5 ms·

Reselling digital download codes seems like a bizarre risk for such a well known established company to take.

by naner 9y ago

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Yes, but they both doubled their revenue while undercutting Disney, so the potential payoff was very large. Plus, the stipulation that "codes are not for sale _or transfer_" seems to be a particularly egregious stipulation that may be overly broad, thus arguable.
- rubyfan 9y ago
  I don’t see how Disney can arbitrarily put a word on the box that limits your ability to do something with it. What is they put “not for use as a coaster” and you resell the disc as a coaster? Can they sue you for that?
  - ams6110 9y ago
    They can put whatever words they want in the box, probably assuming that few people would have the resources to fight them about it.
    - rubyfan 9y ago
      Looks like they hit the jackpot. I’ll say it another way, just because it’s on the box doesn’t mean they can legally limit you. So yeah they can put whatever they want but we’ll see if it holds up.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    They can say what they want. The law doesn’t agree. You reply “fuck you, sue me”. Libraries have been doing what redbox did for a long time. One of the studios sent a local library a nasty letter, and the library replied with a nasty letter. Nothing happened.
- platz 9y ago
  How did they "undercut" when they had to pay full price for the first sale?
  - privacypoller 9y ago
    Distribution deals won't give you the DVD (which is all Redbox really wants) for as cheap as $RETAIL less $DOWNLOAD, which is what RB is effectively paying
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    RB steered people into renting dvds for $1.50 or purchasing download codes for $7.99 instead of purchasing the movie for $19.99. Instead of $199.90 for ten sales, the studio got $19.99 and RB got from $15.00 to $79.90. That's definitely undercutting. Whether it is illegal or not is tbd in court.
martin_bech 9y ago
Why should it be risky, to sell something you bought?

Reselling digital download codes seems like a bizarre risk for such a well known established company to take.

by naner 9y ago

Reselling digital download codes seems like a bizarre risk for such a well known established company to take.

Yes, but they both doubled their revenue while undercutting Disney, so the potential payoff was very large. Plus, the stipulation that "codes are not for sale _or transfer_" seems to be a particularly egregious stipulation that may be overly broad, thus arguable.

rubyfan 9y ago
I don’t see how Disney can arbitrarily put a word on the box that limits your ability to do something with it. What is they put “not for use as a coaster” and you resell the disc as a coaster? Can they sue you for that?
- ams6110 9y ago
  They can put whatever words they want in the box, probably assuming that few people would have the resources to fight them about it.
  - rubyfan 9y ago
    Looks like they hit the jackpot. I’ll say it another way, just because it’s on the box doesn’t mean they can legally limit you. So yeah they can put whatever they want but we’ll see if it holds up.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  They can say what they want. The law doesn’t agree. You reply “fuck you, sue me”. Libraries have been doing what redbox did for a long time. One of the studios sent a local library a nasty letter, and the library replied with a nasty letter. Nothing happened.
platz 9y ago
How did they "undercut" when they had to pay full price for the first sale?
- privacypoller 9y ago
  Distribution deals won't give you the DVD (which is all Redbox really wants) for as cheap as $RETAIL less $DOWNLOAD, which is what RB is effectively paying
- IncRnd 9y ago
  RB steered people into renting dvds for $1.50 or purchasing download codes for $7.99 instead of purchasing the movie for $19.99. Instead of $199.90 for ten sales, the studio got $19.99 and RB got from $15.00 to $79.90. That's definitely undercutting. Whether it is illegal or not is tbd in court.

martin_bech 9y ago

Why should it be risky, to sell something you bought?