An interesting case on copyright, EULA, ...

[John F]

"Disney’s lawsuit against Redbox may have backfired
A district court judge believes Disney may have abused copyright itself."

https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/22/...source=Twitter

[pwalker8]

The first Sale doctrine. It's been the case since 1908. The only really novel thing about the ruling is that Redbox can sell the download code separate from the DVD. Many times companies assert rights that they don't have. Not the first time Disney has overplayed their hand.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The first Sale doctrine. It's been the case since 1908. The only really novel thing about the ruling is that Redbox can sell the download code separate from the DVD. Many times companies assert rights that they don't have. Not the first time Disney has overplayed their hand.

That's been the case for physical media, like books, from which no other copy needs to be made in order to use the media, but not for "software", requires a copy to be made into computer memory. Extra licenses are not necessary to read a book (and such licenses are, in fact, unenforceable). Software, however, requires a copy to be made in computer memory. The right to make this copy does not exist (at least one court has ruled) apart from a license.

As bizarre as the U.S. state of things is, you may buy, own and pass on physical media containing software without having the right to run it on your computer. That requires a separate license.

Without getting into the spirit or intent of copyright (and thus hopefully avoiding "politics and religion"), the Redbox ruling is in some ways completely backward from previous US rulings. The main issue here is whether possession of a download code constitutes license to download (and thus, make a "copy") of the video. Based on previous decisions, I would expect the code to be considered a means to protect the non-transferable license, rather than an instrument of the license itself.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

As bizarre as the U.S. state of things is, you may buy, own and pass on physical media containing software without having the right to run it on your computer. That requires a separate license.

That's the case everywhere, not just in the US. I have a DVD of Adobe Content Server, salvaged from a box of junk software at work, that I use as a coaster for my coffee mug. Possession of the DVD certainly doesn't grant me a licence to run the software.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

...the Redbox ruling is in some ways completely backward from previous US rulings.

I'm guessing it won't stand. Disney's pockets are too deep and (as you say) this is kind of a "backward" ruling anyhow. I thought rental DVDs and retail DVDs were priced differently (and that's not even factoring in the Digital Codes). I've bought three of these Digital Codes, but figured there was some kind of agreement in place. (Not that I'm particularly worried about Disney.) It didn't even (at first) occur to me that these were all Disney movies. Apparently RedBox found some kind of loophole in Disney's licensing. I'm guessing, if nothing else, the license will change for future movies.

[fjtorres]

It might be reversed.
It might stand.
Or it might open an FTC or antitrust mess for Disney for bundling and/or anticompetitive measures.
Redbox is unbundling combo packs because Disney refused to license the movies to them at any price. And with Disney preparing two streaming services built around those movies...

On tbe Redbox side, there is precedent: Blockbusters and the entire video rental business started out off consumer videos. It was years before WB introduced lower priced videos for sale (with the first Tim Burton BATMAN movie) and when that sold tons other studios introduced the dual pricing scheme into the shrink wrap license.

But that has never been tested in court.
And First Sale doctrine arose out of a similar case with books, when NY publishers tried to control resale pricing of books using copyright and "licensing" language.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobb..._Co._v._Straus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firs...ine#Exceptions!

The restrictions on software and music (but not audiobooks) are explicit exceptions granted by Congress. Video does not have such an explicit exemption in current law.

Redbox can argue that Disney is asking the judge to usurp congressional power and create an exemption for video that Congress has failed to provide.

So Engadget has it right: can of worms.
It is not a given that Redbox is going to lose.

The most likely outcome is an out of court settlement where Disney licenses to Redbox and they don't need to use commercial bundles.

[pwalker8]

If I recall correctly, it was the Wraith of Khan VHS released in 1983 rather than the 1989 Batman movie that started the lower price VHS model. I think I still have the original VHS tape sitting in a box in my closet. I also have some VHS tapes that I paid $80 for.

For the rest, I agree, the most likely out come is an out of court settlement.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

On tbe Redbox side, there is precedent: Blockbusters and the entire video rental business started out off consumer videos. It was years before WB introduced lower priced videos for sale (with the first Tim Burton BATMAN movie) and when that sold tons other studios introduced the dual pricing scheme into the shrink wrap license.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If I recall correctly, it was the Wraith of Khan VHS released in 1983 rather than the 1989 Batman movie that started the lower price VHS model. I think I still have the original VHS tape sitting in a box in my closet. I also have some VHS tapes that I paid $80 for.

Actually, it was Top Gun (which included a Pepsi commercial at the beginning). I remember it being a big deal at the time and here's an article to back up my memory: How Tom Cruise and Pepsi Changed The Way We Watch Movies

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Actually, it was Top Gun (which included a Pepsi commercial at the beginning). I remember it being a big deal at the time and here's an article to back up my memory: How Tom Cruise and Pepsi Changed The Way We Watch Movies

Let's see, the Wraith of Khan was released in 1983 for $40, half the normal price and is credited with starting the trend to release at lower prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_T...han#Home_media

Top Gun came out in 1986, for $25. So the Wraith of Khan was the first VHS released at the lower price($40 instead of $80), but Top Gun was the first released at the $25 price point.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Let's see, the Wraith of Khan was released in 1983 for $40, half the normal price and is credited with starting the trend to release at lower prices.
[

That’s “Wrath”, not “Wraith” .

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Let's see, the Wrath of Khan was released in 1983 for $40, half the normal price and is credited with starting the trend to release at lower prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_T...han#Home_media

Top Gun came out in 1986, for $25. So the Wraith of Khan was the first VHS released at the lower price($40 instead of $80), but Top Gun was the first released at the $25 price point.

Yeah, it looks like there were experiments, like The Wrath of Khan, but Top Gun is the watershed release that set the price point from then on. Here's an article from the New York Times about Top Gun's release, from 1987. Though it mentions the typical price for a home video release was $80-90 (crazy!), it also mentions that Beverly Hills Cop and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were released for $30. There's a quote from a Disney exec saying that there could be two home video markets. Releases for rentals from video stores and releases for the mass public to own.

Interesting bit of trivia: The success of Top Gun finally convinced Steven Spielberg to release E.T. to home video.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the case everywhere, not just in the US. I have a DVD of Adobe Content Server, salvaged from a box of junk software at work, that I use as a coaster for my coffee mug. Possession of the DVD certainly doesn't grant me a licence to run the software.

Did you know that your coaster is broken because it has a hole in the middle?

I once used an AOL CD to keep our kitchen table from wobbling. It turned out to be the perfect size.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That’s “Wrath”, not “Wraith” .

By now a wraith is all that's left of Khan.

[DuckieTigger]

And yet, here again in the today prices are creeping back up. New releases on 4K UHD are $25-30.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

And yet, here again in the today prices are creeping back up. New releases on 4K UHD are $25-30.

What I don't like is these multi-packs. If I want a 4K movie, Why should i also pay for a blu-ray version? I'm not going to be watching it. The only time I want another version is 3D. Then it's OK to bundle the non-3D. Also, if I buy blu-ray, I do not want to pay for the DVD. Also, it's stupid to give a code for a digital version that expires.

There's things the movie companies can do to lower the price and make more sales. I've been buying used and saving money.