3 ms·
> The case results from Redbox’s lack of an existing business arrangement with Disney. The rental service has distribution deals in place with major studios lik
by mholt 9y ago
> The case results from Redbox’s lack of an existing business arrangement with Disney. The rental service has distribution deals in place with major studios like Warner Bros., which allow Redbox to purchase physical DVDs and Blu-rays of popular movies that it then offers for rental at its standalone kiosks. Disney has struck no such deal, so Redbox purchases retail copies of the films and rents those discs, instead.
That's basically what VidAngel did -- a physical retail copy for each simultaneous rental -- but the courts shut VidAngel down.
- dragonwriter 9y agoNo, it's not what VidAngel did; VidAngel bought and ripped DVDs, Redbox buys DVDs and rents the DVDs it buys, which is unmistakably protected under the First Sale doctrine (the sale of the digital download codes that are sold with the physical media was disputed, but renting the physical media is non-controversial.) Also, the courts didn't shut VidAngel down; VidAngel is still in operation—for a while apparently defying court orders, now using a different mechanism to achieve a similar effect, though also excluding movies from the studios which sued it.
- TorKlingberg 9y agoRedbox rents out the physical disc. VidAngel tried to claim having DVDs gave them the right to stream to send one stream per disc. Sort of like Aereo's arrays of tiny antennas, that didn't hold up in court either.