5 ms·

Any lawyers here? This doesn't seem fair - retail copies were meant for end consumers, not for another company to hawk and rent out. The Crux of the legal argu

Any lawyers here? This doesn't seem fair - retail copies were meant for end consumers, not for another company to hawk and rent out. The Crux of the legal argument lies in equating Redbox to a regular end-consumer, which is inaccurate. Can any lawyers comment on this.

jtuente 9y ago
First sale doctrine - Red Box is selling it to renters who can easily sell it back to Red Box for a slightly lower price (rental fee). i.e. Red Box sells you "Captain America" for $25, you then sell your copy back to Red Box for $25 - $1.50 per day you owned it, so 3 days later it's $20.50, the rental fee being $4.50. But you only ever end up paying the difference because of tax laws.
kodablah 9y ago
Aside from actual first sale doctrine and the like, morally, I am curious what doesn't seem fair about not discriminating against how the purchaser uses what they bought? What doesn't seem fair is you getting to say what your product was meant for and keeping others with other potential uses from purchasing/using.
criddell 9y ago
> retail copies were meant for end consumers, not for another company to hawk and rent out What's the difference? If I buy a hammer at Home Depot, is there any question that I can rent or loan it to somebody else? Why should intellectual property be any different?
- mankash666 9y ago
  Because: 1. Hammers cannot be trivially cloned and mass ditributed digitally for free 2. Every hammer is the same, while every new digital creation (not copy) is possibly the blood , sweat & tears of hundreds of people whose sole source of living is the creation of digital content. HN has an aversion to DRM & paying for soft goods. I'm assuming you're a software developer. How would you like your creation to be ruthlessly copied and mass distributed, killing the potential revenues it would have brought you, and in extreme cases driving you out of business?
  - criddell 9y ago
    The Redbox thing isn't about copyright infringement as far as I can tell. That's basically what the judge said, right? If I understand it, Redbox was selling unused licenses rather than infringing copies. You're right though that HN does have an aversion to DRM. How many movies has it successfully kept off of pirate sites?
    - mankash666 9y ago
      Did you read the article. It's very much about copyright, and I suspect this will get appealed. In my opinion, the courts have this wrong on 2 fronts: 1. Redbox != Regular end customer, especially when the good in question contains DRM-ed digital content 2. Redbox doesn't have the authority to sell digital content they haven't produced, just like an iTunes user doesn't have the right to sell an MP3 purchased off iTunes.
      - criddell 9y ago
        It will get appealed for sure. I think Redbox has a chance here because they aren't selling digital content. They are selling a code. That digital content is transferred by Disney to the purchaser and Redbox is never in the middle.
      - elpool2 9y ago
        An iTunes user can't sell a purchased MP3 because that would create a copy which would violate the author's copyright. In the redbox case no such copying actually occurred. At worst they've only violated Disney's terms of use.
      - grahamburger 9y ago
        Redbox is not selling digital content they are selling a piece of paper that they legally purchased. This is not at all inconsistent or really comparable to not being able to resell a song that was purchased on iTunes. It's maybe similar to being able to resell an iTunes gift card that came along with the purchase of another item, which would pretty clearly be acceptable. DRM really isn't involved in any way here - the existence (or lack) of DRM would not change this situation in any way at all.
ianferrel 9y ago
Companies generally don't get to decide what the people who buy their products get to do with them. They can "mean for" retail copies to be used by individuals buying and watching them at home, but they don't get to enforce that intention. Redbox is equal to a regular end-consumer. Because all customers are equal. Everyone has the right to buy something and then sell part of it to someone else if they want.
cabaalis 9y ago
I'm as much as a copyright hawk as anyone else, because content creators need to eat in order to keep creating great content. However even I see no problem here. There is no contract being signed on the sale which says only the person buying the movie can use all the discs and copies included (I haven't bought one, but I saw a comment here about sometimes DVD/BluRay are in the same package.) The fact that multiple CDs are in the package as well as digital download codes means that Disney is essentially selling you multiple copies for the price of one, and it's up to your discretion what you do with those, whether you are an individual or a company. The line would be crossed if Redbox was copying the CDs to new media that was not sold to them in the original sale. That's obviously infringement. Also, I assume that if Disney tried to make you sign an agreement when you download the digital version that you do in fact also own and possess the physical copy would violate the first sale doctrine. (I am not a lawyer) So I see no problem with what they're doing.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The Crux of the legal argument lies in equating Redbox to a regular end-consumer No, the crux of the legal argument lies in the doctrine of first sale, which applied to any purchaser of physical goods, not just an “end consumer”. In fact, the doctrine of first sale serves to prevent restraint of trade through trade practices which reduce purchasers to the role of “end consumer.”

jtuente 9y ago

First sale doctrine - Red Box is selling it to renters who can easily sell it back to Red Box for a slightly lower price (rental fee). i.e. Red Box sells you "Captain America" for $25, you then sell your copy back to Red Box for $25 - $1.50 per day you owned it, so 3 days later it's $20.50, the rental fee being $4.50. But you only ever end up paying the difference because of tax laws.

kodablah 9y ago

Aside from actual first sale doctrine and the like, morally, I am curious what doesn't seem fair about not discriminating against how the purchaser uses what they bought? What doesn't seem fair is you getting to say what your product was meant for and keeping others with other potential uses from purchasing/using.

criddell 9y ago

> retail copies were meant for end consumers, not for another company to hawk and rent out What's the difference? If I buy a hammer at Home Depot, is there any question that I can rent or loan it to somebody else? Why should intellectual property be any different?

mankash666 9y ago
Because: 1. Hammers cannot be trivially cloned and mass ditributed digitally for free 2. Every hammer is the same, while every new digital creation (not copy) is possibly the blood , sweat & tears of hundreds of people whose sole source of living is the creation of digital content. HN has an aversion to DRM & paying for soft goods. I'm assuming you're a software developer. How would you like your creation to be ruthlessly copied and mass distributed, killing the potential revenues it would have brought you, and in extreme cases driving you out of business?
- criddell 9y ago
  The Redbox thing isn't about copyright infringement as far as I can tell. That's basically what the judge said, right? If I understand it, Redbox was selling unused licenses rather than infringing copies. You're right though that HN does have an aversion to DRM. How many movies has it successfully kept off of pirate sites?
  - mankash666 9y ago
    Did you read the article. It's very much about copyright, and I suspect this will get appealed. In my opinion, the courts have this wrong on 2 fronts: 1. Redbox != Regular end customer, especially when the good in question contains DRM-ed digital content 2. Redbox doesn't have the authority to sell digital content they haven't produced, just like an iTunes user doesn't have the right to sell an MP3 purchased off iTunes.
    - criddell 9y ago
      It will get appealed for sure. I think Redbox has a chance here because they aren't selling digital content. They are selling a code. That digital content is transferred by Disney to the purchaser and Redbox is never in the middle.
    - elpool2 9y ago
      An iTunes user can't sell a purchased MP3 because that would create a copy which would violate the author's copyright. In the redbox case no such copying actually occurred. At worst they've only violated Disney's terms of use.
    - grahamburger 9y ago
      Redbox is not selling digital content they are selling a piece of paper that they legally purchased. This is not at all inconsistent or really comparable to not being able to resell a song that was purchased on iTunes. It's maybe similar to being able to resell an iTunes gift card that came along with the purchase of another item, which would pretty clearly be acceptable. DRM really isn't involved in any way here - the existence (or lack) of DRM would not change this situation in any way at all.

ianferrel 9y ago

Companies generally don't get to decide what the people who buy their products get to do with them. They can "mean for" retail copies to be used by individuals buying and watching them at home, but they don't get to enforce that intention. Redbox is equal to a regular end-consumer. Because all customers are equal. Everyone has the right to buy something and then sell part of it to someone else if they want.

cabaalis 9y ago

I'm as much as a copyright hawk as anyone else, because content creators need to eat in order to keep creating great content. However even I see no problem here. There is no contract being signed on the sale which says only the person buying the movie can use all the discs and copies included (I haven't bought one, but I saw a comment here about sometimes DVD/BluRay are in the same package.) The fact that multiple CDs are in the package as well as digital download codes means that Disney is essentially selling you multiple copies for the price of one, and it's up to your discretion what you do with those, whether you are an individual or a company. The line would be crossed if Redbox was copying the CDs to new media that was not sold to them in the original sale. That's obviously infringement. Also, I assume that if Disney tried to make you sign an agreement when you download the digital version that you do in fact also own and possess the physical copy would violate the first sale doctrine. (I am not a lawyer) So I see no problem with what they're doing.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The Crux of the legal argument lies in equating Redbox to a regular end-consumer No, the crux of the legal argument lies in the doctrine of first sale, which applied to any purchaser of physical goods, not just an “end consumer”. In fact, the doctrine of first sale serves to prevent restraint of trade through trade practices which reduce purchasers to the role of “end consumer.”