If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
from the pushing-the-boundaries dept
Technology often demonstrates just how ridiculous our copyright laws are. We were just discussing the legality of remote DVRs, which have been found to be legal in the US and Singapore, but infringing in South Korea and Japan (Update: as pointed out in the comments, there are still some liability questions in the US, concerning whether or not a remote DVR provider could have secondary liability -- but I can't see how there would be secondary liability without direct infringement, and since time shifting for personal use is not infringement...). Of course, if a remote DVR is legal... then what about a remote DVD player. It seems like that should be legal as well. As TorrentFreak points out, that's exactly what the streaming movie service Zediva is testing. The company lets you stream movies online -- including movies that the studios haven't licensed for streaming. How? Because it's literally renting the DVD you want, putting it in a networked DVD player, and letting you (and only you) stream the results.Of course, I imagine the studios will go ballistic (and legalistic) quickly on this one, but it's difficult to argue with the basic premise. After all, if both time-shifting and place-shifting are legal, then what wrong is being done here? Why should it require a separate streaming license? No matter how you think about it, the situation demonstrates that today's copyright laws are confused. After all, if it's perfectly legal for you to set up a DVD player in your own house, and then watch that remotely (e.g., via a Slingbox), why should it not be legal to have a company host the DVD player, and you just watch from home? There's no good reason why the two should be treated differently.
But, at the same time, Enigmax at TorrentFreak properly points out that from a technological perspective, this whole thing is stupid. It's purposely downgrading what the technology allows:
So while the system to get round the usual studio imposed release window nonsense is quite clever, it is also ridiculously old fashioned. It's 2011 and we’re relying on physical DVDs and DVD players? Getting messages that someone else has rented the movie needed already?In other words, if we can agree that the location of the DVD player is meaningless if you're watching the movie at home, can't we also agree that the physical medium on which the content is stored is meaningless? Is it really that different if you're sitting in your house watching a remote DVD of the movie... or content streaming from a remote hard drive? It seems to matter, deeply, to those in Hollywood, but from a technology standpoint, it seems completely nonsensical.
These problems were largely solved a decade ago and any torrent, streaming, or decent file-hosting site today can provide a better service than this in the blink of an eye.
Except Hollywood won't let them, legally at least.
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: copyright, legality, remote dvds, remote dvrs
Companies: zediva
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'd think that the MPAA's vindictiveness would trigger the second response first. "Trying to make money by working around our complicated release scheme? Fine, we'll just start making everything available all the time."
It worked for Letterman. "If you try to blackmail me, I'll go public." It would work but I guess the industry is really more interested in power than money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is pure unadulterated greed driven by an irrational fear of their shareholders rather than stepping back and looking at the needs of their customers. Many corporations have fallen into the trap of believing that the shareholders and the company stock price determine the health of the company instead of their products/services and the customers that buy them. I keep hoping they'll wake up, but so far very few have shown signs of stirring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they really wanted to bring in more cash, they'd look at what e-book sellers are doing. Much lower price multiplied by much much higher volume equals more profit. While the basics would need to be tweaked to account for differences in medium (file size and server load to stream a movie versus download a e-book, for example), it is still a model that might be worth exploring.
Instead, the studios and MPAA form a cabal and set prices because it is more important that 5 people over pay rather than having 10 or 20 or 50 see the movie at a reasonable price. Do the math on the potential word of mouth there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From my standpoint, I see it as an executive saying "We got at least one person to pay the higher price which means the product should cost the higher price to everyone. Otherwise, we're losing money."
They don't bother to look at a common price vs volume comparison because it's all about maximizing PER UNIT net profit. Most people who have seen consumer behavior in the face of a sale price vs regular priced item understand that you can drastically increase overall net profit by reducing the per item net profit. Entertainment execs don't seem to think that way.
Maybe it's because they don't buy anything on sale or actually go to the stores themselves? Yeah, yeah, that's it... they're too busy scooping up cash for themselves that they don't bother shopping with the unwashed masses... lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate to say it, but this is why the porn industry flourishes. Make it cheap, sell it cheap.
Don't discount the ones that are trying to sue all over the place. What's amazing is the networks that flourish in the sex industry as a whole and how so many stars profit from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant
It's a promotional gold mine. They should be selling ads on their "registration temporarily closed" page.
Hope they don't get sued out of existence before I get a chance to try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brilliant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix and others should be able to stream movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Netflix and others should be able to stream movies
This way Sony will make some more money on the deal selling the big multidisc players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Netflix and others should be able to stream movies
Now, I wonder if you played the entire movie into an extremely long buffer and kept the buffer for playback...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Netflix and others should be able to stream movies
every day it gets more and more clear that the lawmakers dont know tech, w/ the amount of grey area out of abusive laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While it does seem absurd to go back to physical media, it is often the low tech solutions that work, partly because no-one ever thought something that low tech would be deployed.
Do you think the legal angle would change if I actually owned the DVD player as well? I could pay Zediva a realistic price for a DVD player and they only use that player for me.
I am not suggesting this for real, just pondering the legal nuances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting. That would be another place to have the line, but remote DVR services don't need the customers to own the equipment. You may have to further define what you mean by DVD player - do you need to own a DVD drive, the drive and the computer that plays the movie, the webserver responsible for streaming it...?
"I am a Zediva user in the UK watching movies not yet released for the UK"
Wow - another can of worms with this service. They have allowed you to circumvent the regional settings on the DVD. That should be another mess for them to deal with soon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brilliant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well..
There is no such thing as 'lost profits', there is however 'missed opportunities' to sell your product, and that is not the customers' fault, its' the MAFIAA's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both are remote
One DvD, one person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly the point I've made before. Technology keeps improving and enabling things that were never possible before, but at every step of the way, it has to be intentionally hobbled to please the entertainment industry.
Video tapes were region-limited by the TV standard that they used. DVDs offered a way around that, so the industry had them hobbled with region coding. HD equipment offers greatly improved image quality, so the industry had it hobbled with HDCP. Devices like the iPod offer a convenient way to take both audio and video with you, so the industry had it hobbled with DRM that forces you to go through hoops to "authorize" your content. Broadband internet offers a great way to deliver games to people, so they have to be hobbled with activation and remote server checks. The list goes on and on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the company goes cross regional. I wonder if the movie studios are going to use the region code issue to try and squash this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The same conversion process that my DVD player does between it and my TV? Wrong, that's legal.
They move it from DVD to "streaming", because they aren't providing the output that a dvd would normally generate. There is no simple way to transmit HDMI, Svideo, or "composite" video in it's original format.
They're taking the output that an actual DVD player does provide, and encapsulating it in IP packets. It is an incredibly simple process of which there are hundreds of legal solutions.
As soon as it moves to the digital realm, it is no longer a DVD player, it is just a streaming device.
What's DVD stand for again? Oh, that's right. Digital Video Disc. It was digital before it left the DVD manufacturer.
The length of the wire transmitting the data, or the protocol used to transfer the data doesn't make something illegal if everything on both sides of the wire is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike--
I don't know why you always leave off the part of the Second Circuit's opinion where they said that remote DVRs opened Cablevision up to secondary infringement liability. The court didn't say they were "legal." They said remote DVRs didn't make Cablevision direct infringers. But then they said that it did make them secondary infringers. The plaintiffs hadn't pleaded secondary liability, so the court couldn't rule on it. They still went out of their way to point out how they would have ruled if the case had been pleaded differently.
THAT'S why the remote DVR thing never took off. Anyone thinking of getting into to the game only had to read the Second Circuit's opinion to understand what kind of liability they'd be opening themselves up to.
I can't help but think you are intentionally misrepresenting that case--as you do most things--to make it sound like it stands for something it does not. This sort of thing does not help your credibility. I've pointed out this error to you before, yet you continue to lie about what the Second Circuit said in the Cablevision case. Manipulate much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Around page 21-22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The ruling says that, under the strictest interpretation of the laws (as mentioned in the plaiuntiffs' amici briefs, they would be liable for direct infringement; however, the caselaw presented meant that this would be a massive contortion of copyright.
Good try, but bad trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looking around the internet, I see that Cablevision has recently launched "DVR Plus" which is this same basic remote DVR idea. What's unclear to me is if they are testing the legal waters or if they've cut deals with the content providers to avoid the legal issues. I'd be very surprised if they were pushing their luck after that ruling in the Second Circuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right. To be honest, I forgot that point of the ruling, because it was done as an aside, and not as central to the ruling. I will clarify.
They still went out of their way to point out how they would have ruled if the case had been pleaded differently.
Now that's where I disagree. They say that it would open up Cablevision to that charge, but they do not make an actual ruling on it (nor did Cablevision have a chance to present a defense).
THAT'S why the remote DVR thing never took off. Anyone thinking of getting into to the game only had to read the Second Circuit's opinion to understand what kind of liability they'd be opening themselves up to.
http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/cablevision-preps-rs-dvr-pc-tv-offerings/2010-03-01
I can't help but think you are intentionally misrepresenting that case
Because you love to jump to conclusions. It was an honest oversight, on what I still believe to be a sidenote on the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The ruling was that it's not direct infringement. The dicta is that it's likely to be contributory infringement.
Now that's where I disagree. They say that it would open up Cablevision to that charge, but they do not make an actual ruling on it (nor did Cablevision have a chance to present a defense).
Nor could they make an actual ruling on the issue because the issue was not before the court. Still, the dicta makes it clear what the court thinks of it.
http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/cablevision-preps-rs-dvr-pc-tv-offerings/2010-03-01
Right, I noted this as well. What's unclear is whether they are just doing it in spite of the Second Circuit's dicta, or have they gotten the permissions in place at this point. Do you know either way?
Because you love to jump to conclusions. It was an honest oversight, on what I still believe to be a sidenote on the case.
I think it was either willful ignorance or just plain ignorance on your part. Either way, I'm giving you a pass on thinking it to be deliberately evil. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is true.
Absolutely false. They did not say it made them secondary infringers. They were emphasizing that their ruling is only that Cablevision is not guilty of direct infringement and that they may be open to other charges. They absolutely do NOT state that Cablevision is guilty of secondary or contributory infringement.
Also not true. They went out of their way to offer some things they would look at if they were considering secondary liability. They did not say which way they would rule. It's impossible for them to do so as there wasn't a trial for those charges, and thus no defense.
And as a side note, the court mentions that "...Cablevision would then face, at most, secondary liability, a theory of liability expressly disavowed by plaintiffs." So not only does the court only say that Cablevision could face a charge (not that they are guilty of that charge) of secondary liability, it also states that the plaintiffs don't even support such a charge.
As for the lack of remote DVR services, it's not surprising people are hesitant to go into such a business venture with the entertainment industry always looking to sue any new entrant.
I'll leave you with this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and this, mike, is the premise of your entire article. you imagine they will go ballistic, but so far, no one has. i'm generally on board with you, but today, i think, you're just spreading the fud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Whenever Mike talks about subjects I know about, I see all the things he's left out and how he's twisted it to support his agenda. This leads me to ASSUME that he's doing the same thing with subjects I don't know much about. Why wouldn't he be doing the same thing?
Whether the misrepresentations and FUD are the product of intent or ignorance is left as an exercise for the reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probability
> so far, no one has
While very little is certain in this world, if you watch the sun rise every day in the east for years, you can be fairly certain in predicting where it will rise tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it's an opinion. I always state my opinion on the site. That's not FUD. Some of the reports on this service have already quoted the MPAA as not believing this is legal. When have you ever seen the MPAA not follow through on a lawsuit?
The *only* way I could see them bailing out, is if the lawyers convince them that the potential of losing this case would set a precedent they don't want. But they're not really known for thinking those things through.
We'll see. It's entirely possible they won't go legal, but I don't think anything in my statement was "FUD" given how they've reacted in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's more the tone of the article that prompted my reply: it comes across as having been written after the mpaa had already filed a suit. you seem to be lambasting already, for something they haven't done. YET.
perhaps a cautionary tone for now; followed by a well-deserved bashing after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are asking two questions without asking the important third question: Can we allow a third party to do all that work for us, and be certain that the third party isn't breaking the law?
When you think about it, all they are doing is "redigitizing" every request. Would it be any different if they just digitized the movie once and then let people download the copy, digitized, when they wanted, say using a torrent format to avoid making it heavy on their networks?
There is also the question of liablity in distribution of content outside it's permitted area. Example, if they take a Zone 1 movie, and allow a user in Zone 5 to view it. Maybe a movie that hasn't been released yet in the UK, but is already on DVD in the US - if they let a UK viewer watch that movie, have they broken the law? My guess is that they have, because they are distributing in the UK without permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you accusing Zediva of torrenting movies?
I would say the evidence doesn't back you up on that.
But when do you care about evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does the format they use for the digitization allow the movies to be captured and recorded locally, and in turn used as the basis for torrent files? Are they just making it more easy for people to obtain digital copies to spread?
Does the service buy a physical DVD player for each user, put their name on it, and allow only them to use it? Or it is a shared device?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Windowed released (aka, the limited pre-releases before the actual retail release) are there to make money. They provide the public with various price points and timing options. You want to see it at the theater, in the pre-retail "theater only" scarcity? You pay for it. $10 each.
You want to see it on the pre-release PPV channel? No problem, that is $5 price point, as many people as you can put in front of the TV. That comes about 60 days after the other pre-release to theaters.
Rental? Buy a copy? Each has it's time and it's price.
It is all about scarcity and people willing to buy the scarcity.
This service (as one poster mentioned) shortcuts the line, making things available to people who should not be able to get it, and potentially out of window. That isn't profitable at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait, it's ALL about the pennies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Stop fight it.
2. GO OUT OF BUSINESS!
Those are the only two choices here for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A couple of weeks is likely too short. The current shortest is about 2 months, and that is for movies that bomb out at the box office. Usually, you are looking at 3-4 months after the movie leaves the theater. It's not really a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So we're in agreement that they're doing something completely different than what the law says is illegal. You're not exactly building your case up, AJ.
What would happen if it turned out that the DVD players were just a front, and that the vast majority of users were being served from pre-digitized movies?
Again, I'll ask. Are you now accusing Zediva of doing that? All you seem to be able to do is make up wild hypothetical situations where things this company is NOT doing might be illegal (and I'd argue against "pre-digitizing a movie is illegal").
Does the format they use for the digitization allow the movies to be captured and recorded locally, and in turn used as the basis for torrent files?
By that logic the MPAA's solution they presented to the Library of Congress on how to camcord a TV screen so that films could be used in educational settings is also illegal.
Are they just making it more easy for people to obtain digital copies to spread?
That's a resounding "No." Capturing the stream, although not particularly difficult, is harder than searching Google for a torrent and then downloading it and sharing it. So under any definition, they are not making it easier to torrent the movie.
Does the service buy a physical DVD player for each user, put their name on it, and allow only them to use it? Or it is a shared device?
I'll use your favorite word from a couple days ago: Irrelevant. I imagine they'd have enough players to reasonably handle their peak load, while also minimizing needing someone to run around and swap discs constantly. So long as they're not copying the DVDs, what does it matter how many DVD players they have? They're renting out their legally purchased DVDs and legally purchased DVD players. What does it matter how many they have if they are all legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not certain about the UK, but in the US the answer is "NO"
Lets be clear for those in the cheap seats, those people that think no matter what Hollywood does, it must be right or correct:
REGION CODING IS NOT A LAW. It is an invented restriction created by hollywood to restrict content in different regions of the world. There is no "region coding" law on the books, therefore there is no law being broken. It's a licensing scheme that at worst is a breaking of some kind of contract, but there is no law about it directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Region coding in itself isn't in the law - it doesn't have to be.
(I notice more upper case too... perhaps an extra dose before bedtime tonight?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Region coding in itself isn't in the law - it doesn't have to be."
Completely and utterly wrong. What a bunch of shill-serving hogwash you just wrote. Licensing is a CONTRACT (and fuck yes, I am going to capitalize for emphasis, because some people need to be hit in the face with a 2x4 to get it through their thick skulls). A contract between two parties has ZERO to do with the underlying copyright on the item being licensed.
And your implication that region coding is already implicit in the "law" because of this just serves to further show how clueless you are about laws, contracts and licensing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A movie is made. It is copyright. The copyright holder grants a company in the US the rights to retail it in the US to US customers. They choose to sell it to a customer in the UK, they have violated their contract, and by doing so, have also violated copyright (because they distributed a copy in a manner they were not licensed to do).
It is the same at the other end. The buyer in the UK now has in their possession an unlicensed DVD. In purely technical terms, they have violated copyright as well, as they copy in their hands is not legal.
See, except for DVD and UK, you don't need capitals to make your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is "they"?
Walmart buys a DVD from the studio. I buy the DVD from Walmart. I go to the UK and sell the DVD to someone. I have broken no laws or contracts (assuming I have paid import/VAT/other taxes).
I have not signed any contract saying I would only sell my legally purchased DVD in the US, therefore I cannot violate any contract.
If I'm renting the DVD, it is no different.
But of course you knew that and were being deliberately misleading by implying otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, the consumer buying the video in the UK might by in a bit of a pickle, depending on how they use it. The rights granted would be in a weird sort of legal limbo, because while they were originally written to match US law, you have now sold it in the UK. There is potential that there is no actual license for them to purchase, making their owning it a bit of a no-no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> a country, importing it and making it
> available would be violating copyright,
> as the rights holder would lose their rights.
Not if the person bought all the physical copies legitimately. The rights holder made their money off that sale. That's all they're legally entitled to. The person who bought them now owns the physical discs and can resell them at his whim. Just like I can sell all my old laserdiscs or vinyl albums at a garage sale if I want. No law being broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video On Demand (again)
Seriously, what is stopping it from happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video On Demand (again)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DVR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Months Later For Zediva
Unfortunately things haven't changed for the better in the last two months. This weeks headlined out of India read "Hollywood sues Indian American for selling films online" and customers are lighting up facebook like it's a pinball machine. "All the people waiting for your Zediva, don't be too bothered. I got to register couple of weeks ago, and I'm disappointed with the way this is working. Nothing is ever available when you want it. Kind of like going to the old video store."
Personally I want Zediva to successfully challenge and change the MPAA rules on streaming movies. Eventually all content will be on the Internet. Why fight it? Lawyers are more expensive than Software Engineers and getting to the marketplace early is the key. Isn't that right Borders?
Joe Romine
Difficulty9.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]