Disney Loses in Redbox Copyright Row (bbc.com) 164
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.
Coming soon the Sequel! (Score:5, Funny)
Darth Mouse Strikes Back!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Coming soon the Sequel! (Score:1)
Sounds like attack if the clones
How is this different than vidAngel (Score:1)
vidAngel got shut down (newly re-emerged) for renting DVD streams online. This actually seems far more of a step over the line than what vidAngel did. I guess the difference is the size of the Lawyer budget.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. What Redbox is doing is selling a slip of paper with a code on it. They own the piece of paper, it came with the DVD's and Blu-rays they purchased. It's arguably no different than reselling anything else that you don't plan on using, and is ACTUALLY protected by first sale doctrine.
What vidAngel was doing was editing movies to remove objectionable content, without the copyright holder's permission, and then streaming those edited videos. They were also circumventing copy protection (in violation of the
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I disagree strongly, but by all means, feel free to limit your exposure to these things you find offensive or distasteful. Just don't expect the rest of us to care.
Re: (Score:2)
The FMA does not allow selling edited copies of movies, it allows the development and sale of technology to censor movies "on-the-fly" during playback. IOTW, vidAngel could have made a DVD player and sold time-stamped scripts that instructed the DVD player to either blank the screen or jump forward x number of seconds to censor a scene, but they had no legal right to cut content out of a movie then attempt to sell the edited movie.
Copyright misuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
A judge ruled against Disney on a copyright case?
Please send him gifts, chocolates, etc!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if such wording was added... how enforceable would that be?
Simpler example: Combo DVD/Bluray packs which include two different discs with two different copies of the film. With updated wording, would the purchaser of such a thing (a parent or a company) suddenly be required only to loan/sell the pair together? I struggle to imagine an enforceable contract on the back of a plastic box which says I can't loan/give/sell the DVD to one neighbor and the Bluray to another... who can then both watch the films
Re: (Score:2)
They can't make it physically impractical. They can make it into a situation where they can sue and win, yes.
Your simpler example has one flaw that I see, btw. Downloading a movie is inherently a copy operation. Giving you permission to make that copy under certain circumstances is very different from giving you an extra physical object and trying to dictate its use, as far as copyright law and first sale doctrine are concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But you don't have a legal right to make that copy. You simply have permission, hemmed in with whatever restrictions Disney applies. Certainly you have a legal right to distribute the piece of paper however you wish; first sale doctrine on physical objects and all that. But just having a piece of paper with a code does not grant a right; I can write codes on paper all day and it's not going to save me in court.
Disney lost this one only because they didn't write their restrictions correctly for the res
Re:Copyright misuse? (Score:5, Informative)
No, when they bought the DVD they bought two copies, a downloadable one and a physical one.
There's no other way to interpret it. Once you use the code, you can't give it to someone else when you give them the DVD. It's a separate copy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as a single license. I see it as "here's a physical object, and it has an embedded license to watch the media encoded in it. And here's a code, and an implied (or maybe explicit) license to use that code to make one electronic copy of the movie." The first sale doctrine and lots of case law determines that the license to watch the disc goes with the disc, but the license to use the code does not have to be transferable. They just didn't use the right verbiage to make the way they said "it's n
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the license of using the code to watch/download the movie is not transferable, the piece of paper with the code written on it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but they don't have to make "allowed to use the code" contingent on having the piece of paper. They can make it contingent on "was the first person to buy the box containing the code from a retailer". Sucks, but if they word it right, legal.
Re: (Score:2)
In a contract yes. But not in a sell over the counter.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen the DVD/Blu-Ray displays at stores?
I remember when some of the classic Disney animated films came out, the store display said quite plainly that you "own it" - Not license it. See here (top photo) [blogspot.com] for a Disney Store advertisement for Snow White. Not only do you own it, the display says you own three different versions of it - the physical media, A digital copy, and what I assume is their multi-platform watch anywhere service version.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.
Where is it written that you need a contract to sell something? Do I need a contract to buy a gallon of milk? No. I give the store money, and I walk out of the store with the milk to use as I see fit. Redbox gave Disney money, and Disney gave Redbox a DVD with a digital download code. Transaction is finished.
Re: (Score:1)
In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.
Where is it written that you need a contract to sell something? Do I need a contract to buy a gallon of milk? No. I give the store money, and I walk out of the store with the milk to use as I see fit. Redbox gave Disney money, and Disney gave Redbox a DVD with a digital download code. Transaction is finished.
In law, you make a contract whenever you buy anything. It doesn't have to be on paper, and it can be implicit.
Offering something for sale is called "invitation to treat".
When you buy it, and offer "consideration" (usually money) you have accepted and completed the contract.
No, the kid can take the gum back BC contract is (Score:3)
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 ne
Re: (Score:2)
Which means if you sell something to a minor, they can return the item to the store and get there money back.
Stores are required to give your money back if you return something? I've been to PLENTY of stores where they explicitly state that all sales are final.
With a minor, not for necessities, generally yes (Score:2)
Yes, in general, if the purchaser is a minor, and the sale isn't necessities (food, clothes, etc), the minor has the right to void it (dissaffirm) and return the item.
You might also see signs on trucks full of gravel saying "not responsible for broken windshields". Those signs have no legal effect. If the truck driver doesn't properly secure their load, they are liable - a sign doesn't eliminate liability or change legal rights unless there is a law specifically addressing notice in a particular situation.
A contract is when people agree to exchange (Score:2)
A contract is an agreement to exchange one thing for another. So yes, if you buy a gallon of milk, there is a contract which grants you ownership of the milk.
The requirements of a contract are:
- Agreement (meeting of the minds). Both parties intend the same.
- Offer (I'll sell you this milk for $2.50)
- Acceptance (picks up milk, carry to register)
- Intention. Both parties must intend or expect the agreement to be binding
- Consideration (payment, exchange of some thing)
- Legal purpose (a hit man contract is
The store cannot sell what they do not own (Score:3)
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.
If it's just a piece of paper, it's worthless (Score:2)
If what was purchased was just a piece of paper, it's worthless. Disney would have no obligation to trade a ransom piece of paper for a movie. I'm pretty sure that piece of paper is a key used to identify and retrieve the purchase, which is the right to legally download and watch the movie.
Anyone can download the movie, of course, but it's illegal to do so unless you have the license. The paper holds a code which identifies a license. If it DOESN'T represent a license, it's worthless.
Re:Surprising from a legal perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
The minds did meet: Redbox bought a box containing two things a set price. If Disney didn't intend to sell two things for one price, they wouldn't have put both in the box.
Re:Surprising from a legal perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [deadline.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a ruling concerning the preliminary injunction that Disney sought. The judge didn't make a ruling against the case and this will now continue to trial while Redbox can continue their practice of selling the download codes that came with the boxes.
This same practice I see all the time with Amazon CD + MP3 service. People buy the CD with instant rip and download the MP3's while putting the physical disc up for sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem solved. They don't need a license. Why would they want one?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Disney (via its various retail partners: Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc.) sold little plastic boxes that included, inside the box, plastic coasters AND pieces of paper. Two separate items in one package. No wording on the package to imply the two are connected together, whatsoever. Disney can INTEND that to have been selling a "package deal" where the two were inseparable, but they never actually STATED that intent on the package. So they can pound sand. Same thing applies when they sell a "Blu
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: Surprising from a legal perspective (Score:3)
A simpler solution would have been to print the code on the physical DVD/Bluray rather than a piece of paper.
Re: (Score:2)
> If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds.
A soda machine advertises "20 oz bottle, $1" and has a button labeled "Coca-Cola". Clearly the machine owner is offering to sell you a 20oz Coke for $1. You put in your dollar and press the Coca-Cola button. You've accepted the offer. If the Coke isn't delivered, the seller has breached the contract of sale because the meeting of the minds, the agreement, is a Coke for a dollar. They can't just keep your money and
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the fact that party A handed over some goods to party B, and
that party B handed over some money to party A, there most certainly was a trade and a 'contract'.
I wonder if this ruling creates precedent (Score:2)
Any experts?
Re: (Score:2)
Not an expert, but:
Copyright is about the right to copy (there's a cunningly hidden clue in the name) - in this case, Redbox haven't copied a thing - just re-sold original goods they've bought from Disney or their authorised distributors, so there's no obvious copyright violation. I think that's the 'copyright abuse'. The Judge has found that the text on the box doesn't create an enforceable contract not to re-sell the codes - but its not clear from TFA that this is a general finding or if Disney just stu
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I wonder if this ruling creates precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
He also sided with Redbox's argument that Disney was misusing its copyrights by trying to restrict the reselling of copies of its movies after they had already been sold.
Yes, the First Sale doctrine is still valid, despite many copyright holders thinking it doesn't apply to them.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't making any sense. They don't rent the code and it states that very clearly. They SELL the code and RENT the disc.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't making any sense. They don't rent the code and it states that very clearly. They SELL the code and RENT the disc.
They buy one copy of the code. They sell it many times. Does the First Sale doctrine cover that? I thought the question made perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't making any sense. They don't sell the code more than once and it states that very clearly. They SELL the code and RENT the disc.
Re: (Score:3)
They're increasing their monetisation of the retail assets they are buying. Rent physical media, sell code they weren't going to use.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say it again, RedBox sells the codes after separating them from the DVD that they rent out. I know because my girlfriend gets the damn things all the time. They do not resell the codes- you can't, because the codes can't be re-used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But then, that
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking idiot. The summary states what REDBOX does at the very beginning - reselling download codes.
And how does it arrange to do that? The summary also talks about bundling with the DVDs, and it says in the next sentence that Disney is suing to stop "the practice".
I know this is Slashdot and you are required to NOT read articles,
I have already said that I understand that the summary was crap. Get off my case and move on to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone. How can they give that code to multiple people?
Who said they were reselling to multiple people? The article stated:
It purchases retail copies of Disney movies that include a piece of paper printed with a digital download code, which Redbox then removes to resell in its own packaging.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said they were reselling to multiple people?
TFS. "The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film. ...
Redbox rents and sells movies via tens of thousands of automated kiosks that dispense DVD and Blu-ray discs." Do you think they put this code in just ONE of the DVDs they dispense, or was it more than once?
Re: (Score:2)
Your just making shit up. And you apparently can't read the simple English sentences in TFS.
They don't rent the codes.
Refbox buys a combo pack that contains a DVD, a blueray, and a digital code. The rent the DVD and bluray discs. The sell the digital code.
It would take you seconds to check this. By reading the first line of the article, by looking at the court documents (well OK slightly more than seconds on that one), by looking at netflix's web page, or by doing a trivial google search. Or by thinking abo
Re: (Score:2)
Your just making shit up. And you apparently can't read the simple English sentences in TFS.
I quoted the relevant ones. If you want to say that TFS doesn't say that Redbox often bundles the code with the DVDs they distribute, you could have said that. But it's more fun to run this on, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
You quoted the bit that said Disney often bundled codes with the DVDs, while ignoring the word "reselling" which explicitly states codes were sold rather than rented by redbox.
Re: (Score:2)
You quoted the bit that said Disney often bundled codes with the DVDs
I've already talked about this. The summary did not say that Disney bundled the codes. In fact, it said that Disney was suing to get the bundling stopped. Read what I've already written.
Re: (Score:2)
It says "Disney requested an injunction to stop the practice". With "the practice" obviously referring to what Redbox was doing (why would Disney seek an injunction to stop themselves from doing something after all). The only thing mentioned that that could apply to is "Redbox bought Disney movies on DVD to offer for rental in its kiosks".
You know your interpretation of the English is wrong - looking at the court filings at any of the thousands of articles that use better language than a slashdot summary sh
Re: (Score:2)
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, sub
Re: (Score:2)
OK. You took an ambiguous slashdot summary, ignored words like "reselling" that made it pretty clear which of the interpretations of the badly written summary was true, and used declarations like "That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone".
Fine, you trust slashdot summaries so much that reading the first sentence of the article isn't worth it. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFS. "The DVDs were often bundled with a code to download a copy of the film
DISNEY bundled the code with the DVD, not Redbox. Did you not even read my post before commenting? Sheesh....
Do you think they put this code in just ONE of the DVDs they dispense, or was it more than once?
Are you asking me? Because once again, my quote clearly stated that the code was REMOVED from the original DVD, and then RESOLD, not rented.
Re: (Score:3)
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
so I should have the right to get out restore disk (Score:2)
so I should have the right to get out restore disks with old computers and not some BS from MS saying that you need to buy an new windows key to be able to sell that system.
Re: (Score:2)
so I should have the right to get out restore disks with old computers
If you legally purchased physical copies of each of the restore disks you give out then maybe... but if you took it upon yourself to make thousands of unauthorised copies (complete with copies of the official label) and set out to sell them then no, sorry (I assume that's the case you are referring to).
Doctrine of First Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, Disney. Redbox actually buys retail copies. If you didn't want them reselling what's legally theirs, you should've actually fucking cooperated and given them license to distribute instead of forcing them to go this route, which has obviously bitten you in the ass.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think, good luck selling those codes on eBay though. Hope this changes their policy in line with the actual law.
Re:Doctrine of First Sale (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the question comes down to "what did you buy?"
Disney feels that what they sold was the movie. You have two ways of watching it--disk or download. But the movie remains the same and that's what you paid for.
Redbox feels that what they bought was the disk & the download code. They stick the disk in their kiosks and resell the download code because they don't need it and it defrays the cost of buying the disk through retail.
Disney would be fine if they resold the disk and the download code. But reselling the download code and keeping the disk is akin to making a copy.
The Judge, it appears, basically says, "Your contract doesn't say that, so you lose."
Re: (Score:1)
Redbox could buy books and sell the pages one by one if they like. There is nothing "akin" to making a copy they are selling two separate things that they bought for cash. Disney can take a long jump onto a short sword for all I care. They don't get to make up laws by writing them on paper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disney would be fine if they resold the disk and the download code. But reselling the download code and keeping the disk is akin to making a copy.
The Judge, it appears, basically says, "Your contract doesn't say that, so you lose."
Not quite. The judge actually said, "just writing something down doesn't make it true." Your ability to buy a legal copy and then resale it trumps the notion that Disney can choose how or if their sold works are re-sold.
The notion of one piece of work bundled in two formats is only interesting in this case because one of the formats is purely digital. If we had been two different physical media being bundled together -- say, those Blu-Ray/DVD dual-disc packs -- that Disney had sued to keep off the secondary
Re: (Score:2)
If it did work multiple times, then I suspect it would be deemed contributory copyright infringement. Don't ask me which specific law though, I'm buggered if I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney feels that what they sold was the movie.
Luckily the US justice system hasn't devolved to the point where "feels" actually count when determining the facts of a case. Those show up later in criminal trials, and not at all in civil trials.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with this line of reasoning when Disney upgrades my VHS collection of Disney movies to digital at no charge. After all, by the reasoning above, I already paid for the movies, and the form they're in doesn't matter, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Otherwise Disney would be have to be fine with us downloading BluRay copies of movies that we previously bought on VHS. After all, what they sold us was the movie. As an aside, this is exactly how I think it should work.
Wow, maybe things will change (Score:3)
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.
redbox has the funds to go to court you small shop (Score:2)
redbox has the funds to go to court you small shop does not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
redbox has the funds to go to court you small shop does not.
So Redbox can buy their equal Justice they want but the small shop can't afford their equal justice. So Redbox is a little more equal than the small shop.
one word. (Score:2)
three words... (Score:2)
Two Words (Score:2)
Ha Ha.
So uh... (Score:2)
Somehow, though, the whole lot of trolls who like to try to pick me apart here will still insist that
Re:So uh... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So you've read the entire 26 page order [documentcloud.org], then? You know, as I suggested you do when Disney loses [slashdot.org]. The judge ruled that Redbox can do what they're doing, which I said would happen, and he did so for the very same reasons I said he'd do so. By any reasonable definition of the word "right" as it applies in this context, I was right.
You do understand what a preliminary injunction is, right? What part of the case has the court decided at this point? No merits of the case has been decided. Therefore you cannot be right about anything as nothing has been decided about the actual case. You also know that a preliminary injunction has different criteria than the actual court case, right? You do understand that both sides can settle, right? You do understand that years of appeals may be ahead, right? No, you don't seem to understand any of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I read the BronsCon excerpts, it looks like the judge has decided.
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence. This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no ca
Re: (Score:2)
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence.
No, in order to grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show without any evidence that they will win among other things not that there isn't a case to be decided. If there is any doubt (like there are questions to be addressed) the court cannot grant the motion. Now if the court grants Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice, that would closer to them winning. But if the court does not grant Redbox's motion, that doesn't mean the Redbox has lost either. It still means the court still has to dec
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look in the dictonary (Score:2)
Disney is the very definition of copyright abuse.
Judge throws out shrink-wrap license (Score:3)
In a 26-page order, Judge Pregerson said that the wording on the packaging did not create an enforceable contract.
That's huge, because so far judges have been willing to enforce shrink-wrap licenses as contracts. Does anyone have a link to the order, because I want to understand when such licenses are valid and when they are not.
Somewhat related, what is the legal status of renting out retail-purchased DVDs? I thought that was illegal. A quick internet search results in multiple seemingly-authoritative answers, all in complete conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
That's huge, because so far judges have been willing to enforce shrink-wrap licenses as contracts.
The judge didn't throw out the shrink-wrap license theory. He found that Disney's packaging failed to establish a recognizable shrink-wrap license.
Disney DVD packaging is about to become substantially more obnoxious...
Redbox Killed video Store (Score:3)
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.
phew (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me help with that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, this was just too good of news not to...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
um... Star wars was not owned by Disney when I was a child... Disney bought Lucasfilm in Oct 2012 So for Star wars to be part of your "Disney childhood", you'd have to be less than 6 years old...
<sarcasm>But Disney could now re-write history by taking the old, beloved films, drastically re-editing them to remove moral ambiguity, add unnecessary flashy effects and retcon characters, then try to ensure the classic versions were no longer available. Lucasfilm would never have done that.</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:3)
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 $