Murdoch's NY Post Continues To Source Articles From Bloggers With No Credit

Netflix, Warner Bros., Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Movie Window

from the pissing-off-customers-left-and-right dept

Fri, Mar 5th 2010 6:59pm — Mike Masnick

Warner Bros. has been busy getting both Netflix and Redbox to agree to delay renting new release DVDs for 28 days, in the misguided belief that this will get more people to buy the DVDs. While Netflix has tried to spin this as benefiting customers it appears plenty of customers see otherwise. Specifically, at least one customer has filed a class action lawsuit against both Warner Bros. and Netflix, alleging that this is restraint of trade and has decreased the value of a Netflix subscription (thanks to Eric for sending this over). It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will get very far, but it certainly suggests that at least some Netflix customers are none too pleased with this move, despite Netflix's claims.

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: class action, delays, movies, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

70 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jamie Y, 5 Mar 2010 @ 7:26pm

...
Everyone's trying to the get biggest piece of the pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HolaJohnny (profile), 5 Mar 2010 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re: ...
  Yes they are but I don't know about anyone else but it bothers me when they bake a pie and say its for me. Then they cut it saying I'll get a good piece. Then they pick the biggest piece they cut and I realize I'm lucky to get a piece. Makes me not want pie anymore...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jamie Y, 5 Mar 2010 @ 8:11pm
    
    Re: Re: ...
    The pie is for everyone who will sponsor the baking of the pie.
    Of course the sponsor wants the biggest piece, because they're paying for it.
    
    It just doesn't make sense that the manufacturers of the ingredients want the baker to wait another month before baking that new recipe, so people can go out and bake it for themselves first and buy the ingredients directly from the producer.
    
    Sadly I have three pies that have been sitting on my desk waiting to be eaten for the past week. I may not need the baker anymore, because my neighbor leaves pies on his window all the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Coco Was Screwed, 7 Mar 2010 @ 9:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ...
      My grandma used to bake me pie because she loved me....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2010 @ 6:33am
    
    Re: Re: ...
    Pie is usually best when eaten fresh. Not many people enjoy it 28 days old
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sneeje (profile), 5 Mar 2010 @ 7:39pm
  
  Re: ...
  Damn you! I just brushed my teeth, now I want pie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2010 @ 7:30pm

I'm amazed anyone ever dreams big and opens a business these days - all you ever get for being an innovator like Netflix or Google is bogus lawsuits. I can't believe the number of small dollar-amount checks that end up in my mailbox for purchases I made as long as 12-15 years ago after someone files and settles another class-action lawsuit. In most cases, I'd rather they didn't sue on my behalf, just so I can get a refund check for .87 cents, and some lawyer gets millions, from a purchase so old, the product is now sitting in the bottom of a landfill. (Relax, green freaks. I recycle my electronics.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mrp, 5 Mar 2010 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re: class action lawsuits
  I am just finishing reading "The King Of Torts" by John Grisham. It explains a lot about the class action suits that are filed against wealthy companies and then how/why they are settled for large amounts of money, yet the awards for the "little guy" are small. It is the lawyers that are getting the BIG MONEY while doling out only small amounts to the people they "represent". A good read for those who are involved in class action suits believing they are really getting anything. The lawyers skim the large amounts off the top when they file suit against a successful and high profile company that has "deep pockets". The company will usually choose to settle the case rather than going to court and spending a lot more money, having their (brand)name tarnished. The lawyers know it would be cheaper for them to settle and can make lots of money...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jeff, 6 Mar 2010 @ 12:20pm
    
    Re: Re: class action lawsuits
    I read that as a sophomore in H.S and I have a better understanding of how tort suits work. The lawyer is alway;s the winner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PEBKAC (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 10:56pm
    
    Re: Re: class action lawsuits
    I've never looked at class actions as going for the big bucks, but more of a knock that shit off! type of thing when companies overstep or abuse the customer base.
    
    I guess I always just assumed lawyers got paid, but the 'class' part meant that returns for so many suit members would always be small.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WammerJammer (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  Did you ever consider that 'Green Freaks' resent being called freaks. What's with you!! You think you are better than anyone else to be be able to call us freaks!! In Europe this can be construed as hate speech and hopefully we will pass these laws in the United States.
  Get real!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Freak.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    settle down freak.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WammerJammer (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  Did you ever consider that 'Green Freaks' resent being called freaks. What's with you!! You think you are better than anyone else to be be able to call us freaks!! In Europe this can be construed as hate speech and hopefully we will pass these laws in the United States.
  Get real!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - coco Was Screwed, 7 Mar 2010 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Holy Shit!!!! are you kidding me with this? You just proved that you are a freak. Unless of course you were being sarcastic, then you're pretty funny.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MarksAngel (profile), 5 Mar 2010 @ 8:32pm

I don't understand this, when Techdirt had the article about WB wanting us to wait a month for their releases a bunch of commenter's were irritated by this, saying how retarded WB is and how they will just wait until the movie comes out they still aren't going to buy. Here's somebody irritated enough about it to actually try taking to them to court and all I see are comments stating that somebody is just looking for some action. TBH we should all be rooting this guy on and maybe even helping out in the hopes that we can put an end to this nonsense, chances are it won't work anyway but You don't know unless you try right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Mar 2010 @ 10:10pm
  
  Re:
  Here's somebody irritated enough about it to actually try taking to them to court and all I see are comments stating that somebody is just looking for some action. TBH we should all be rooting this guy on and maybe even helping out in the hopes that we can put an end to this nonsense, chances are it won't work anyway but You don't know unless you try right?
  
  Just because it's a dumb business move doesn't mean it's illegal. That's the point we were making. This lawsuit doesn't have much of a chance. Why root for a bogus lawsuit that will almost certainly fail?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, generally i agree with you but as you are probably aware, sometimes you make some pretty outlandishly dumb statements (hey dont feel bad, we all do).
    
    saying that there is no reason to support something simply because its going to fail, while easier to do, is not always the right thing to do. and thats what MarksAngel is saying here.
    Take a moment to think about all the things that were so much easier to just not care about, but changed because some small group of people decided they were going to stand up and do whats RIGHT... not whats easy.
    
    If you start taking the approach of least resistance every time you go up against something, you are never going to make ANY headway ANYWHERE.
    
    you of all people should know this and should be supporting this lawsuit 100% even if you think it will fail.
    
    ...especially if you think it will fail...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 8:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think that what Mike is saying is to pick your battles. There are many fights currently in progress, from the fights against DRM and regional blocking to the fight for a more open system of distribution for independent filmmakers and consumers.
      
      Why pick this battle, when it will almost certainly fail, and will do nothing to change the status quo either way - and could badly backfire on consumers (e.g. Warners lose so decide to withdraw their entire catalogue from streaming - nobody can force them to offer their catalogue to Netflix, only to play fair with it).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 1:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      saying that there is no reason to support something simply because its going to fail, while easier to do, is not always the right thing to do. and thats what MarksAngel is saying here.
      Take a moment to think about all the things that were so much easier to just not care about, but changed because some small group of people decided they were going to stand up and do whats RIGHT... not whats easy.
      
      Hey I'm all for a small group trying to change things that are wrong. But I don't think that's what this lawsuit will do. If that was the goal, there are much more effective ways of making that point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2010 @ 10:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > you of all people should know this and should be supporting this
      > lawsuit 100% even if you think it will fail
      
      He's not declining to suport it because he thinks it will fail. He's declining to support it because what they're doing isn't illegal. Why on earth would you want to support a cause of action that can only succeed if the government basically ignores the law and does whatever it wants, to include taking over the decision-making authority of these two companies.
      
      You may not like it-- and the companies may ultimately regret doing it-- but these DVDs are *their* property and *their* product and they can release them for sale however they like. It's certainly not the proper place of government or the courts to step in and tell them when and how they must sell their movies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RD, 7 Mar 2010 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You may not like it-- and the companies may ultimately regret doing it-- but these DVDs are *their* property and *their* product and they can release them for sale however they like. It's certainly not the proper place of government or the courts to step in and tell them when and how they must sell their movies."
        
        Completely, utterly and categorically WRONG. First Sale doctrine covers this, and yes, it IS enforcable by the govt. These laws exist to PROTECT consumers FROM the very thing you are suggesting is a company's "right." Its not. Selling a retail product does NOT give you rights thereafter to control what is done with it (outside of things like copyright protection, but thats not the argument here, since they are legally PURCHASING their copies, and not making duplicates).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2010 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Netflix changing their policies post-fact could be a problem. You pay them the $x.xx, and you expect to get new releases right away, them changing this timeframe constitutes breach of contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Liquid (profile), 8 Mar 2010 @ 4:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not really. It's a service agreement, and like all smart companies put this loop hole into their "contracts" or service agreements to make sure they can facilitate anything that needs to be changed.
      
      This is from Netflix's website:
      
      "Changes to Terms of Use
      Netflix, Inc., reserves the right, from time to time, with or without notice to you, to change these Terms of Use in our sole and absolute discretion. The most current version of these Terms of Use can be reviewed by clicking on the "Terms of Use" located at the bottom of the pages of the Netflix website. The most current version of the Terms of Use will supersede all previous versions. You can see changes from previous versions of the Terms of Use by clicking here."
      
      It's the 2nd paragraph in their terms of service agreement that ALL people have to agree to in order to get their service.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 8 Mar 2010 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have there been any court cases testing these agreements that can be changed at the sole discretion of one party? Seems contrary to contract law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rez, 6 Mar 2010 @ 11:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Lawsuits aren't only for things that are illegal, as big business has shown time and time again (AT&T v. Verizon for example). as for "why root for someone who will probably fail", well why not? If you only speak out for something when you think it has a 90% chance to win then you really are just band wagon dead weight. People thought America's fight for independence was probably going to fail too but they did it anyway and look how that turned out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 6 Mar 2010 @ 12:17am
  
  Re:
  YES your 100% right. People say stick up for what you believe in and make changes, just quit bitching about it if your not going to do some thing about it! Thow when some one does get up and do some thing every one is quick to put them down! It is time some one should say to media corporations in the US were not going to take it any more! If it was a video store would WB be asking this? NO and Block Buster will have the video the day they come out who is in Competition with Netflix! We join Netflix cause we busy people with jobs, kids and more and more responsibility find we don't have time to go get vids at rental stores but I am not going to wait hence I got rid of Netflix delay renting being put on the waiting list makes it so I would have to wait 1 1/2 or more to see a new movie! YAH Right Netflix, I am happy to have to wait that long, NOT going to happen and nether Am I going to buy the DVD WB so you both lost my bucks :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  "I don't understand this"
  
  Please allow me to clarify: "two wrongs don't make a right."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re:
  "Here's somebody irritated enough about it to actually try taking to them to court and all I see are comments stating that somebody is just looking for some action."
  
  The guy deserves an award and at minimum an email with contact points for EFF, Berkham CIS, Stanford CIS, Public Knowledge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Izulien, 5 Mar 2010 @ 9:03pm

Netflix has Movies?
Wait... Netflix is used for New Release movies? Crazy! I don't know about the rest of the Netflix users but I have 100 or more items in my "Movie Que" I just add them as I see them come out (Save) and get them as they arrive. Generally well after the month mark.

If a movie is something I REALLY want to see I just go to the theater and watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2010 @ 9:15pm
  
  Re: Netflix has Movies?
  Wait... Netflix is used for New Release movies? Crazy!
  
  New DVD releases.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fiveorange (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 9:35am
  
  Re: Netflix has Movies?
  Yes! I don't understand it. If seeing a movie is THAT important go to the theater and see it!!! And there are plenty of sites where you can watch it for free! I love my Netflix subscription and could care less about when a new movie is available because if I really want to see it I will go to the movies and see it!! Warner Brothers is upset because Netflix and Redbox are making their money. If Warners would invest in better products maybe people would want to buy them.
  Putting a delay on new releases will NOT increase sales. This is as stupid as taking music away from sites like Last.fm. Restrictions will NOT increase sales I repeat will NOT increase sales.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2010 @ 9:07pm

But they like it!
at least some Netflix customers are none too pleased with this move, despite Netflix's claims.

Netflix: Our customers actually like to have their movies delayed. In fact, the longer the delay, the better they like it!

Customer: Here you go. I hope you like this lawsuit as much as we like the delays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Mar 2010 @ 10:27pm

theres just wayyy too many lawsuits nowadays, seriously what happened to society...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard, 6 Mar 2010 @ 12:11am
  
  Re:
  Hippies happened to it. It's impossible to teach your children personal responsibility and blame the government for all your ills at the same time, so they picked the one they enjoyed more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - encyclopedia salesman, 6 Mar 2010 @ 6:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, was I wrong, allthis time I thought hippies were responsible for city park and recycling ... where as land sharks were responsible for raping and pillaging.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Barbara, 6 Jan 2011 @ 3:44pm
  
  Re:
  Well I totally agree with the lawsuits, this is why is called society and not anarchy. People have the right and opportunity to settle disputes in a civilized and hopefully rightful way!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 5 Mar 2010 @ 11:33pm

Delay it or don't delay it... I don't care anymore. If I want to see it, it doesn't matter when I do. If they lose the ability to capitalize on their promotion and publicity costs... it doesn't matter to me. Maybe I'll "rediscover" the movie 10, or 20 years from now. Otherwise, maybe I'll just go watch the grass grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard, 6 Mar 2010 @ 12:13am
  
  Re:
  I'll go you one better. Delay it or don't delay it... the people who want to see it the day it gets released on dvd, but don't want to buy it, are going to. Whether you release it to Netflix or they have to grab the torrent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2010 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  Dont even bother making it ... please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 2:56am

Who cares?
Netflix never guaranteed the availability of a movie at any particular time - the come available when they do. If they're available a month later, I won't even notice. Netflix and buying DVDs are unrelated in my life. I neither buy nor don't buy a movie because it's available as a rental. I *might* buy it after I've rented it if I think I will want to re-watch it without returning it to my netflix queue, but that's only happened once in two years.

Bogus lawsuit, bogus issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 5:37am

I wouldn't read too much into it. Like most class-action lawsuits it'll *probably* turn out to be one parasitic attorney seeing an opportunity for a quick settlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 6 Mar 2010 @ 6:17am

make sure they mention
the other lawsuit that warner faces in canada for stealing off musicians for 30 years and over 300000 of them too, JUST to SHOW character of the organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Miles (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 7:40am

A question for Mike.
"Just because it's a dumb business move doesn't mean it's illegal."
I would like to know how the deal forced by Warner Bros. isn't illegal.

Basically, it comes down to one company telling another it has no right to rent titles the second company legally bought.

I can't say for sure, but I do believe this action is illegal.

If the prosecuting attorney does a good job, the case may even point this issue out. It may not win, but maybe there could be a precedent set in which gets others to look into the practices Warner Bros. is doing.

Because I can assure you it won't be long before Universal and other studios do the same thing. Then what?

People rent because they don't want to buy. 28 day delay or not, the fact their choice is being removed should be illegal if it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michial Thompson, 6 Mar 2010 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: A question for Mike.
  R. Miles;
  
  It's actually not illegal, the Movies that NetFlix Rent aren't the same as the ones available for retail. And a Video store cannot LEGALLY purchase a movie from wal-mart and take it back to the store and rent it either.
  
  The movies that are in Rental Stores are actually purchased for much more than retail, and then rented for a period of time and sold far below retail.
  
  At least this was the way it worked in the VHS days, and I assume the same contracts are in place under DVD's as well.
  
  As far as the movie houses making them available 30 days later for rental, that's their business, and their right to do. The only thing that can LEGALLY be done that will accomplish anything is to stop renting their products, and the rental stores will stop purchasing them, and then they will re-evaluate the cost/benefit of their actions.
  
  Oh of course if your little mikee m, you can write a bunch of articles complaining about the companies choices of what they do with their products too....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2010 @ 10:33am
    
    Re: Re: A question for Mike.
    Oh little michaill t, you are so dumb.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re: A question for Mike.
    It's actually not illegal, the Movies that NetFlix Rent aren't the same as the ones available for retail. And a Video store cannot LEGALLY purchase a movie from wal-mart and take it back to the store and rent it either.
    
    First sale rule says you're wrong. You absolutely can buy a video at Wal-Mart and then rent it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A question for Mike.
      First sale rule says you're wrong. You absolutely can buy a video at Wal-Mart and then rent it.
      And Redbox has been doing exactly this, even though Warner Bros. has been playing whack-a-mole with their distributors trying to get them NOT to sell to Redbox.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leefe, 7 Mar 2010 @ 9:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A question for Mike.
      Interesting, I was under the impression you couldn't rend retail sales. Of course it might work differently in different countries.
      
      All the videos you buy retail in Australia have notices at the beginning that state it cannot be rented out or shown in public (or something to that effect).
      
      And on the 1 month delay thing, that is nothing. Australia tends to get a 3-6 months delay to see movies in the cinemas (for all but the biggest of movies).
      
      It sucks seeing DVDs on sale online before movies even make to Australia.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 8 Mar 2010 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for Mike.
        All the videos you buy retail in Australia have notices at the beginning that state it cannot be rented out or shown in public (or something to that effect).
        
        Just because they say that doesn't mean copyright law actually allows it. Media companies are really fond of claiming rights they don't actually have. With that said, I am not at all familiar with Australian copyright law, and it's possible they can legally claim the right you mention. In the US, that claim would be false.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 8 Mar 2010 @ 6:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A question for Mike.
      This is a very important aspect of first sale to defend and something that I think the current courts might actually help with. I see the current courts being far more receptive to the rights of corporations in this regard than individuals.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:33pm
    
    Re: Re: A question for Mike.
    "Video store cannot LEGALLY purchase a movie from wal-mart and take it back to the store and rent it either."
    
    " I assume the same contracts are in place under DVD's as well."
    
    The two statements you made are two different animals. One is Criminal one is Civil. Your first statement is so wrong because anyone can go to wal-mart buy a DVD and rent it to anyone. You could probably get away with renting via streaming if you created a box that didnt violate the DRM section of the DMCA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: A question for Mike.
  I would like to know how the deal forced by Warner Bros. isn't illegal.
  
  Depends on "forced." A deal negotiated by two willing parties is fine.
  
  Where I think there may be an anti-trust issue is in the cases where the movie studio told Wal-Mart and Best Buy not to sell to Redbox. But I believe only one or two studios did that (and I'm not sure if Warner was one of them).
  
  But if Netflix and WB just agree on their own to delay movies, that's a different issue and not illegal. It may be dumb, and it may be bad business... but not antitrust.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R. Miles (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re: A question for Mike.
    "Depends on 'forced'. A deal negotiated by two willing parties is fine."
    Even if such negotiations have a probability of being coerced regardless of anti-trust?
    
    Sorry, I guess I'll stop here. Going well beyond the scope of the article at hand. I just wish consumers would wise up, rather than sue parties who may not have had a choice but to deal.
    
    Oh, and sorry about the "prosecuting attorney" usage. I couldn't recall what title lawyers who bring charges in civil court were called.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 10:57pm
  
  Re: A question for Mike.
  > If the prosecuting attorney does a good job
  
  There is no prosecuting attorney here. This isn't a criminal case. It's a civil suit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 11:01pm
  
  Re: A question for Mike.
  > People rent because they don't want to buy. 28 day delay or not,
  > the fact their choice is being removed should be illegal if it isn't.
  
  You seem to think that just because people want something, they should be able to have it, and if anything stands in their way, it should be outlawed.
  
  These DVDs are *their* property and *their* product and the studios can release them for sale however they like. If they don't listen to their customers, they may not make much money, but it's still *their* right to sell them whenever they please. It's certainly not the proper place of government or the courts to step in and tell them when and how they must sell their movies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 8 Mar 2010 @ 7:07am
    
    Megalomania for one customer only.
    No. It is not their right to try and coerce 3rd party transactions. That is something that clearly should trigger very intense anti-trust prosecution. They are trying to f*ck around with someone else's property rights and that is not something that should be tolerated. It's ultimately bad for business for everyone. This is the sort of nonsense that makes banana republics such a mess.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 10 Mar 2010 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Megalomania for one customer only.
      > No. It is not their right to try and coerce 3rd party transactions.
      
      That isn't what the person to whom I was responding said. They said that "eople rent because they don't want to buy. 28 day delay or not, the fact their choice is being removed should be illegal if it isn't."
      
      That's not criticism of coercing third-party transactions. That's saying, "I want it now and you can't stop me!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David (profile), 6 Mar 2010 @ 11:17am

I'm joining his class
I am going to join. I don't care if I get anything, I just want them to know I'm annoyed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revelati, 6 Mar 2010 @ 1:09pm

Ahh, to be a fly on the wall at a conference of WB executives.

Exec1 "Hmm, we only made a few billion dollars off this record setting box office season, we really need to push our bottom line!"

Exec2 "Wait, I know!!! Lets make our movies cost more and make them harder to purchase legally by making people wait an extra month!"

Exec1 "Brilliant! Someone give this man a promotion, ohh yeah and giant cash bonuses and company cars for everyone!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DenisBergeron (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 7:07am

Theses works aren't oiginals
And there a big reason for that.

Most are all representation of gods from cultures that have contacts together and theses cultures was really static by today standard. Theses arts was usualy done by artists that travel and want to show to the local population what they see abroad, it's the web media of that time.

Most of theses scultures are representation of the same known arts school that want to show the body mouvement like all the greek Venus and Soldier in this movie.

Show me the link between Cubism, Surealism, Pointilism, Popart and thing that come before and them it's will be interresting.

The movie was very good entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Mar 2010 @ 6:14pm

Someone should give this guy an award ....
We should have a section on techdirt to vote for various kudo's prizes. This guy deserves one. He also deserves support.

Who do we contact to get him really good legal counsel?

Would EFF, Berkham, CDT, CIS at stanford be interested in helping out?

If we cant get free legal we can try this ...

Who do we contact that would make money if this suit actually succeeds? (can get them to fund this suit?)

Think outside the box ... GRIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jemone2005, 19 Mar 2010 @ 1:57pm

wb dvd netflix release restriction
Warner Bros., along with all other Hollywood studios are just stupid lumberjacks. The only thing safe in the forest with them would be the trees.The movie studios as a whole need to get of their high horse and make better material,that is actually worth owning. Some recent releases, I do not even rent! They need to change their new dvd pricing model, and make dvds so cheap to own nothing else would make sense. I know we all remember how in titled the music industry felt. They charged as much as $18.99 for a new cd. Consumers revolted by sharing their cd's and later their files to make their own cd's. The music industry tried to respond my lowering cd's to $8.99 and lower,but it was to late. A bootleg cd can be had for 2 for $5. The music industry has been irrevocably injured.The movie studios need to look at what happened to the music industry, and, for lack of better terminology, change their tune. A good quality bootleg movie can be bought for $5-$7. Some people will buy them, some will not. But if all hollywood studios follow W B's model,bootleg sales along with people's willingness to bootleg,are sure to increase. Warner Bros. decision to hold back movie availability to try and force high prices down our proverbial throats is a poor one. Why don't they just drop regular dvd prices to $11.99 and down, and Blu-ray to $14.99 and down? The movie studios would be shocked by how fast consumer purse strings would loosen. The reason regular dvds are still so popular is because blu- ray is still stupid expensive. Not to mention, you have to pay $26 and up to own one movie title! Hopefully movie studios get smart before they too are digitally bootlegged into critical condition as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 11:19am

If you didn't see this coming...
.... when the Warner Bros deal was announced, you really can't follow a logical extrapolation of events.

I place movies in my queue when they are available. Often, with a very popular movie, I have to wait my turn. If I HAVE to see a movie earlier than available on NetFlix, then I go to the theater. If I miss it there, I can always find it online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 20 Apr 2010 @ 12:03pm

Options
I'd still rather have the option to rent it first from netflix before buying a bad movie. This way I can see if it is worth purchasing while it is at the new release price. vs waiting another 28 days and having to pay full price for the movie. Which I'm not going to do. It's just going to make me use the 2nd hand movie stores at more resonable rates if I want to own and not end up w/ bad movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
minnie, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:47am

how
can i get in on this class action suit? that's bull, and i'm calling it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D, 14 May 2010 @ 8:02am

netflix ships more older movies than the latest releases
I just changed my subscription to one movie out at a time because I changed my choices of movies to all the latest ones released so that I would get to see a good movie that hasn't been out for a year or two. Has anyone else had this problem? I can rent late releases on demand from cable, but I want the cheaper cost of renting more than one movie at a time. I'm paying netflix for older movies each month and having to pay 5-8 dollars for each late release movie on my cable. Not Fair Netflix, buy more later release movies so that you can supply your customers like you promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cinderellaman, 23 Jun 2010 @ 6:22am

It's not like you can even get a new release from Netflix for the first 28 days anyway, they never get enough copies for the demand. As for Redbox, I end up renting new releases from them even though I have a 3 out at a time Netflix subscription. If Redbox doesn't offer new releases I would absolutely never use their services and just wait until I can get them from Netflix but I would NEVER be enticed to buy a copy. I only buy movies when they are older and I can get them for 5.00 or less per movie and that is only if I really loved them first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sdb, 23 Jun 2010 @ 6:49am

From what I understand their are two business models by the studios, one for first run movies and one for the release and sale of the copies after they are no longer playing in theatres.

If they would just focus on better material, and making better movies they would get the money in the theatres and if people loved it they would buy a copy for themselves. This way both income generating business models would be satisfied.

I do agree that they have no business on influencing Redbox or Netflix (as stated earlier by someone as 3rd party). If this were the case it would have to include rental stores like Blockbuster and any others, and that is just ridiculous. I wonder what research shows for Blockbuster as I think they offer sales of new releases as well as rentals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 15 Dec 2010 @ 11:12am

The answer to it is simple, If you are irritated by the practices of the company, do as I did and click the deactivate account button. This is a rediculous agreement and although I do not usually agree with this type of lawsuite, I have no issue with this one. I initially enrolled in netflix to view old back catalog films that were not available at the local video store. Occasionally I would add new releases to the cue of films that looked interesting. The quality or the calibre of the film is not the point, ie: does MGM think that anyone who has to wait 28 days on Netflix will REALLY go out and purchase Hot tub Time Machine? No, it is just an annoyance and it does not make any sense. If you can go across the street and get a movie from a blockbuster machine that you cannot get from a Red Box or from Netflix, it just seems tha they are engaging in bad business practices, not improper, just plain dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]