this is a general finding or if Disney just stuffed-up the wording in this case.
I guess the case is equivalent to buying a "DVD + Blu Ray" bundle and selling on the DVD (can any experts answer that?) - Disney need some legal argument to make that enforceable. Note that the case hasn't beed dismissed yet so we don't know what else the Jedi Mouse has up its sleeve.
Also, the case says nothing about whether someone who buys one of the codes from Redbox has legally acquired the right to download a copy of the film from Disney, or has just bought a pretty bit of paper that lets them get away with it.
Unfortunately, it seems to have been pretty solidly established that, with computer software, that end-user licenses are enforceable in general - although individual clauses may be deemed unenforceable - and that even if you have a copy of the software you need an additional license from the copyright holder before you load it up and run it (which entails making further copies). Please don't shoot the messenger.

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by UnknowingFool · 2018-02-22 09:05 · Score: 5, Informative

No. Unlike what the title implies, Disney did not lose the case. Disney lost its motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from selling the codes. Next, the court has to address Redbox's motion to dismiss. If Disney loses that one, then they are closer to losing the case setting some precedent. If Disney wins, then there is still a court case to go through.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 09:05 · Score: 1

Who said they were reselling to multiple people?
TFS. "The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film. ... Redbox rents and sells movies via tens of thousands of automated kiosks that dispense DVD and Blu-ray discs." Do you think they put this code in just ONE of the DVDs they dispense, or was it more than once?
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by ArtemaOne · 2018-02-22 09:08 · Score: 2

You aren't making any sense. They don't sell the code more than once and it states that very clearly. They SELL the code and RENT the disc.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 09:14 · Score: 1

It didn't because your assumptions are incorrect.
They purchase say 100 boxes, inside of each of these boxes are 100 discs, and 100 codes.
They are not reselling the same code over and over and over, each one is different, and came from a different box. Therefore your question MAKES NO SENSE.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by nedlohs · 2018-02-22 09:15 · Score: 1

Your just making shit up. And you apparently can't read the simple English sentences in TFS.
They don't rent the codes.
Refbox buys a combo pack that contains a DVD, a blueray, and a digital code. The rent the DVD and bluray discs. The sell the digital code.
It would take you seconds to check this. By reading the first line of the article, by looking at the court documents (well OK slightly more than seconds on that one), by looking at netflix's web page, or by doing a trivial google search. Or by thinking about it for 10 seconds. But I guess posting the same uninformed crap over and over is more fun.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 09:29 · Score: 1

Your just making shit up. And you apparently can't read the simple English sentences in TFS.
I quoted the relevant ones. If you want to say that TFS doesn't say that Redbox often bundles the code with the DVDs they distribute, you could have said that. But it's more fun to run this on, isn't it?
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 09:45 · Score: 1

Is that bundled at the point of purchase by Redbox or bundled at the point of rental by Redbox's customer?
The first sentence talks about what Redbox does. Redbox buys DVDs and rents those DVDs in their machines. The second sentence says just "the DVDs". I don't think it is hard to think that the second sentence refers to the rental DVDs and what Redbox is doing. If the first sentence talks about what Redbox is doing, and the second sentence can't be bothered to change context to what Disney does, why wouldn't it be confusing?
How hard would it have been to write a clear second sentence and avoid all confusion? "Disney often bundles ..." No question then. Change of subject requires a change of language, and instead of passive you get active voice.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 09:51 · Score: 1

And in bad form, I'll add this to my reply. Read these two sentences together: "The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film. Disney requested an injunction to stop the practice,..." Tell me why Disney has to request an injunction to stop the practice of bundling DVDs with a download code if DISNEY was the one that was doing it. All Disney had to do to "stop the practice" was ... stop doing it. That makes it pretty clear that the bundling wasn't being done by Disney.
But then, that's TFS and this is /. where summaries are never right. My bad for that assumption.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by sexconker · 2018-02-22 09:54 · Score: 2

U R DUM
Redbox tried to negotiate an agreement with Disney in which Redbox would get movies at a reduced price to rent out via their kiosks, possibly with a restriction on availability dates.
Disney either told them to piss off or demanded so much money and such ridiculous delays from retail release that Redbox found it made more sense to just buy the retail Blurays themselves.
When a new Disney Bluray comes out, Redbox sticks it in their kiosks for rental. For titles which have download codes included in the box, Redbox pulls the codes and sells them to anyone who wants to buy them.
Redbox rents out each physical disc as many times as possible. Redbox sells each download code one time.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by DamnOregonian · 2018-02-22 10:26 · Score: 1

You misunderstood what was written... That's ok.
I'll say it again, RedBox sells the codes after separating them from the DVD that they rent out. I know because my girlfriend gets the damn things all the time. They do not resell the codes- you can't, because the codes can't be re-used.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by nedlohs · 2018-02-22 10:31 · Score: 1

You quoted the bit that said Disney often bundled codes with the DVDs, while ignoring the word "reselling" which explicitly states codes were sold rather than rented by redbox.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 10:44 · Score: 1

You quoted the bit that said Disney often bundled codes with the DVDs
I've already talked about this. The summary did not say that Disney bundled the codes. In fact, it said that Disney was suing to get the bundling stopped. Read what I've already written.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by nedlohs · 2018-02-22 11:31 · Score: 1

It says "Disney requested an injunction to stop the practice". With "the practice" obviously referring to what Redbox was doing (why would Disney seek an injunction to stop themselves from doing something after all). The only thing mentioned that that could apply to is "Redbox bought Disney movies on DVD to offer for rental in its kiosks".
You know your interpretation of the English is wrong - looking at the court filings at any of the thousands of articles that use better language than a slashdot summary shows that after all. So why are you sticking to it, rather than just saying "I misunderstood an ambiguous English statement and rather than checking the article just assumed my misunderstanding was true for numerous comments"?
The court filings are crystal clear about Redbox is doing - both parties agree with that part after all.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 13:16 · Score: 1

With "the practice" obviously referring to what Redbox was doing

It would be silly to say that "the practice" was renting DVDs because other companies do that. So, that leaves "bundling", which is the only "practice" mentioned in the sentence right before the reference to "the practice". Sheesh. It's not that clearly written a paragraph.

why would Disney seek an injunction to stop themselves from doing something after all
That's EXACTLY the question I asked about stopping the practice of bundling the code with DVDs.

The only thing mentioned that that could apply to is "Redbox bought Disney movies on DVD to offer for rental in its kiosks".
No, it could also apply to Redbox bundling the code with DVDs it rents. Sentence 1: something Redbox is doing. Sentence 2: passive voice, subject implied to be the same subject as sentence 1. Here, car analogy. Maybe that will help. "You were driving a car. The car was run into a tree." Who ran the car into the tree? Passive voice, no change of subject, so we assume it was YOU who ran it into the tree. But wait! It was actually the company that sold you the car! Because you should know better! You should have read the police report! Same concept: "Redbox rents DVDs they bought. The DVDs were often bundled with a code." Who did the bundling?

You know your interpretation of the English is wrong - looking at the court filings

I've already admitted the mistake of trusting the summary. The summary is not as clear as you think. It does NOT say who did the bundling, and by implication, it was Redbox.

So why are you sticking to it
I'm not. I've already admitted that the summary is typical /. crap.

The court filings are crystal clear about Redbox is doing -

And the summary is not. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. My bad for assuming it was trustable, LIKE I ALREADY SAID. Why are you beating a dead horse?
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 13:20 · Score: 1

You're a fucking idiot. The summary states what REDBOX does at the very beginning - reselling download codes.
And how does it arrange to do that? The summary also talks about bundling with the DVDs, and it says in the next sentence that Disney is suing to stop "the practice".

I know this is Slashdot and you are required to NOT read articles,

I have already said that I understand that the summary was crap. Get off my case and move on to someone else.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by nedlohs · 2018-02-22 13:28 · Score: 1

OK. You took an ambiguous slashdot summary, ignored words like "reselling" that made it pretty clear which of the interpretations of the badly written summary was true, and used declarations like "That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone".
Fine, you trust slashdot summaries so much that reading the first sentence of the article isn't worth it. Your choice.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Aristos+Mazer · 2018-02-22 16:47 · Score: 1

No. They buy 1000 discs. They then rent 1000 discs over and over. They then sell each of the 1000 codes one time each. The code and disc were bundled together in the original purchase, but Redbox rents and sells them separately.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by Aristos+Mazer · 2018-02-22 16:48 · Score: 1

The DVDs were bundled BY DISNEY. After Redbox bought the bundle, they unbundled it, rented the discs and sold the codes.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by catprog · 2018-02-23 10:22 · Score: 1

They buy many discs, each with their own code.
They rent the discs and sell each code once.

--
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by superdave80 · 2018-02-26 11:05 · Score: 1

TFS. "The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film
DISNEY bundled the code with the DVD, not Redbox. Did you not even read my post before commenting? Sheesh....

Do you think they put this code in just ONE of the DVDs they dispense, or was it more than once?
Are you asking me? Because once again, my quote clearly stated that the code was REMOVED from the original DVD, and then RESOLD, not rented.
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent by superdave80 · 2018-02-26 11:11 · Score: 1

The article is poorly arranged, and the summary picked out parts that don't give the proper context (i.e., what 'practice' they are suing to stop), which is causing all this confusion. But next time, if you are going to reply to a post that quotes the actually article, please read the actual article.

Re:Har har! by Drethon · 2018-02-22 07:13 · Score: 1

Let me help with that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Har har! by Drethon · 2018-02-22 07:14 · Score: 1

Sorry, this was just too good of news not to...

Doctrine of First Sale by Khyber · 2018-02-22 07:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry, Disney. Redbox actually buys retail copies. If you didn't want them reselling what's legally theirs, you should've actually fucking cooperated and given them license to distribute instead of forcing them to go this route, which has obviously bitten you in the ass.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Doctrine of First Sale by CODiNE · 2018-02-22 07:38 · Score: 2

You'd think, good luck selling those codes on eBay though. Hope this changes their policy in line with the actual law.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by R3d+M3rcury · 2018-02-22 08:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, the question comes down to "what did you buy?"
Disney feels that what they sold was the movie. You have two ways of watching it--disk or download. But the movie remains the same and that's what you paid for.
Redbox feels that what they bought was the disk & the download code. They stick the disk in their kiosks and resell the download code because they don't need it and it defrays the cost of buying the disk through retail.
Disney would be fine if they resold the disk and the download code. But reselling the download code and keeping the disk is akin to making a copy.
The Judge, it appears, basically says, "Your contract doesn't say that, so you lose."
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:38 · Score: 1

Redbox could buy books and sell the pages one by one if they like. There is nothing "akin" to making a copy they are selling two separate things that they bought for cash. Disney can take a long jump onto a short sword for all I care. They don't get to make up laws by writing them on paper.
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Disney would be fine if they resold the disk and the download code. But reselling the download code and keeping the disk is akin to making a copy.
The Judge, it appears, basically says, "Your contract doesn't say that, so you lose."
Not quite. The judge actually said, "just writing something down doesn't make it true." Your ability to buy a legal copy and then resale it trumps the notion that Disney can choose how or if their sold works are re-sold.
The notion of one piece of work bundled in two formats is only interesting in this case because one of the formats is purely digital. If we had been two different physical media being bundled together -- say, those Blu-Ray/DVD dual-disc packs -- that Disney had sued to keep off the secondary market, then it would have similarly lost and no one would bat an eye.
Now, if Disney could prove that they sold the same code multiple times, then you'd have an argument for copyright infringement.
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by maglor_83 · 2018-02-22 09:59 · Score: 1

Yep. Otherwise Disney would be have to be fine with us downloading BluRay copies of movies that we previously bought on VHS. After all, what they sold us was the movie. As an aside, this is exactly how I think it should work.
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 10:11 · Score: 1

For years Disney would replace scratched disks for $5 (and with the cost of mail they couldn't have been profiting) so their position was consistent, but they stopped that practice recently for unknown reasons.
Re: Doctrine of First Sale by Cederic · 2018-02-22 10:54 · Score: 1

If it did work multiple times, then I suspect it would be deemed contributory copyright infringement. Don't ask me which specific law though, I'm buggered if I know.
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by Areyoukiddingme · 2018-02-22 14:01 · Score: 1

Disney feels that what they sold was the movie.
Luckily the US justice system hasn't devolved to the point where "feels" actually count when determining the facts of a case. Those show up later in criminal trials, and not at all in civil trials.
Re:Doctrine of First Sale by Solandri · 2018-02-22 17:14 · Score: 1

Disney feels that what they sold was the movie. You have two ways of watching it--disk or download. But the movie remains the same and that's what you paid for.
I'll agree with this line of reasoning when Disney upgrades my VHS collection of Disney movies to digital at no charge. After all, by the reasoning above, I already paid for the movies, and the form they're in doesn't matter, right?

Wow, maybe things will change by Anon-Admin · 2018-02-22 07:20 · Score: 2

Back many years ago a local store used to rent software. You could come in and rent just about anything from a set of OS disks to MS word or the latest game. If you liked the title you could keep renting it or just pay the cost of the title.

They also bought the software that they rented/sold.

They were sued for copyright infringement and put out of business. Fast forward 25 years and the court is going the other way.

one word. by sdinfoserv · 2018-02-22 07:23 · Score: 1

good.

so I should have the right to get out restore disk by Joe_Dragon · 2018-02-22 07:25 · Score: 1

so I should have the right to get out restore disks with old computers and not some BS from MS saying that you need to buy an new windows key to be able to sell that system.

redbox has the funds to go to court you small shop by Joe_Dragon · 2018-02-22 07:27 · Score: 1

redbox has the funds to go to court you small shop does not.

Re:Disney is not a nice company by sgrover · 2018-02-22 07:40 · Score: 1

um... Star wars was not owned by Disney when I was a child... Disney bought Lucasfilm in Oct 2012 So for Star wars to be part of your "Disney childhood", you'd have to be less than 6 years old...

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by superdave80 · 2018-02-22 08:05 · Score: 1

In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.

Where is it written that you need a contract to sell something? Do I need a contract to buy a gallon of milk? No. I give the store money, and I walk out of the store with the milk to use as I see fit. Redbox gave Disney money, and Disney gave Redbox a DVD with a digital download code. Transaction is finished.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by Waffle+Iron · 2018-02-22 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The minds did meet: Redbox bought a box containing two things a set price. If Disney didn't intend to sell two things for one price, they wouldn't have put both in the box.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by Albanach · 2018-02-22 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.

But there was a sale. Redbox paid for the item it purchased. The meeting of the minds is between the seller, say Walmart, and the purchaser, Redbox. Walmart said "I have this box and I'll sell it to you for $14.99", an offer Redbox accepted.

The judge appears to have found that Disney's language was insufficient to create a binding shrinkwrap contract.

Deadline has this by way of explanation:

“The phrase “Codes are not for sale or transfer” cannot constitute a shrink wrap contract because Disney’s Combo Pack box makes no suggestion that opening the box constitutes acceptance of any further license restrictions,” the judge wrote.

So absent a shrinkwrap agreement with Disney, you're left with regular copyright law in its place. Alongside that, the purchaser, Redbox, has all the rights that go with the First Sale Doctrine.

Re:so I should have the right to get out restore d by itsdapead · 2018-02-22 08:17 · Score: 1

so I should have the right to get out restore disks with old computers

If you legally purchased physical copies of each of the restore disks you give out then maybe... but if you took it upon yourself to make thousands of unauthorised copies (complete with copies of the official label) and set out to sell them then no, sorry (I assume that's the case you are referring to).

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.

three words... by neo-mkrey · 2018-02-22 08:18 · Score: 1

double plus good

Two Words by MrL0G1C · 2018-02-22 08:19 · Score: 1

Ha Ha.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:20 · Score: 1

In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.

Where is it written that you need a contract to sell something? Do I need a contract to buy a gallon of milk? No. I give the store money, and I walk out of the store with the milk to use as I see fit. Redbox gave Disney money, and Disney gave Redbox a DVD with a digital download code. Transaction is finished.

In law, you make a contract whenever you buy anything. It doesn't have to be on paper, and it can be implicit.

Offering something for sale is called "invitation to treat".

When you buy it, and offer "consideration" (usually money) you have accepted and completed the contract.

So uh... by BronsCon · 2018-02-22 08:41 · Score: 1

I'm constantly expected to "admit" I'm wrong when the facts show that I'm not. Is everyone who argued with me when news of this lawsuit first broke and insisted that I admit to being "wrong" about how this would turn out (and why it would turn out that way) going to show up here and admit that they were, in fact, wrong? After all, it turned out exactly as I said it would; and for the very reasons I stated.

Somehow, though, the whole lot of trolls who like to try to pick me apart here will still insist that I was wrong, I'm sure.

And the judge was absolutely correct in this case: the wording on the package did not imply a contract; and the codes, being facts, are not protected by copyright.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Re:So uh... by BronsCon · 2018-02-22 10:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

So you've read the entire 26 page order, then? You know, as I suggested you do when Disney loses. The judge ruled that Redbox can do what they're doing, which I said would happen, and he did so for the very same reasons I said he'd do so. By any reasonable definition of the word "right" as it applies in this context, I was right.

The Copyright Act gives copyright owners the exclusive right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 106(3); Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2015). That right is exhausted, however, once the owner places a copy of a copyrighted item into the stream of commerce by selling it. Id.; 17 U.S.C. 109(a); Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). In other words, once a copyright owner transfers title to a particular copy of a work, the transferor is powerless to stop the transferee from redistributing that copy as he chooses. UMG Recordings, 628 F.3d at 1180.

There can be no dispute, therefore, that Disney’s copyrights do not give it the power to prevent consumers from selling or otherwise transferring the Blu-ray discs and DVDs contained within Combo Packs. Disney does not contend otherwise. Nevertheless, the terms of both digital download services’ license agreements purport to give Disney a power specifically denied to copyright holders by 109(a). RedeemDigitalMovies requires redeemers to represent that they are currently “the owner of the physical product that accompanied the digital code at the time of purchase,” while the Movies Anywhere terms of use only allow registered members to “enter authorized . . . Digital Copy codes from a Digital Copy enabled . . . physical product that is owned by [that member].” Thus, Combo Pack purchasers cannot access digital movie content, for which they have already paid, without exceeding the scope of the license agreement unless they forego their statutorily-guaranteed right to distribute their physical copies of that same movie as they see fit. This improper leveraging of Disney’s copyright in the digital content to restrict secondary transfers of physical copies directly implicates and conflicts with public policy enshrined in the Copyright Act, and constitutes copyright misuse.

Accordingly, Disney has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its contributory copyright infringement claim.
The judge hasn't ruled yet but has certainly indicated how he intends to rule in this matter. This is the court's way of telling Disney they've lost before the trial even begins.

Much of the parties’ briefing and argument focuses on Redbox’s contention that Disney’s attempts to prohibit transfer of digital download codes are barred by the first sale doctrine. For the reasons stated above, the issues presently before the court can be resolved irrespective of the first sale doctrine question. Indeed, at this stage of proceedings, it appears to the court that the first sale doctrine is not applicable to this case.
That's yet another point I made profusely in the prior discussion, and wouldn't ya know it, according to the judge who issued this 26 page order, I was right.

By Disney’s reading, no “copy” exists until a copyrighted work is fixed onto a downloader’s hard drive, and Redbox’s purchase of a download code therefore cannot possibly involve a “particular copy” to which a first sale defense could apply. Thus, Disney contends, this case is solely about the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and has nothing to do with the right of distribution or, by extension, the first sale doctrine’s limitation on that exclusive right.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:So uh... by BronsCon · 2018-02-22 10:15 · Score: 2

It's even stupider than that; it was his own post that he copied. He does love burning his diminished posting capacity by double-replying to my posts, though.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:So uh... by UnknowingFool · 2018-02-22 19:14 · Score: 1

So you've read the entire 26 page order [documentcloud.org], then? You know, as I suggested you do when Disney loses [slashdot.org]. The judge ruled that Redbox can do what they're doing, which I said would happen, and he did so for the very same reasons I said he'd do so. By any reasonable definition of the word "right" as it applies in this context, I was right.
You do understand what a preliminary injunction is, right? What part of the case has the court decided at this point? No merits of the case has been decided. Therefore you cannot be right about anything as nothing has been decided about the actual case. You also know that a preliminary injunction has different criteria than the actual court case, right? You do understand that both sides can settle, right? You do understand that years of appeals may be ahead, right? No, you don't seem to understand any of that. These are facts you seem to ignore every time.

The judge hasn't ruled yet but has certainly indicated how he intends to rule in this matter. This is the court's way of telling Disney they've lost before the trial even begins.
No. Again, you don't seem to understand that a preliminary injunction != the case. The judge has to decide whether WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED would the plaintiff will win on legal arguments alone to rule. At this point, discovery has not happened and no evidence has been submitted for the judge. Also do you know that since 2008, District Courts have stricter guidelines for ruling for preliminary injunctions due to a SCOTUS ruling? You probably can't name the relevant case, can you?

Another instance of the judge telling them they've lost before the trial even begins.
Again, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED by either side to the court and no discovery has happened. What the court says is that based on oral arguments, they cannot rule in favor of Disney. What you are saying is as ludicrous as saying if Redbox fails to win the motion to dismiss next, then Redbox automatically loses. No that's not how lawsuits work.

Another point I raised back in December that you claimed had already been decided in previous cases. Guess what: the judge just said it hasn't been decided.
No. What you stated (and was emphatically wrong) was that a contract is unenforceable merely because it is shrink-wrapped. What the judge writes clearly but you seem to ignore is that "significant questions remain about the validity and enforceability of those restrictions." The judge is clearly saying the terms might not be enforceable. Nowhere does he say: Shrink-wrapped==unenforceable. Are you going to deny that's what you wrote and was wrong about?

As I said back in December, though, we'll have to wait for the trial decision (or the settlement, though Redbox would be fools to settle given how weak the Judge just told Disney their case is) to find out which of us was truly right; but all indications at this point are that you were wrong, my friend.
And this isn't the trial decision. Not even close.

I would also like to point out that I find it curious that you left me alone for almost three months after I handed you what I believed to be a prime example of a lie, told about you nonetheless. Was there, perhaps, some truth in what I said back then.
No I see you're back to lying about what you wrote. You clearly wrote Shrinkwrapped==unenforceable and you were proven wrong by me and someone else. Now three months later you say you were right about that. Not even close.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:So uh... by UnknowingFool · 2018-02-22 19:16 · Score: 1

You do know that was my post right? For some reason, slashdot said the post didn't go through.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:So uh... by UnknowingFool · 2018-02-22 19:17 · Score: 1

No I want to make sure read facts as you seem to always ignore them. Double-posting might help but I don't you'll ever admit you are wrong.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:So uh... by BronsCon · 2018-02-23 03:17 · Score: 1

K.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:So uh... by BronsCon · 2018-02-23 03:18 · Score: 1

K. Pretty sure it happened back in December, but whatever. Keep your hands off those kids, buddy.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:So uh... by david_thornley · 2018-02-23 06:57 · Score: 1

As I read the BronsCon excerpts, it looks like the judge has decided.
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence. This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no case. This is not an issue of fact, and evidence won't change a thing. This is an issue of law. The judge said that what Disney claimed Redbox did was actually legal.
Not every refusal to grant a preliminary injunction means that the case is decided. If Disney had failed to show some sort of irreparable harm if there was no injunction, for example, the injunction would not be granted, and the trial would proceed. That's not what happened. The judge could have decided that Disney's claims as to what Redbox did were unlikely to be supported by the evidence, but again that's not what happened. The judge rejected Disney's legal arguments as being invalid. Without valid legal arguments, Disney loses.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:So uh... by UnknowingFool · 2018-03-04 11:45 · Score: 1

In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence.

No, in order to grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show without any evidence that they will win among other things not that there isn't a case to be decided. If there is any doubt (like there are questions to be addressed) the court cannot grant the motion. Now if the court grants Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice, that would closer to them winning. But if the court does not grant Redbox's motion, that doesn't mean the Redbox has lost either. It still means the court still has to decide.

This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Not according to

Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no case.

If that were true then the judge would have granted Redbox's motion to dismiss but he didn't.

Not every refusal to grant a preliminary injunction means that the case is decided. If Disney had failed to show some sort of irreparable harm if there was no injunction, for example, the injunction would not be granted, and the trial would proceed.

That is a separate . At this point the only harm that Redbox is doing if they lose is that they owe Disney money. Disney has failed to show any harm besides that.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:redbox has the funds to go to court you small s by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

redbox has the funds to go to court you small shop does not.

So Redbox can buy their equal Justice they want but the small shop can't afford their equal justice. So Redbox is a little more equal than the small shop.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by Cajun+Hell · 2018-02-22 09:09 · Score: 1

Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.

Problem solved. They don't need a license. Why would they want one?

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump

Look in the dictonary by RonVNX · 2018-02-22 09:09 · Score: 1

Disney is the very definition of copyright abuse.

Re:Disney is not a nice company by itsdapead · 2018-02-22 09:10 · Score: 1

um... Star wars was not owned by Disney when I was a child... Disney bought Lucasfilm in Oct 2012 So for Star wars to be part of your "Disney childhood", you'd have to be less than 6 years old...

<sarcasm>But Disney could now re-write history by taking the old, beloved films, drastically re-editing them to remove moral ambiguity, add unnecessary flashy effects and retcon characters, then try to ensure the classic versions were no longer available. Lucasfilm would never have done that.</sarcasm>

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.

A contract is when people agree to exchange by raymorris · 2018-02-22 09:13 · Score: 1

A contract is an agreement to exchange one thing for another. So yes, if you buy a gallon of milk, there is a contract which grants you ownership of the milk.

The requirements of a contract are:

- Agreement (meeting of the minds). Both parties intend the same.
- Offer (I'll sell you this milk for $2.50)
- Acceptance (picks up milk, carry to register)
- Intention. Both parties must intend or expect the agreement to be binding
- Consideration (payment, exchange of some thing)

- Legal purpose (a hit man contract is not enforceable)
- Capacity (Legal age, sound mind)
- Formalities as required by law. (Certain types of contracts, such as the sale of land, may have additional requirements under law)

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by JonBoy47 · 2018-02-22 09:32 · Score: 1

Yes. Disney (via its various retail partners: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc.) sold little plastic boxes that included, inside the box, plastic coasters AND pieces of paper. Two separate items in one package. No wording on the package to imply the two are connected together, whatsoever. Disney can INTEND that to have been selling a "package deal" where the two were inseparable, but they never actually STATED that intent on the package. So they can pound sand. Same thing applies when they sell a "Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack". I'm buying two copies of the movie, in different formats. Three if there's also a download code. Even if Disney had included such language, first sale doctrine would have applied. Disney failed to enforce more restrictive terms as part of the sales contract, and they no longer own, or has any control over the physical object, once they've sold it.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by sexconker · 2018-02-22 09:46 · Score: 2

A sale is a contract, perhaps the most basic kind of contract.

No, it isn't.

So let's look at how contract law applies.

Contracts are not laws. Laws are laws. Contracts are agreements which may or may not be legally enforceable.

And that intent is a critical component of a contract, in this case a sale contract. The term of art used by lawyers is "meeting of the minds". It means you can't accidentally sell something you didn't mean to sell. Either the seller and buyer agreed on what was being sold, or there was no sale at all.

A "meeting of the minds" is required for a contract. No TOS/EULA/clickwrap I've ever seen meets that description. Most gym membership agreements and other one-sided "contracts" don't even satisfy that requirement. If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds. So don't be surprised when a judge with a brain decides that your draconian terms or contract as a whole weren't really a contract. Case in point - this fucking case with Disney and Redbox.

No such "meeting of the minds" is required to purchase something as trivial as a movie on a disc, regardless of the wording you put on the package. I don't fill out and sign a long form when buying a movie, but I sure as fuck do when buying a car. Further, a typical sale would be an agreement between the seller and the buyer, not the manufacturer / publisher / copyright holder and the buyer. Disney doesn't have any hint of a contract in place until someone interacts with Disney to redeem that download code.

Disney wants to tie each code to the physical disc it was packaged with, but they're simply not in a position to do so. They're selling items to distributors who sell them to retailers who sell them to people who use/resell/gift/whatever them. They are far too removed from a legal standpoint and a practical standpoint to exert any control over what someone does with that product.

Judge throws out shrink-wrap license by MobyDisk · 2018-02-22 09:55 · Score: 2

In a 26-page order, Judge Pregerson said that the wording on the packaging did not create an enforceable contract.

That's huge, because so far judges have been willing to enforce shrink-wrap licenses as contracts. Does anyone have a link to the order, because I want to understand when such licenses are valid and when they are not.

Somewhat related, what is the legal status of renting out retail-purchased DVDs? I thought that was illegal. A quick internet search results in multiple seemingly-authoritative answers, all in complete conflict.

Re:Judge throws out shrink-wrap license by Areyoukiddingme · 2018-02-22 13:59 · Score: 1

That's huge, because so far judges have been willing to enforce shrink-wrap licenses as contracts.
The judge didn't throw out the shrink-wrap license theory. He found that Disney's packaging failed to establish a recognizable shrink-wrap license.
Disney DVD packaging is about to become substantially more obnoxious...

Re:How is this different than vidAngel by ScienceofSpock · 2018-02-22 09:55 · Score: 2, Informative

No. What Redbox is doing is selling a slip of paper with a code on it. They own the piece of paper, it came with the DVD's and Blu-rays they purchased. It's arguably no different than reselling anything else that you don't plan on using, and is ACTUALLY protected by first sale doctrine.

What vidAngel was doing was editing movies to remove objectionable content, without the copyright holder's permission, and then streaming those edited videos. They were also circumventing copy protection (in violation of the DMCA) to obtain the streams in the first place. They even tried to use first sale doctrine to claim that they were legal to sell streams because they had actually purchased the DVDs.

This doesn't even begin to touch on the copyright holder's right to not have their artistic vision mucked about with by unqualified hacks. If they wanted their works to be viewed by kids and the overly sensitive, they would have produced G-rated versions on their own.

Aside from the fact that VidAngel tried to claim first sale doctrine protection, These two cases are not even remotely close and the actual difference is that VidAngel did something illegal and Redbox didn't.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-22 10:06 · Score: 1

Considering the fact that party A handed over some goods to party B, and
that party B handed over some money to party A, there most certainly was a trade and a 'contract'.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:Disney has no soul by _Sharp'r_ · 2018-02-22 10:11 · Score: 2

Disney's top political candidate contribution recipients for the 2016 election:
President Clinton, Hillary (D) $404,381
Senate Sanders, Bernie (D-VT) $41,027
Senate Harris, Kamala D (D-CA) $38,485
Senate Kander, Jason (D-MO) $19,838
House Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) $19,250
Senate Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $18,500
House Murphy, Patrick (D-FL) $14,197

Their total contributions to congressional candidates:
Dems: Dems: $489,499 $489,499
Repubs: Repubs: $181,178 $181,178

If their intent was to "give fabulous sums to Republican lawmakers", then they weren't doing a very good job of it...

--
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.

Redbox Killed video Store by jwhyche · 2018-02-22 10:38 · Score: 2

The last video express in my home town finally closed down a few years ago. It was the last place you could go to actually rent a movie in a store. Then outside the corpse of the old store the dropped a redbox.

--
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.

The store cannot sell what they do not own by raymorris · 2018-02-22 11:07 · Score: 2

You can't sell what isn't yours to sell. The store can't sell two licenses unless they first buy two licenses. The only way they can buy two licenses is if Disney sells two licenses.

Re:How is this different than vidAngel by ScienceofSpock · 2018-02-22 11:09 · Score: 1

Personally, I disagree strongly, but by all means, feel free to limit your exposure to these things you find offensive or distasteful. Just don't expect the rest of us to care.

phew by jediborg · 2018-02-22 11:15 · Score: 1

Nice to see the house of mouse loosing at least one copyright battle

Re: Surprising from a legal perspective by jabuzz · 2018-02-22 11:39 · Score: 2

A simpler solution would have been to print the code on the physical DVD/Bluray rather than a piece of paper.

Re:How is this different than vidAngel by MidSpeck · 2018-02-22 12:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Editing moves is perfectly legal in the US (Family Movie Act of 2005).

So, as you know, the lawsuit focused on the technical side. In order to create a streaming copy, they had to break the encryption on the discs (DMCA). And then, even though they owned enough physical copies, they still streamed from that one master copy (obviously).

So I guess they would have needed a big warehouse with some massive disc changers so that you were actually watching the copy that you owned.

No, the kid can take the gum back BC contract is by raymorris · 2018-02-22 12:10 · Score: 2

Contracts by minors are generally voidable - they can undo them. Which means if you sell something to a minor, they can return the item to the store and get there money back. That doesn't mean the contract doesn't exist, and there is a difference between voidable and void. It's a perfectly valid, enforceable contract unless and until the minor voids it. Specifically, that means the minor can enforce the contract against the adult.

There are certain exceptions. One of the most important is a contract for necessities (food etc). This clause is so that people aren't afraid to sell necessities to minors who need them. Another "exception" is that a minor can petition the court to make a contract non-voidable. This can be used with high-dollar contracts such as Selena Gomez's first record contract. The court looks at the contract to ensure it's fair, then endorses the contract to make it binding.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by raymorris · 2018-02-22 12:22 · Score: 1

> If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds.

A soda machine advertises "20 oz bottle, $1" and has a button labeled "Coca-Cola". Clearly the machine owner is offering to sell you a 20oz Coke for $1. You put in your dollar and press the Coca-Cola button. You've accepted the offer. If the Coke isn't delivered, the seller has breached the contract of sale because the meeting of the minds, the agreement, is a Coke for a dollar. They can't just keep your money and say "he put the money in of his own free will, there was no agreement". Agreements can happen without extended discussion, and very often do.

I can't just decide that I own your computer. I can buy it only if you agree to sell it to me. I also can't unilaterally decide that you have bought my old junked car, and you owe me $500 for it. Both buyer and seller must agree in order for a sale to occur. An agreement, followed by an exchange (of goods, money, and/or services) has a special term in law. Agreements backed by an exchange are called "contracts".

If it's just a piece of paper, it's worthless by raymorris · 2018-02-22 14:25 · Score: 1

If what was purchased was just a piece of paper, it's worthless. Disney would have no obligation to trade a ransom piece of paper for a movie. I'm pretty sure that piece of paper is a key used to identify and retrieve the purchase, which is the right to legally download and watch the movie.

Anyone can download the movie, of course, but it's illegal to do so unless you have the license. The paper holds a code which identifies a license. If it DOESN'T represent a license, it's worthless.

Re:Surprising from a legal perspective by Dayze!Confused · 2018-02-22 17:49 · Score: 1

This is just a ruling concerning the preliminary injunction that Disney sought. The judge didn't make a ruling against the case and this will now continue to trial while Redbox can continue their practice of selling the download codes that came with the boxes.

This same practice I see all the time with Amazon CD + MP3 service. People buy the CD with instant rip and download the MP3's while putting the physical disc up for sale.

--
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]

Re:How is this different than vidAngel by Not-a-Neg · 2018-02-23 03:28 · Score: 1

The FMA does not allow selling edited copies of movies, it allows the development and sale of technology to censor movies "on-the-fly" during playback. IOTW, vidAngel could have made a DVD player and sold time-stamped scripts that instructed the DVD player to either blank the screen or jump forward x number of seconds to censor a scene, but they had no legal right to cut content out of a movie then attempt to sell the edited movie.

--
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!

Re:How is this different than vidAngel by MidSpeck · 2018-02-23 07:19 · Score: 1

True, so that's how the web player functioned. The end user would pick and choose what they did or did not want to see/hear and then as it would stream it would skip or mute automatically according to that. The master copy of the stream was obviously the full movie from the disc.

Re:No, the kid can take the gum back BC contract i by superdave80 · 2018-02-26 10:58 · Score: 1

Which means if you sell something to a minor, they can return the item to the store and get there money back.

Stores are required to give your money back if you return something? I've been to PLENTY of stores where they explicitly state that all sales are final.

With a minor, not for necessities, generally yes by raymorris · 2018-02-26 14:15 · Score: 1

Yes, in general, if the purchaser is a minor, and the sale isn't necessities (food, clothes, etc), the minor has the right to void it (dissaffirm) and return the item.

You might also see signs on trucks full of gravel saying "not responsible for broken windshields". Those signs have no legal effect. If the truck driver doesn't properly secure their load, they are liable - a sign doesn't eliminate liability or change legal rights unless there is a law specifically addressing notice in a particular situation.

Slashdot Mirror

Disney Loses in Redbox Copyright Row (bbc.com)

103 of 164 comments (clear)