Yes the EMTs stopped the arterial bleeding prior to loading me up, yes they got me there *fast*, but $3500?!?! Holy fuckballs Batman!
What price would you put on a handful of medically trained professionals on-call 24/7/365.24 with a well-stocked mobile medical transport that will come pick you up, with an additional handful of trained fellows in a larger vehicle (fire truck) to assist them? (In our area, every ambulance call includes a fire truck full of firemen to assist the two EMTs if available. A car or two of LE otherwise.)
I was kind of surprised when I moved here 26 years ago to find out that the ambulance service was not totally covered by property taxes, but the $60/year tax that covers their services is one of the few taxes I don't begrudge. I've used it exactly once.
I can see why people with underinsurance / no insurance are choosing to Uber/Lyft if they think it's not "that much of an emergency"
How is this even a story? They would have taken the taxi otherwise. Are taxi drivers any better trained in the medical arts than Uber drivers? Really? The one time I had a ride to the ER in an ambulance I had a taxi going home. Nothing new here.
For a counter example, look at people trying to export 'Western' ideas to the middle or far east. They're usually not able to construct infectious ideas in such a way that they aren't cancelled out by existing ideas.
Would you like a Coke and a Big Mac with those fries, comrade?
If it was a signal strength issue, you could just turn up the transmit power or use antennas with gain.
You can't turn up the transmit power of your GPS receiver, and having an antenna with gain only works if there is enough signal strength to pick something up in the first place. The aluminum hull of an aircraft does very well at blocking the signal.
It's the same in your car or going though a tunnel, you don't have a direct line of sight to enough satellites to calculate a solution.
Not because the satellites aren't there anymore, it's because the signal from those satellites cannot reach the receiver. I.e., a signal strength issue.
But it doesn't really matter. Doesn't work is doesn't work.
Solid rockets are made using the same SORT of chemical reaction that is used in explosives. If you provide a release for the pressure then the burn rate is controllable. If you don't, then the higher pressure results in faster burn rate.
A burn rate that is slower than the pressure can be released is a rocket. A burn rate that is faster than the pressure can be released is a bomb.
Airline profit watchers love how little time the planes spend on the ground.
And they really love how the extra weight increases fuel costs, and how the complexity increases maintenance costs. And how the lawsuits pile up the first time one of these new modern aircraft crash lands and the people can't get out fast enough because they're trapped in a "polycarbonate capsule".
I put my bag in the first bin to my left as soon as I board. It doesn't belong to anyone.
That first bin is almost always at a bulkhead where there is no under-seat storage available. The passengers seated there have no place but the overhead to put their carry-ons, no matter how small they are. You've filled up their overhead space because "it doesn't belong to anyone" just so you don't have to spend your time looking for space near your seat, meaning they may have to spend time searching for space that is well behind them -- and slowing down the boarding for everyone while they do it. And slowing down the unboarding as they have to go against the flow of traffic to get their stuff.
That sounds pretty selfish to me. Why not just carry your things with you to your seat and use the space there?
They determined the best way to board is how Southwest does it.
Define "best". I bet they defined it as "fastest". Fastest is not always best. For example, under SW's method, anyone boarding in the last 1/3 of the line is going to get a middle seat, probably. If you think it is "best" to have a 300 pound person in a middle seat just because he couldn't check in soon enough, then you're welcome to have 300 pound paxs next to you on every flight. I can attest to the fact that it is not best for anyone involved.
Then imagine a family of four trying to fly somewhere and they're later in line. Four middle seats. Cool. Or beg everyone around them to switch to a middle seat so they can get four closer together. Sure.
Why is there this concern about faster boarding to the exclusion of all other considerations? You're all getting there at the same time, and the boarding time is built into the system. You aren't leaving ten minutes early just because you shaved ten minutes off the boarding time. You're leaving at the scheduled time anyway.
and then have the gate agent come get them when it's time to board first-class.
That will cost money and waste time. People near the gate can get to the gate sooner than people in a lounge halfway across the airport. Having to dedicate a person to go get them means higher costs.
In the meantime keep the overhead bins in first-class closed so that people flying coach don't stuff their baggage in there on their way through.
Interestingly enough, knowing how to open an overhead bin is a pretty common bit of information that most flyers have. They sometimes have to do it when they deplane, and just watching someone else do it is usually enough to figure out how.
What I'm trying to say is, you can close the overhead bins, but people passing by who fear not having space where they are will simply open them up and put their stuff in. I've seen them do it to closed bins in economy as they pass by, so why you'd think they wouldn't do it to an apparently empty first class section is interesting.
You could have a waitress, I mean FA, standing there to stop them, but then she's not doing anything productive like getting the aircraft ready for departure or helping people who actually need help boarding.
If a first-class ticket meant getting free admissions to the private lounges and the perks therein, it would be a lot more desirable to pay those prices.
At least for United, most of the people in First are not paying for first class tickets. They are complimentary upgrades for Mileage Plus fliers. On many many flights I've been on, maybe two out of a dozen seats are actual first class tickets. What you'd wind up with is a system where first class paying passengers are the last people on the plane and having to search for overhead space, and those people are the LAST ones you want to piss off. Not only are they paying extra for their seats, they're usually frequent fliers who pay extra more often.
The perks work, so they will stay. I've flown United my entire career, except for a number of times I can count on the fingers of one hand. Every one of those exceptions has been a horrible flight where the airline has had no reason to treat me better than "get on last, get a middle seat" mode. (Except one flight on a government travel order.) I have no reason to switch to any other airline, despite how United sometimes screws things up really bad. (No heat on a winter flight on an Express flight, for example.)
And finally, First is not the holdup when boarding. Yes, there is an initial hiccup as they find seats and put bags away, but from then on the delays come from the many more people getting on in back. You would not speed things up significantly by making first board last.
I should send these guys my log files. I'm sitting here watching a site in China trying to ssh connect to just one of mine every few minutes, even though it has always gotten a connection refused response. I have other sites where the logs are almost nothing but failed login attempts from the same site, with an hourly DHCP lease renewal thrown in just to break the monotony.
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.
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?
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.
The existing system was never designed for this high bandwidth use.
Those who do not know history tend to repeat it.
When the telephone network was designed, it was engineered based on assumptions about call volumes and lengths. Each central office had X long distance trunks to the next higher switch. Each CO had Y "first selectors" and dial-tone generators, based on an assumption of Z% of customers trying to make phone calls at the same time. It would have cost a fortune to provide 100% capacity service, so they didn't. It was pretty routine on days like Mother's Day, when lots of people all want to call Mom at the same time, for customers not to get a dialtone immediately when they picked up the phone, or to get a redial busy (rapid tone) when calling long distance.
And then modems and BBS systems got common. People started breaking the assumptions on a regular basis, and in significant numbers. They dialed into the BBS and spent hours downloading things. They automated calls to pick up messages and email, or to use UUCP. The capacity planning got screwed up.
Telcos tried creating a higher-price tier "data line" and people screamed. "I paid to be able to make calls 100% of the time! You can't DO THAT!"
Fast forward to the Internet and streaming video. The parallel is clear. 100% capacity costs a lot of money, but people expect it without paying the money. In the cell phone context, it costs money to bring in COWs to supplement fixed capacity during periods of high demand. Who pays for that?
The GOP says it supports state's rights. Time for them to put up or shut up.
Yes, because having your local city council regulating what is essentially an international network is going to work SO well. Or even state level regulation.
Our local city council passed a resolution opposing the last Gulf war. See how well that worked out? Very productive use of city taxpayer money.
To get alcohol all you have to do is walk into a store and show your ID and pay for it,
Some of us don't even need to show an ID. But we do to buy a gun.
It is insane that somebody would seriously think it is easier to get a gun than alcohol,
This is what you get when emotion demands "do something" and that morphs into "do anything" because the reasonable somethings we already have aren't enough to provide perfect safety to a completely unarmed group.
That's like arguing that we shouldn't have traffic laws because people still commit traffic violations. That's a straw man argument.
Nobody is saying we should have no gun laws. They are saying that adding more laws to the ones that already don't work is not going to work, either, and only limits what law-abiding citizens can do. Criminals will ignore them tomorrow just like they ignore them today.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "More laws" over and over isn't working; expecting different results is insanity.
Because the existing laws aren't enough.
The existing laws already prohibit every one of the school shootings in the last twenty years. How can they not be enough, if your goal is to stop school shootings?
So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose?
Who died and put you in charge of deciding what purposes other people can find for owning a gun? You don't think you need one, therefore nobody should be allowed to have one. Epic fail.
Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
I can't remember the last time I had to have a background check to buy a beer, but I sure do remember getting one when I bought my last gun. Or are you lumping knives and baseball bats in the "deadly weapon" category to weaken your gun control argument?
How many "deadly weapons" do you want to ban or make harder to buy? Should there be background checks before a kid can buy a baseball bat or lug wrench or camping knife?
Getting a gun already has legal limitations, and "assault rifles" are already heavily licensed. Ban bump stocks? Well, you better ban files because I understand that all it takes to convert a semi AR-15 into a full auto is a file.
Why do you think that more laws will solve a problem that existing laws can't seem to manage to prevent?
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.
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.
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?
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?
From TFS: "The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film." They're renting the DVD, giving the renter a code to download it, too. "Often" means "more than once".
They're increasing their monetisation of the retail assets they are buying.
Yeah, I'd say so. Paying for one copy of something and selling multiple copies.
Yes, the First Sale doctrine is still valid, despite many copyright holders thinking it doesn't apply to them.
Does the "First Sale doctrine" say I can sell multiple copies of what I've bought? That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone. How can they give that code to multiple people?
The disk is one thing. They are renting that, and if you don't bring it back you keep paying. With a code, one and done. You don't have to "give the code back" or keep paying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes the EMTs stopped the arterial bleeding prior to loading me up, yes they got me there *fast*, but $3500?!?! Holy fuckballs Batman!
What price would you put on a handful of medically trained professionals on-call 24/7/365.24 with a well-stocked mobile medical transport that will come pick you up, with an additional handful of trained fellows in a larger vehicle (fire truck) to assist them? (In our area, every ambulance call includes a fire truck full of firemen to assist the two EMTs if available. A car or two of LE otherwise.)
I was kind of surprised when I moved here 26 years ago to find out that the ambulance service was not totally covered by property taxes, but the $60/year tax that covers their services is one of the few taxes I don't begrudge. I've used it exactly once.
I can see why people with underinsurance / no insurance are choosing to Uber/Lyft if they think it's not "that much of an emergency"
How is this even a story? They would have taken the taxi otherwise. Are taxi drivers any better trained in the medical arts than Uber drivers? Really? The one time I had a ride to the ER in an ambulance I had a taxi going home. Nothing new here.
For a counter example, look at people trying to export 'Western' ideas to the middle or far east. They're usually not able to construct infectious ideas in such a way that they aren't cancelled out by existing ideas.
Would you like a Coke and a Big Mac with those fries, comrade?
If it was a signal strength issue, you could just turn up the transmit power or use antennas with gain.
You can't turn up the transmit power of your GPS receiver, and having an antenna with gain only works if there is enough signal strength to pick something up in the first place. The aluminum hull of an aircraft does very well at blocking the signal.
It's the same in your car or going though a tunnel, you don't have a direct line of sight to enough satellites to calculate a solution.
Not because the satellites aren't there anymore, it's because the signal from those satellites cannot reach the receiver. I.e., a signal strength issue.
But it doesn't really matter. Doesn't work is doesn't work.
Any system that makes amazing new knowledge seem harmful is obviously a rotten system.
Any system that doesn't acknowledge that nothing is best for everyone is a pretty stupid system.
Rocket propellants BURN, they don't explode.
Solid rockets are made using the same SORT of chemical reaction that is used in explosives. If you provide a release for the pressure then the burn rate is controllable. If you don't, then the higher pressure results in faster burn rate.
A burn rate that is slower than the pressure can be released is a rocket. A burn rate that is faster than the pressure can be released is a bomb.
Airline profit watchers love how little time the planes spend on the ground.
And they really love how the extra weight increases fuel costs, and how the complexity increases maintenance costs. And how the lawsuits pile up the first time one of these new modern aircraft crash lands and the people can't get out fast enough because they're trapped in a "polycarbonate capsule".
I put my bag in the first bin to my left as soon as I board. It doesn't belong to anyone.
That first bin is almost always at a bulkhead where there is no under-seat storage available. The passengers seated there have no place but the overhead to put their carry-ons, no matter how small they are. You've filled up their overhead space because "it doesn't belong to anyone" just so you don't have to spend your time looking for space near your seat, meaning they may have to spend time searching for space that is well behind them -- and slowing down the boarding for everyone while they do it. And slowing down the unboarding as they have to go against the flow of traffic to get their stuff.
That sounds pretty selfish to me. Why not just carry your things with you to your seat and use the space there?
They determined the best way to board is how Southwest does it.
Define "best". I bet they defined it as "fastest". Fastest is not always best. For example, under SW's method, anyone boarding in the last 1/3 of the line is going to get a middle seat, probably. If you think it is "best" to have a 300 pound person in a middle seat just because he couldn't check in soon enough, then you're welcome to have 300 pound paxs next to you on every flight. I can attest to the fact that it is not best for anyone involved.
Then imagine a family of four trying to fly somewhere and they're later in line. Four middle seats. Cool. Or beg everyone around them to switch to a middle seat so they can get four closer together. Sure.
Why is there this concern about faster boarding to the exclusion of all other considerations? You're all getting there at the same time, and the boarding time is built into the system. You aren't leaving ten minutes early just because you shaved ten minutes off the boarding time. You're leaving at the scheduled time anyway.
and then have the gate agent come get them when it's time to board first-class.
That will cost money and waste time. People near the gate can get to the gate sooner than people in a lounge halfway across the airport. Having to dedicate a person to go get them means higher costs.
In the meantime keep the overhead bins in first-class closed so that people flying coach don't stuff their baggage in there on their way through.
Interestingly enough, knowing how to open an overhead bin is a pretty common bit of information that most flyers have. They sometimes have to do it when they deplane, and just watching someone else do it is usually enough to figure out how.
What I'm trying to say is, you can close the overhead bins, but people passing by who fear not having space where they are will simply open them up and put their stuff in. I've seen them do it to closed bins in economy as they pass by, so why you'd think they wouldn't do it to an apparently empty first class section is interesting.
You could have a waitress, I mean FA, standing there to stop them, but then she's not doing anything productive like getting the aircraft ready for departure or helping people who actually need help boarding.
If a first-class ticket meant getting free admissions to the private lounges and the perks therein, it would be a lot more desirable to pay those prices.
At least for United, most of the people in First are not paying for first class tickets. They are complimentary upgrades for Mileage Plus fliers. On many many flights I've been on, maybe two out of a dozen seats are actual first class tickets. What you'd wind up with is a system where first class paying passengers are the last people on the plane and having to search for overhead space, and those people are the LAST ones you want to piss off. Not only are they paying extra for their seats, they're usually frequent fliers who pay extra more often.
The perks work, so they will stay. I've flown United my entire career, except for a number of times I can count on the fingers of one hand. Every one of those exceptions has been a horrible flight where the airline has had no reason to treat me better than "get on last, get a middle seat" mode. (Except one flight on a government travel order.) I have no reason to switch to any other airline, despite how United sometimes screws things up really bad. (No heat on a winter flight on an Express flight, for example.)
And finally, First is not the holdup when boarding. Yes, there is an initial hiccup as they find seats and put bags away, but from then on the delays come from the many more people getting on in back. You would not speed things up significantly by making first board last.
I'd say more like 99% of attempts are malicious.
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.
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?
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.
The existing system was never designed for this high bandwidth use.
Those who do not know history tend to repeat it.
When the telephone network was designed, it was engineered based on assumptions about call volumes and lengths. Each central office had X long distance trunks to the next higher switch. Each CO had Y "first selectors" and dial-tone generators, based on an assumption of Z% of customers trying to make phone calls at the same time. It would have cost a fortune to provide 100% capacity service, so they didn't. It was pretty routine on days like Mother's Day, when lots of people all want to call Mom at the same time, for customers not to get a dialtone immediately when they picked up the phone, or to get a redial busy (rapid tone) when calling long distance.
And then modems and BBS systems got common. People started breaking the assumptions on a regular basis, and in significant numbers. They dialed into the BBS and spent hours downloading things. They automated calls to pick up messages and email, or to use UUCP. The capacity planning got screwed up.
Telcos tried creating a higher-price tier "data line" and people screamed. "I paid to be able to make calls 100% of the time! You can't DO THAT!"
Fast forward to the Internet and streaming video. The parallel is clear. 100% capacity costs a lot of money, but people expect it without paying the money. In the cell phone context, it costs money to bring in COWs to supplement fixed capacity during periods of high demand. Who pays for that?
The GOP says it supports state's rights. Time for them to put up or shut up.
Yes, because having your local city council regulating what is essentially an international network is going to work SO well. Or even state level regulation.
Our local city council passed a resolution opposing the last Gulf war. See how well that worked out? Very productive use of city taxpayer money.
To get alcohol all you have to do is walk into a store and show your ID and pay for it,
Some of us don't even need to show an ID. But we do to buy a gun.
It is insane that somebody would seriously think it is easier to get a gun than alcohol,
This is what you get when emotion demands "do something" and that morphs into "do anything" because the reasonable somethings we already have aren't enough to provide perfect safety to a completely unarmed group.
That's like arguing that we shouldn't have traffic laws because people still commit traffic violations. That's a straw man argument.
Nobody is saying we should have no gun laws. They are saying that adding more laws to the ones that already don't work is not going to work, either, and only limits what law-abiding citizens can do. Criminals will ignore them tomorrow just like they ignore them today.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "More laws" over and over isn't working; expecting different results is insanity.
Because the existing laws aren't enough.
The existing laws already prohibit every one of the school shootings in the last twenty years. How can they not be enough, if your goal is to stop school shootings?
So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose?
Who died and put you in charge of deciding what purposes other people can find for owning a gun? You don't think you need one, therefore nobody should be allowed to have one. Epic fail.
Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
I can't remember the last time I had to have a background check to buy a beer, but I sure do remember getting one when I bought my last gun. Or are you lumping knives and baseball bats in the "deadly weapon" category to weaken your gun control argument?
How many "deadly weapons" do you want to ban or make harder to buy? Should there be background checks before a kid can buy a baseball bat or lug wrench or camping knife?
Getting a gun already has legal limitations, and "assault rifles" are already heavily licensed. Ban bump stocks? Well, you better ban files because I understand that all it takes to convert a semi AR-15 into a full auto is a file.
Why do you think that more laws will solve a problem that existing laws can't seem to manage to prevent?
But then, that's TFS and this is /. where summaries are never right. My bad for that assumption.
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.
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?
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?
They're increasing their monetisation of the retail assets they are buying.
Yeah, I'd say so. Paying for one copy of something and selling multiple copies.
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.
Yes, the First Sale doctrine is still valid, despite many copyright holders thinking it doesn't apply to them.
Does the "First Sale doctrine" say I can sell multiple copies of what I've bought? That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone. How can they give that code to multiple people?
The disk is one thing. They are renting that, and if you don't bring it back you keep paying. With a code, one and done. You don't have to "give the code back" or keep paying.