Slashdot Mirror
Disney Loses in Redbox Copyright Row (bbc.com)
Disney has lost a bid to stop movie rental company Redbox from reselling download codes for its films. From a report: Redbox bought Disney movies on DVD to offer for rental in its kiosks. The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film. Disney requested an injunction to stop the practice, saying that Redbox had no business arrangement with it. A California federal judge accused Disney of "copyright misuse." Redbox rents and sells movies via tens of thousands of automated kiosks that dispense DVD and Blu-ray discs.
Darth Mouse Strikes Back!
A judge ruled against Disney on a copyright case?
Please send him gifts, chocolates, etc!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A simpler solution would have been to print the code on the physical DVD/Bluray rather than a piece of paper.
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.