Disney Sues Redbox, Hoping To Block Digital Movie Sales (marketwatch.com) 285
phalse phace writes: About 1 month ago, Redbox started selling through their kiosks slips of paper with codes on them that lets the buyer download a digital copy of a Disney movie.But Disney says that's a no-no and this week it sued Redbox in an attempt to stop the code sales. According to Marketwatch: "Walt Disney sued Redbox on Thursday in an attempt to stop the DVD rental company from selling digital copies of its movies. Privately held Redbox last month began offering consumers codes they can use to download a digital copy of a Disney movie. Redbox charges between $7.99 and $14.99 for slips of paper with the codes to download Disney films such as "Cars 3" and "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." That is less than those movies cost to buy and download from Apple's iTunes Store. Redbox is only offering digital copies of Disney movies because it doesn't have a distribution arrangement with the studio and buys retail copies of its discs to rent to customers. Those retail DVDs come with digital download codes."
First Sale Doctrine? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't Redbox resell anything they buy, especially at retail?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've gathered, there are a few issues at play:
1) Redbox neither purchased a digital copy, nor are they selling a digital copy. They purchased and are selling a code that can be used to redeem a digital copy. That said, to actually redeem the digital copy, one needs to agree to Disney's license.
2) Redbox is almost certainly aware that it won't be legal for their customers to redeem those digital copies without also owning a physical copy, since the fine print in these sorts of licenses almost alway
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase.
The digital copy was included in the purchase of box set but in the US, for digital copies, the first sale doctrine does not neatly apply [wikipedia.org] for the obvious reason that a physical copy might degrade over time while a digital copy does not and can be copied multiple times. However, in Europe, if the digital copy could be transferred and made unusable to the previous owner then a re-sell of digital copy is permissible. Now if this happened in Europe, then Redbox could be in the clear because once a code is used
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've gathered, there are a few issues at play:
1) Redbox neither purchased a digital copy, nor are they selling a digital copy. They purchased and are selling a code that can be used to redeem a digital copy. That said, to actually redeem the digital copy, one needs to agree to Disney's license.
2) Redbox is almost certainly aware that it won't be legal for their customers to redeem those digital copies without also owning a physical copy, since the fine print in these sorts of licenses almost always requires that the person also owns a physical copy. As such, those codes are worthless without the physical copy.
3) Redbox is apparently selling the codes as if they are a standalone means to purchase a digital copy, even though they can't be used that way. In doing so, there's an argument to be made that they're either engaging in fraud by portraying the product as something other than it is, or else that they're inducing others to engage in illegal behavior by selling an item that they have every reason to believe will be used illicitly.
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase. The code to redeem it was. And while it's likely perfectly legal to sell the code, portraying it as a standalone item that can be legally used by others without any additional purchase is exactly the sort of thing that I'd expect to see end up in court.
Even if you want to pretend Disney's terms are enforceable:
Buy retail movie + code package.
Sell code and movie together to customer.
Buy movie back from customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can. Unfortunately, Disney's lawyers will surely win out.
Re: (Score:3)
They probably didn't agree to it so now they're selling it to someone else who will accept it
Re: (Score:3)
If it qualifies to be called a "Shrink Wrap License" then it holds water plenty fine. Just ask the supreme court ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I did. The Supreme Court replied it has no jurisdiction in my corner of the planet and I should go ask someone who cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that is not precisely what the US Supreme Court said, the supreme court still has you consider it as a contract of adhesion which does not have nearly the same protections as other contracts do. Please speak to a lawyer before spreading rumours.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we should welcome this particular case as it will likely clarify some aspects that are still open...
Re: (Score:2)
If they aren't using the license, then there is no reason to care about whatever the license may prohibit or allow.
It's like a EULA that says "by opening this, you agree to this license." But if you don't agree to it before that, then you don't ever become bound by the "by opening this" condition. It doesn't apply until after you agree.
Even if most people are still gullible enough to buy into the "by agreeing to this, you agree to this" tautology, Redbox's profes
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they claim to have printed twice on the outside of the box "Codes are not for sale or transfer."
So? That's not enforceable. No one agrees to that.
Re: First Sale Doctrine? (Score:2)
Disney could make a strong argument under 'equity' that bundling download codes with a physical disc as a freebie adds a small amount of value to the disc & takes away little/nothing from their potential sales, but a download code on its own has a MUCH higher value to the purchaser & probably represents a major revenue loss to the studio.
There's also a solid legal argument on licensing alone. Years ago, Microsoft won plenty of lawsuits against businesses & VARs who installed Windows using Enterp
Re: First Sale Doctrine? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not an argument.
R buys product X.
R sells part of X to U.
D, creator of X, cries foul.
R has no agreement with D.
D has no legal claim to X once R buys X.
D has no right to interfere with transactions between R and U.
Redbox is buying the discs at retail, pulling the discs and codes, renting/selling the discs and selling the codes.
They have every right to do this under the first sale doctrine. Disney cannot impose any limitation on what Redbox does with the discs or code slips once Redbox buys them. Redbox is free to do whatever the fuck they want. Worst case, Disney will claim copyright over the code and Redbox will email a picture of the slip of paper immediately and then ship the slip of paper via snail mail for a few cents more. It's the same deal with game download / DLC / demo / etc. access codes given as bundles / swag / promos.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the article meant their getting the retail version, not that they aren't going through a distributor. For other studios they get a special version that's stripped down from what the retail version has, so it's even cheaper than going through a distributor.
Re: (Score:2)
They do go through a distributor. They just don't have a contract with Disney.
Redbox would love to have a contract with Disney like they do with other studios. But Disney either said "fuck you" or said "sure, for $$$$$$$$$$, and 2 months after retail availability, and you have to pull everything once we put it in the vault 2 weeks after that". Redbox, not being cucks, saw that it made more sense to buy DVDs/BluRays directly and rent/sell those, with no strings attached to Disney.
Now Disney wants those st
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me glad my daughter doesn't care for most Disney stuff....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First Sale Doctrine? (Score:5, Informative)
I know the Supreme Court has upheld shrinkwrap licenses, but anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever can see how that decision was wrong.
I shouldn't post this early in the morning. The Supreme Court struck down the shrinkwrap license [freibrun.com] in the case that made it in front of them. And they were right to do so.
But if the box says "no transfers"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Software vendors can take away from this decision some useful tips. Vendors may want to consider giving users the opportunity to review their license terms and conditions by printing them on the outside of their software packaging or otherwise making them available at retail outlets where their products are sold. For phone orders, vendors may consider providing purchasers copies of the license agreement in advance of consummating a transaction, or at least informing purchasers at the time of purchase that the transaction is subject to the terms of the license agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
they could have prevented the problem by printing the actual terms on the outside of the box. Which frankly, sucks.
That's how contract law works. Both parties state their terms and, when an agreement is met, the contract is made. A purchase is a contract, mind you.
If you don't agree to the terms, don't enter into that contract, it's as simple as that.
If the license terms were on the box, Redbox wouldn't have bought the DVDs. In fact, if the license terms were on the box and enforceable, I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't buy them. Sure, at first they would, because they wouldn't know any better; but once we sta
Re:But if the box says "no transfers"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties state their terms
Aha! That's the part I have a problem with. The software distributor gets to state their terms, but the potential buyer at the store effectively does not. And, there is no negotiation for consideration and/or terms. Therefore, I would like law and/or jurisprudence to come down and state "There was no negotiation, and therefore, no agreement could have been entered into".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But if the box says "no transfers"... (Score:4, Informative)
There has to be opportunity to negotiate to meet the legal "meeting of the minds" requirement.
If there's no opportunity to negotiate, there's no contract. A mere purchase is not a contract. A sale (with a bill of sale, etc.) often is.
One sided contracts hold some weight, but not much, because there's no indication that a person was informed of, understood, or agreed to the egregious bullshit hidden deep within. This is why you sign and initial multiple times on a rental agreement, purchase agreement for a vehicle, gym membership, etc. underneath specific clauses.
This is why shysty shops have a sign saying "ALL SALES FINAL" posted somewhere in view of the counter. The shop owner can spout his bullshit about how he'll treat you right, but he'll lie about what he said if you take him to court. Instead, he'll bring a photo of that sign as seen from where you stood at the counter, and a copy of the dated receipt which has similar language on the bottom / back. Proceeding with the transaction despite that clear and obvious sign and the ability to ask the shop owner about it counts. Shrink wrap licenses don't count. Printing terms on the box may count, if they're big enough and obvious enough that a person would see and read them before deciding to make a purchase.
Too this date, I've only seen small print, summary terms and conditions on the box of most products. That's not going to convince anyone that someone agreed to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Too this date, I've only seen small print, summary terms and conditions on the box of most products. That's not going to convince anyone that someone agreed to them.
Indeed, and that's all we'll ever see because the boxes aren't big enough to print the full E
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That should be a no-brainer, super-low bar.
You don't go far enough, though. It's hard for anyone to take seriously that "terms printed on the box" are the same as terms of the sale. There are lots of things printed on the box, such as the fact that Luke Skywalker is the galaxy's last hope or that Arnold is The Terminator. Did you agree to those things,
Re: (Score:2)
That would bar ALL store sales of anything. But... (Score:2)
>. distributor gets to state their terms, but the potential buyer at the store effectively does not. And, there is no negotiation for consideration and/or terms. Therefore, I would like law and/or jurisprudence to come down and state "There was no negotiation, and therefore, no agreement could have been entered into".
That is true of ALL retail purchases. Whether you're buying a lawnmower, a pair of headphones, or software, the retail purchaser does not directly negotiate with the manufacturer or distri
Re:But if the box says "no transfers"... (Score:4, Funny)
" purchase is a contract, mind you."
So if you steal/shoplift the disk, there is no "agreement".... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I wipe my ass with in-box EULAs all the time. No advance knowledge of terms = no contract; that much we agree on.
Re: (Score:3)
What license are you talking about? When you buy the disc, you also buy a piece of paper with a code to get a digital copy. The piece of paper is your license to get the digital copy. If Redbox were actually selling that piece of paper, THEN there could be arguments made about licenses and whether or not first sale applies. But they aren't doing that, they are making COPY of the piece of paper, and selling that. How would first sale, or what is or is not printed on the outside of the box authorize that
Re: (Score:3)
The code itself is a fact and, therefore, exempt from copyright protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you don't know what's anything that on the packaging that Redbox gets or what kind of distribution agreement Redbox has made. If you've looked at the Redbox discs they are most times not the same as you could buy from a store. They were often made for Redbox (printing the QR codes for example on the disc and minimal art on the disc itself). If Redbox bought normal retail discs, there are terms on the outside cover that address this but also Redbox is violating the copyright on those because those are
Re: (Score:2)
There is wording on that slip of paper stating that it cannot be transferred or sold.
Such wording violates the first sale doctrine. You can absolutely sell that piece of paper all day long.
Re: (Score:2)
and it matters not one bit as you can't read it before you buy, anyway; the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that transmission of that fact induces copyright infringement. And you can read it before you buy, the outside of the box clearly states, twice, that the codes can not be sold or transferred.
Someday I'll stop bothering to correct the knee-jerk anti-IP mindset around here, but I guess it's more fun to be right than it is to read a bunch of other people not being wrong and having nothing in particular to add to it.
We've been doing this for 2 decades or more with codes for software and video games.
You sell the actual slip of paper, which is a physical thing protected by the first sale doctrine, not the code.
You can immediately send a photo of the code via email so the person knows what to expect (and immediately toss) via snail mail in 7-10 days.
Re: (Score:2)
In short: If you're going to apply terms to the use of a purchased product, those terms had damned well be available to me in full on the packaging, in which case my purchase signifies an agreement to those terms, or you had damn well better offer me a full refund if I don't agree to terms you didn't provide to me before the sale.
And what if the terms were clear on the packaging [dvdcover.com]: "This product is authorized for private use only. It is prohibited for any other use and cannot be resold or rented individually."
And you'd have to be dense not to know you can't re-distribute copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner. Redbox should know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Such terms are unenforceable twatsnot. See the first sale doctrine, you clown.
Re: (Score:2)
And you'd have to be dense not to know you can't re-distribute copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner.
The download code is a fact. Facts are not protected by copyright. It is Disney's distribution partner who is distributing the copyrighted work when they accept the code in exchange for the download.
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a bit of case law (Softman v. Adobe, for instance), that says that doesn't matter. If it's a one time purchase, with an indefinite period of use, it's a sale of goods, and the first sale doctrine applies.
(There's also case law at the appellate level that disagrees with that interpretation. TFA doesn't say where this was filed, but I'll bet it was California, same district as Softman v. Adobe.)
Re: (Score:3)
But the 'goods' that were purchased are a box, some physical media, and a piece of paper with a code. If they were actually selling any of those things then first sale might apply. But they aren't selling any of those purchased goods, they are selling a COPY of one of the purchased goods.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I buy an Microsoft Office Key Card online but don't activate it, I can't re-sell it?
What about a Windows 10 Retail installer with a product key?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft would say that you couldn't sell it. Whether the law would agree is kind of complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of, but not all that much. The incentive to not do that isn't that it's illegal, it's that if Microsoft sues you, it costs nearly as much to win as to lose, and Microsoft has much deeper pockets.
But that doesn't mean you'll lose if you do have the money to fight.
Re: (Score:2)
The code is part of the purchased goods. I presume it's a one time use code (and if it's not, that's on Disney, not RedBox). Once RedBox owns the copy of the movie, they can do anything that isn't prohibited with that copy. Splitting it up and selling it in pieces is not prohibited, any more than cutting the color illustrations out of a book and selling them as wall are it.
Adobe didn't dispute the right of SoftMan to sell the disk, the disputed the right to sell the license to use the copyrighted material b
Re: (Score:2)
They sell the slip of paper. Have you ever been on eBay looking at software codes, video game / dlc codes, etc.? This has been going on for decades and the lawyers for the software and video game industries gave up shutting down listings once people claimed to be selling the slips of paper and not the codes.
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct. Actual leases, set up as such, are a great deal for the leasing company. And most big software companies don't have a shit about customers.
Re: (Score:2)
The First Sale Doctrine applies if Redbox is paying Retail rates for the DVD+digital package.
Secondly, it looks like Redbox buys some of their DVDs through Wholesale agreements (Sony, but not Universal) to purchase the movies in bulk (since they are buying 10,000 at a time). With this, they are paying a reduced rate per movie box.
From TFS:
Redbox is only offering digital copies of Disney movies because it doesn't have a distribution arrangement with the studio and buys retail copies of its discs to rent to customers. Those retail DVDs come with digital download codes.
Redbox bought these at retail and paid full retail price. They don't have a distribution agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
They definitely bought the retail version. I'm doubtful that they paid the retail price. I'm guessing they bought through a distributor similar to the way a big box store would.
For movies from other studios, it seems like their getting non-retail versions of the movies via their distribution agreements.
Re:First Sale Doctrine? (Score:5, Funny)
seems like their
they're
I have brought great shame to my family.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A distributer in some third world shithole. The grey market rules!
The codes come with the discs, and are paid for (Score:2, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. When Redbox bought the discs, they bought the codes too, since they are included with the disc.
Just as I can sell my code to someone after buying a personal copy of the movie, Redbox should have the right to sell their code as well. If they don't sell the code, and leave it with the disc, the first person to rent the movie will get the code anyway.
If Disney has a problem with this, they should just stop including the codes with the discs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The codes come with the discs, and are paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this will come down to whether or not RedBox is violating the terms. It's more likely to come down to whether or not those terms are legal and enforceable, and that's the angle you'll see RedBox use in their defense.
I for one find it insulting that I buy something and then am held to some terms of its use. It's mine, I paid for it, and you should have no right to tell me how I'm allowed to use it now that it's my property not yours. So I'd like to see RedBox win this.
Re: (Score:2)
So should you be allowed to rip it and stream that content from your website for anyone to see?
No. That would be a violation of copyright, which is a set of terms one can know prior to the purchase. The copyright is listed right on the package and you can learn what copyright is, should you not already be aware, without opening the package. It is the terms included inside the package that don't apply; and the Supreme Court agrees.
Re: (Score:2)
The disc and code go wherever the owner wants them to, via the first sale doctrine. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Will Disney be able to get their way? Probably. Those pieces of shit usually do.
Re:The codes come with the discs, and are paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
The codes are only for use by the owner of the disc. You cannot rent, borrow, or covertly steal a code from a friend. You must be the owner of the physical disc.
Says who? Maybe I bought the disk and refused to agree to any such restriction.
A product purchased at retail is mine, AND I have the right to re-sell anything i've purchased in whole or in part.
A retailer or manufacturer cannot legally bundle items together and prevent me from dividing the bundle and reselling --- that is, unless they make me commit to the terms prior to the sale.
Re:The codes come with the discs, and are paid for (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The PIECE OF PAPER is what is included with the sale. THAT is what qualifies as sellable under first-sale doctrine. Redbox isn't selling that piece of paper, they are selling a COPY of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is the information on the piece of paper not being sold?
How is the code itself copyrightable?
Hint: the code is being sold, the code is not copyrightable, and the sale is a sale of the code to obtain the digital copy whether accessed through the information or through the literal piece of paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Where's the consideration for this "separate transaction"? Particularly since the purchaser of the physical good was already promised the "digital download" on the face of the good as part of the marked price.
This is going to be fun...
Re: (Score:2)
This was already sued and lost (Score:2)
A while ago a company (I think it was CDBaby) tried to offer a service where if you proved you had a real CD, they would allow you to stream the contents of the CD from their servers - so no-one was streaming music for anything they didn't already have a physical copy of.
They still lost, and this I think will be even a more clear cut loss.
Re: (Score:3)
How so? You walk into a Walmart and movie on Bluray that comes with a digital download for $10. You take the slip of paper with the digital code and sell it to a friend for $5. Your friend activates the digital copy and watches the movie and you watch the movie on your disk.
Redbox goes into Walmart and buys a copy of the same movie. Why are they treated differently?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that means there is clear case law that the digital license is separate from the viewing rights of the disc. First Sale doctrine applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Redbox goes into Walmart and buys a copy of the same movie. Why are they treated differently?
Redbox is retailer. You are not.There are different rules if you are business or a private individual especially in copyright law. If you did this for a living, I would think the movie studios would go after you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't buy the 'code' any more than you bought 'the movie'. You bought piece of media containing 'the movie' and a piece of paper that contains a code. Sell that physical media? Fine. Sell a copy of the media (which contains the movie you supposedly 'bought')? Nope. Sell that piece of paper? Fine. Sell a COPY of the piece of paper? Not nearly as clear cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Sell that piece of paper? Fine. Sell a COPY of the piece of paper? Not nearly as clear cut.
Raise.com is a whole marketplace that lets you sell copies of an e-gift card code. They haven't been shut down and I think this is (effectively) the same thing.
As long as only one person gets to redeem the code, and Redbox never agreed to any ToS with Movies Anywhere, I don't see the problem.
Re: The codes come with the discs, and are paid fo (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you haven't. The codes are one-time-use codes. If you charge me $1 to read the post, aware of the fact that I'm reading the post to get the code and watch the movie, you're guilty of fraud, not copyright infringement, because that code won't work for me or anyone else.
More to the point, it can reasonably be argued that statements of non-transferability are statements of fact rather than contractual terms binding upon the recipient, because once used, neither the codes nor the content that they allow you to access can be transferred to anyone, because the website doesn't provide that ability.
Finally, Disney's argument is utterly absurd prima facie. Here's a quick reductio ad absurdum. Consider the following two situations:
In both cases, the result is exactly the same: my neighbor has the code, and I have the disc, and we each spent $5 for that privilege. However, under Disney's fallacious logic, the first one is a copyright licensing violation, and the second one is legal use of the right of first sale, even though the result is exactly the same, and the only difference is in how the funds were transferred. Nothing in the Copyright Act can be reasonably construed to intend such an utterly bizarre distinction in legality between those essentially identical acts, and any judge in his/her right mind should laugh in their faces, declare summary judgment for RedBox, and take the rest of the afternoon off for a round of golf.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The codes are legally presented as something that only the owner of the physical disk can have.
Before or after the sale? (AFTER -- on the paper the code is printed on, which you can't read until you buy and unwrap the disc)
Can Redbox return the discs after they've opened them and learned that they can't resell the codes? (NO -- Once you open a DVD, you're no longer allowed to return it)
If you can't know the terms of the purchase before the purchase, for literally every non-IP product we know those terms don't apply. Why should IP be any different? What if the terms were "by keeping this product a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if they printed it on the outside of the box,
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like it'd be enforceable anyway unless it's on the outside of the packaging where the user can see it before the purchase. I'd love to see them try it, both inside and outside the box. The very first time they sued over it, it would spell the end of that company; the trial would be so publicized that nobody would be able to ignore id, and nobody would willingly give up all of their income for the rest of their life, so sales would drop to 0
You'd be amazed what the media can ignore. And honestly, most people would not follow the news on this if it was publicized. If you don't agree with the terms you see after you open the box, you have grounds for a refund but not much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be amazed what the media can ignore.
Trust me, no I woudln't. I am, however, constantly amazed at what Slashdot posters such as yourself can ignore. Example:
If you can't know the terms of the purchase before the purchase, for literally every non-IP product we know those terms don't apply. Why should IP be any different? What if the terms were "by keeping this product after opening it, you agree to give us 100% of your income for the remainder of your natural life"? Oh, and you can't return it once you've opened it... and you can't know that's a term of the sale until you open it... and you can't open it before you buy it.
Nope. The Supreme Court agrees, too.
You see, I already answered the remainder of your post, 2 posts ago, before you posted it. However, to let that really sink in, I'll continue.
And honestly, most people would not follow the news on this if it was publicized.
Indeed. Until someone who knows the poor sucker being sued over it tells their friends and family about the atrocity that is that product's EULA, then those people spread it, and so on, and so forth, until anybody with a single living friend or famil
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but the codes aren't copyrighted. The digital movie is, and it is Disney themselves (or their authorized digital distributor) who are actually giving the copy of the movie to the person.
If redbox transfers ownership of the physical disk, and then destroys it, I doubt that would invalidate the legality of either the code or the digital download rights of the new owner of the physical disk. I think most people are assuming that redbox is separating the two. Continuing to rent out the physical disk whil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the question Redbox is going for here is does First Sale Doctrine apply. Disney can say whatever they want on the box, but if the court says it falls under the First Sale Doctrine then it doesn't matter what Disney thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes the purchaser in violation of the ToS, not Redbox. Of course that makes them a potential accomplice.
But don't you suspect that they changed these terms when they made the lawsuit public? These probably aren't the terms that were in effect when the earlier codes were originally sold by Redbox.
Either way, just because it's in the terms doesn't mean it's not a violation of the First-Sale Doctrine and has no legal weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably, that could make Redbox guilty of tortious interference, assuming such a bizarre and unexpected contract term is found to somehow be legal (see my reductio ad absurdum elsewhere in the comments), but either way, it isn't a copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Accomplice? What crime was committed? Not agreeing to a private EULA / ToS is not a crime, nor is breaking it.
Re: (Score:2)
"The redemption of a digital code sold or transferred separate from the original physical product is prohibited."
If someone can in fact redeem a code without owning the disc, then it's not actually prohibited, is it?
Lisa: You can't drive, dad. He's got your license.
Homer Simpson: Well, I'm gonna try anyway.
[starts the car]
Homer Simpson: It worked! It's a miracle!
Further, buy the disc + code, redeem the code, sell the disc under the first sale doctrine (back to Redbox by slotting it into any Redbox kiosk and
Legality Won't Matter Here. (Score:2)
This is just too devastating to Darth Mouses Business model.
Disney HAS to stop this through any means.
Not like Darth Mouse is above Evil methods.
Or... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who sends it? (Score:3)
Redbox sells code to download. User uses code to download file from .. where? Are they downloading from Disney or from Redbox?
If they're just selling Disney downloads, I don't understand what Disney's claim would be.
If they're selling their own pirated copies of Disney movies, then I'm surprised this is merely a civil action.
Re: (Score:2)
Redbox buys it's dvds from a third party as they do not have any agreement with Disney. As such they are retail dvds that include a code as a benefit for the purchaser. The code is a Disney provided code, and I would guess the content is on Disney servers.
Copyright Troll Disney (Score:2, Interesting)
Disney is trying to conflate Federal Copyright Law with unenforceable post purchase terms found inside the box (per US supreme court decision). Disney may not like it, but the digital code is part of what is purchased (and in fact propping up the price of Bluray discs to an extent) and is covered under the first sale principle. The sad fact is that this is really Congress fault over at least the last 14 years. The Democrat controlled congress (2006 to 2014?) did nothing to fix or clarify ownership rights
Re: (Score:2)
> So in other words, Congress is completely ineffectual no matter who is in charge.
It was designed to be that way.
Distrust anyone that advocates we alter the way our government works in order to "get something done" or get past congressional deadlock.
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Use Bittorrent and avoid all the hassle.
Dammit (Score:3)
This is Disney, so even if Redbox wins this, they will lose anyway when ol Steamboat Willy rewrites the copyright laws again.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, they likely consider the fact that I've given DVD's to my ex wife for the kids to watch to be illegal in their book. How dare I um...ya...give the DVD to my kids to enjoy at their mother's.
Go ahead...sue me...I don't care. RIAA/MPAA you've stolen more money from artists than anyone else (with the possible exception of the IRS, but I really think you still have them beat.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright infringement takes place on the users end. Using those codes without having possession of the license IS illegal.
Disney / the provider behind the streaming service is the one making the copy. Not the user.
The user is doing nothing illegal by using a code for a movie they don't own. They're just violating Disney's private EULA/ToS. Disney is free to find these users and remove the offending titles from their libraries or block them from using the service in the future.