Universal's War On Redbox Continues
from the innovation?-attack! dept
You'd think that movie companies would like it when people want to rent and watch their movies -- but surprise, surprise, only if it's on their terms. Universal has been fighting, for some time, with Redbox, the company whose kiosks rent DVDs for $1 per night, trying to get the company to sign a contract that would hamper its business model, while working on rental kiosks of its own. The WSJ is reporting that Universal asked a court to toss out Redbox's lawsuit over the contract last week, and that Redbox had to resort to "new acquisition strategies" in order to get a hold of the recent Universal release Wanted. Redbox wouldn't elaborate on those strategies, but it sounds as if Universal and its distributors cut the company off, as the studio had threatened. So once again, we're left with a company that's innovated in the movie space and delivered a product to consumers in a way they like, at a price they love. But since it didn't come from a movie studio, Universal wants to cut the company off. Once again, it's puzzling exactly how Universal can think that keeping people from seeing its movies can be good for its business.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, dvd, kiosks, lawsuits
Companies: redbox, universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Anti-Competitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether or not Universal's refusing to deal with Redbox makes business sense is a separate issue.
It is useful to note that Universal has a raft of legal options available to it to restrict what Redbox can do with content subject to Universal's copyrights.
Again, whether or not these other options make any business sense is a separate issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why assume that? That's like saying "assuming that pigs can fly...".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have to assume that because it is likely that Redbox's alternate strategy involved obtaining copies of blockbusters from distributors, the copies of which are almost certainly governed by the first sale doctrine limiting the options available to a copyright holder. This is, however, a "loophole" that is easily closed by a few minor changes to the Terms of Sale between content providers holding copyright and their first tier distributors. With such minor changes the first sale doctrine is quickly removed from further consideration, in which case judicial decisions like the first one I noted become the governing law that allows rights holder to refuse to deal, or to require its first line distributores to withhold dealing, with companies like Redbox.
Moreover, since the movie rental market would likely be recognized as a legitimate market under antitrust law, I would expect vertical price restraints to enter into the calculus of business approaches considered by content providers who are also the rights holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not clear to me what point you are trying to make.
Mine is a simple observation that first sale issues upon which Redbox thus far relies are easily addressed by language in the licenses with first tier distributors ensuring that the first sale doctrine does not apply.
Can Redbox get around this? Maybe. Can it be done with ease? Certainly not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain how this run-around the first sale doctrine works? You say that it is accomplished with language between the rights holder and first tier distributors. Are you saying that privity extends done the rest of the chain? How does some agreement between those two parties extend down to an ultimate retail purchaser? If it works so well, why isn't it done for every DVD, book, textbook, etc - in order to kill off the rental/used market for all of these items?
If I understand you correctly... If I were to buy a book from Borders, but the language you mention were in place between the rights holder and either Borders (or some party upstream), then I would be in violation of copyright, if - for example - I gave the book to a friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, though...I think I have to stand back like Mike is and shake my head at the blatent stupidity and lack of common sense of the people who are running these corporations...What are they thinking? That they might get lucky and escape getting sued? Doesn't ANYONE think about the long-term anymore? Or has our long-term just become the quarterly report to the investors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point I made was responsive to the first post. Yes, Redbox could sue, but the governing law strongly supports Universal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wondered why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi There!
Q: What's the difference between Olbermann & Maddow?
A: Maddow may actually have balls...hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi There!
Q: What's the difference between Olbermann & Maddow?
A: Maddow may actually have balls...hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi There!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still ignoring me?
Q: What's the difference between Olbermann & Maddow?
A: Maddow may actually have balls...hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, just....wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC (who apparently cant read)
FIRST SALE DOCTRINE IS A FEDERAL CONSUMER LAW, it superceeds ANY contracts or agreements. You cannot make someone sign an agreement that contravenes a federal law. Thank you. You may now resume your idiotic and big-media apologist comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC (who apparently cant read)
If you say so then it must be so. Be careful, though. If you give the above answer on an exam concerning copyright law I hope you are earning good grades in your other courses to keep your GPA from falling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC (who apparently cant read)
*I* dont say so, federal law says so, as does consumer protection law, contract law, and a few others. Go look them up and stop being an apologist troll for Universal. They are wrong, you are wrong, get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC (who apparently cant read)
...and that federal law is? Certainly not Title 17 that merely codifies the judicially created First Sale Doctrine.
...and the consumer protection law is? Certainly not antitrust except in particularly egregious situations where even deference accorded under the "rule of reason" is manifestly unwarranted.
...and the contract law is? Certainly not the UCC. Certainly not state common law.
...and the few others are? The lack of specificity precludes a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You all have plenty of time to waste...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Universal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Sale vs Distribution Leverage
First sale certainly does apply once Redbox acquires the DVD. So if Redbox, or you or I want to walk into Walmart and buy 50 copies of a DVD and then rent them, we obviously can.
But Universal is probably able to direct its distributors not to deal with Redbox. By doing this, they can make it difficult/ incrementally more expensive for RB to acquire DVDs, and they can make it extremely difficult for RB to profitably unload the used DVDs (which are typically sold in bargain bins at drugstores, supermarkets etc). By prohibiting distributors from dealing w Redbox, Universal can ruin the economics of the Redbox Kiosk, limit their growth, and stop new entry in the market. Redbox operates on a 15-20% operating margin, if they have to spend $2 more per DVD, plus time and effort, and they cant get the $4-7 on the back end, the business might not make any sense. Or they have to raise price.
Interested in anyone's thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]