3 ms·

Business idea I've casually had for a while now: would it be legal to build an enormous DVD jukebox, "rent" a DVD out to a subscriber on demand, and stream the

Business idea I've casually had for a while now: would it be legal to build an enormous DVD jukebox, "rent" a DVD out to a subscriber on demand, and stream the physical DVD to them with the navigation menus and everything? Has anyone attempted this before?

bigtunacan 3y ago
There's been a couple of attempts, but that wouldn't service the same customers. Most customers still using Netflix DVDs by mail are in rural areas without adequate internet or just not interested in streaming.
tim-- 3y ago
Netflix had deals with the studios. When you rented a Netflix DVD, it was highly unlikely (not impossible) that you would receive a retail disk.
CharlesW 3y ago
Aereo did the TV version of this, renting each user an antenna instead of renting DVDs. Its outcome may be instructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo: …the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo's services breached copyright laws. It ruled that, "viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly", and that "insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service."
- bonzini 3y ago
  The suggestion in the parent comment is a bit different because one would think that the first sale doctrine applies. Unfortunately the courts are chipping at it more and more every year.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - VanTheBrand 3y ago
    First sale doctrine doesn’t give you at right to publicly perform something any more than tuning in with an antenna does. Wouldn’t make a difference here.
- LeoPanthera 3y ago
  Aereo had this ludicrous legal defense of "one antenna per customer" which was clearly bogus. Their "antennas" were tiny and inside datacenters. There was no way they actually worked, and they clearly had one real antenna on the roof somewhere.
  - rasz 3y ago
    The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof and system indeed worked. "antenna" was whole tuner system outputting digitized video feed, one per customer - USB TV tuners have been single digit dollar cheap for last 10 years. Supreme Court (donors/lobbyists) simply didnt like the business model. 'these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems' means it doesnt matter how you provide content as long as end effect is similar to cable TV. Imo bad ruling.
    - ta1243 3y ago
      > The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof Engineers often think the law is a computer program. You put the same inputs in and get the same inputs out. If you find a bug, then you can exploit that until the bug is fixed via a new version. It's not. The spirit of what the law is supposed to do is far more important than the letter of the law.
nlawalker 3y ago
Zediva! https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zediva https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zediva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._WTV_Systems,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc.... > The court held that the defendants were transmitting and publicly performing the plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and thus granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

bigtunacan 3y ago

There's been a couple of attempts, but that wouldn't service the same customers. Most customers still using Netflix DVDs by mail are in rural areas without adequate internet or just not interested in streaming.

tim-- 3y ago

Netflix had deals with the studios. When you rented a Netflix DVD, it was highly unlikely (not impossible) that you would receive a retail disk.

CharlesW 3y ago

Aereo did the TV version of this, renting each user an antenna instead of renting DVDs. Its outcome may be instructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo: …the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo's services breached copyright laws. It ruled that, "viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly", and that "insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service."

bonzini 3y ago
The suggestion in the parent comment is a bit different because one would think that the first sale doctrine applies. Unfortunately the courts are chipping at it more and more every year.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- VanTheBrand 3y ago
  First sale doctrine doesn’t give you at right to publicly perform something any more than tuning in with an antenna does. Wouldn’t make a difference here.
LeoPanthera 3y ago
Aereo had this ludicrous legal defense of "one antenna per customer" which was clearly bogus. Their "antennas" were tiny and inside datacenters. There was no way they actually worked, and they clearly had one real antenna on the roof somewhere.
- rasz 3y ago
  The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof and system indeed worked. "antenna" was whole tuner system outputting digitized video feed, one per customer - USB TV tuners have been single digit dollar cheap for last 10 years. Supreme Court (donors/lobbyists) simply didnt like the business model. 'these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems' means it doesnt matter how you provide content as long as end effect is similar to cable TV. Imo bad ruling.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    > The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof Engineers often think the law is a computer program. You put the same inputs in and get the same inputs out. If you find a bug, then you can exploit that until the bug is fixed via a new version. It's not. The spirit of what the law is supposed to do is far more important than the letter of the law.

nlawalker 3y ago

Zediva! https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zediva https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zediva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._WTV_Systems,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc.... > The court held that the defendants were transmitting and publicly performing the plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and thus granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.