Zediva Shut Down By Federal Judge, MPAA Parties! 189
AlienIntelligence writes "Looks like the loophole that Zediva founded their business model on evaporated. Zediva's biggest problem was getting over a 1991 ruling against a similar method of transmitting copyright works. Zediva has vowed to appeal the ruling."
Zediva clearly forgot the Golden Rule (Score:5, Insightful)
He who gives gold to Congressional and Presidential election campaigns makes the rules.
And $111 million [opensecrets.org] is a lot of gold.
Re:Zediva clearly forgot the Golden Rule (Score:5, Interesting)
it is.. but it sure helped get a bunch of former RIAA lawyers (five so far) elected to positions in the Obama Administration...
Re: (Score:2)
a bunch of former RIAA lawyers (five so far) elected to positions in the Obama Administration...
You mean "appointed and confirmed" to positions in the Obama Administration.
Correct, but not actually an improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
-MPAA et al pay lawmakers a lot of money
-Lawmakers make laws that favor the MPAA etc
-Zediva's plan is illegal by those laws
-MPAA continues to give lawmakers money to make laws that keep all the control in the MPAA's hands.
Seems very relevant to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'm not convinced Zediva's plan is illegal. The media and the player are individually and exclusively locked to a single customer at a time with the same limitation that one would have from a brick and mortar video rental. The only difference, in my view, is the "-- over the internet" part of the situation and frankly, that aspect is trivial.
I think what has happened is that Netflix and others pay something to the MPAA and so the MPAA expects that from everyone despite whatever happens on the ba
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's an easy - really, really easy workaround for all of this.
It's time for everyone to just say "fuck it" and stop sending these fuckers money.
Go to the Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] or any other torrent site of your choice, and download all you want FOR FREE.
That's right, it's totally and completely FREE. No charge. FREE.
You only have to pay for your connection to the internet.
FREE!
Re: (Score:2)
I somewhat agree with you, but it does seem to me that this is clearly a copy being made of the original, since their DVD player is reading it and sending you
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting case and ruling to say the least. A recent case [wikipedia.org] against a cable company with a very similar scheme (a remotely-hosted DVR) ruled soundly in the cable company's favor, finding that "buffer copies" and a transient bitstream did not constitute copyright infringement, and that replaying (including time-shifting) the content directly to the original user did not constitute public performance. OTOH, the article cited a case where a hotel streaming a movie *from the same building* (presumably u
Dumb ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't think so. There's no support for them directly, it's just coinciding interests.
I'm a liberal, and I'm firmly in support of free speech. While it's true that there are some people on the left who have problems outside of their comfort zones (e.g. violent video games, explicit song lyrics, pornography as demeaning and oppressive toward women), there are plenty of us who think that the "no" in "Congress shall make no law" is important.
This general position results in supporting publishers against t
Re: (Score:2)
they're treated as being relatively (though not wholly) benign.
True. On the other hand, any industry that thinks it's ethically acceptable to have some private-sector organization determine if my Internet connection should be terminated, without any involvement of the courts or law enforcement, merely upon their say-so, does not qualify as benign.
so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Twenty years ago, it was decided this wasn't legal. They decided to do it anyway and were shut down. This somehow makes content owners evil.
Do I have the facts straight?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an odd situation in general. Rent DVD from blockbuster, take it home and play it = legal.
Rent DVD player and DVD from blockbuster, hook up to your TV and play it = legal.
Leave DVD player at blockbuster but run really long video cable to your TV is untested, but the length of the video cable doesn't seen legally relevant (even if it is a technical problem).
Now, treading ever further into untested waters, same setup but you just call Blockbuster and rent the DVD and get an employee to play it in the DVD player you left there.
Next up, multiplex the video cable with other communications. Still doesn't seem relevant. Video cables that include ethernet channels aren't illegal.
Rent the common multiplexed communications cable from someone else. Why not, you're renting the player and the DVD, why not the cable?
Now, connect a digitizer at your end and watch on the computer. Shouldn't matter, it's not illegal to do that on a home theater.
Finally, move the digitizer to blockbuster's side of the rented multiplexed communications cable. Fundamentally, you're still renting a DVD and a player from Blockbuster and watching it at home, but somehow it has magically become illegal according to the judge. What part makes it illegal now? Is it legal as long as you burn a gallon of gas in the back yard so you can do your part in the pollution effort?
Re: (Score:3)
When the law was written I'm fairly certain it was intended to mean transmission to multiple people, and probably over the air or some such multicast method.
What Zediva is doing is no different than plugging a DvD player up to your computer or TV directly in your own home. The DvD player is "transmitting" over a wire, the length of that wire and where it leads so long as the signal is only going to one customer should not be legally relevant. Hell you could even plug your DvD player at home up to multiple T
Re: (Score:2)
That's a continuum fallacy [wikipedia.org]. There's a very clear difference between your HDMI cable and the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming the setup is such that whomever pays to rent the movie is the only one who can view it, and there's only one stream per purchased disc at a time, then honestly what is the clear difference between your HDMI cable and the internet? Both are simply a medium for moving the stored bits of data that make up the movie from wherever they're stored to wherever they're decoded and played on a screen. The only difference is that the internet is arguably more convenient.
I also fail to see how this would cou
Re: (Score:3)
What is that difference, and why is it legally relevant? Please expand.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a clear difference between a $5 HDMI cable and a Monster cable as well (the price, that is) but it's not a legally relevant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
When the law was written I'm fairly certain it was intended to mean transmission to multiple people, and probably over the air or some such multicast method.
Well, here's what it says:
To âoetransmitâ a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.
No suggestion either way as to the number of people, so on its face it seems to include transmitting to only one person, and it is explicit that it includes any device or process, so it's not just over the air broadcasts.
where it leads so long as the signal is only going to one customer should not be legally relevant.
Maybe, but as things stand, where it leads is entirely relevant. You could probably argue that a DVD player in one room of a house, connected to a TV in another room are both in the same place (i.e. the house), but I think it's a stretch to say that the entire US o
Re: (Score:2)
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : to send or convey from one person or place to another
By that, mailing a DVD or taking it home in your car would also count as transmission. Since that's clearly what wasn't meant, best guess given the time frame is that they meant like a television station would transmit (since the legal definition of transmit clearly wasn't used).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry if it wasn't clear before; the definition I provided is the definition of 'transmit' that's found within the Copyright Act itself. It is the authoritative definition. We can quibble as to what it means, exactly, but we can't substitute anything else for it without changing the law. You can find most of the definitions for the Copyright Act at 17 USC 101. (A few others are scattered here and there)
mailing a DVD or taking it home in your car would also count as transmission
No. Remember the definition:
To 'transmit' a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.
For a DVD (whether sent in the mail or by car) to be transmitted, it has to be
Re: (Score:2)
No. Remember the definition: To âoetransmitâ a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent
Yes, in this case the process is putting a stamp and an address on it and handing it over to the U.S. Postal service for delivery utilizing a combination of devices such as Jeeps and airplanes.
Since that definition is rather hazy, I sought wider legal definitions hoping to gain clarity, but that only made it worse, so I resort to a common definition from the time that might be used by people with an ordinary understanding of technology (that is, not much).
It could go the other was as well. No images or soun
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in this case the process is putting a stamp and an address on it and handing it over to the U.S. Postal service for delivery utilizing a combination of devices such as Jeeps and airplanes.
'Fraid not. It's not transmission that's prohibited, it's public performance even if via transmission. When you send a DVD via mail there's still no performance involved, because a DVD is not, itself, a performance. It is a copy, where the work fixed within it is capable of being performed.
If it's easier for you, think of the script for a play. If you xerox the play, you have engaged in reproduction. If you give copies of the play to other people (via, e.g. the mail), you have engaged in distribution. If yo
Re: (Score:2)
So a DVD by itself isn't a performance
Copying a file from one drive to another is not a performance either, neither is reading a file into system memory. Even if the drive or memory it gets sent to is half way around the world.
That is not a performance.
The performance doesn't start until the file is decoded.
If I rent a DVD, its a 2 step process. The disc is physically carried to my device at my home, the device copies the file into memory, where it is then decoded and performed.
If I stream a DVD, they copy
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, copying a file from one folder to another would be a performance of it. And that's absurd.
I don't see a problem with that.
Yours truly,
J. Valenti
Re: (Score:2)
The performance doesn't start until the file is decoded.
I suppose, but so what? Was there a suggestion that Zediva should not be liable because the videos were never viewable by anyone?
If I stream a DVD, they copy the file into my system memory over the internet saving me a trip, where it is then decoded and performed. Both are transient copies for the purpose of performance. But the transmission of the data itself isn't a performance.
I'd disagree. It's not a performance until the audio and/or video is presented in human comprehensible form. But once it is, the entire causal chain is fair game. It's a performance because it is, ultimately, shown/audible, and the performance was transmitted because it was communicated in a fashion that allowed it to be shown/audible beyond from where it was sent.
No transmission
Re: (Score:2)
How is what Zediva is doing different than using Apple TV, or something similar, to transmit content over a household LAN?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple TV has licenses with the copyright owners?
Also, a "household" LAN by definition is within a house. Others have quoted "beyond the place from which they are sent". It's arguable whether an entire house counts as one place for this purpose, but reasonable people would say that Zediva's server farm and your house are NOT the same place.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the pdf linked for the earlier case (which involved a hotel that had a bank of VCRs with movies in them and a system where you would pick a movie and then a switch would feed the output from that VCR to your room (and only your room, i.e. one viewing of the film at once) it makes it clear that the the "Transmit Clause"
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the me
Re: (Score:2)
You mean transmission like this [google.com]? I had no idea Amazon was such a scofflaw!
building on shifting sand (Score:2)
Anyone who builds a business based on a loophole in the law really shouldn't quit their day job.
Re: (Score:2)
What Zediva Does... (Score:4, Informative)
For folks who've never heard of Zediva, they apparently let customers stream newly released movies. Their business model was that the customers rent the DVD and DVD player which are both located at their facility, and the customers access them over the Internet. Clever approach, but this shutdown should be of no surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
For folks who've never heard of Zediva, they apparently let customers stream newly released movies. Their business model was that the customers rent the DVD and DVD player which are both located at their facility, and the customers access them over the Internet. Clever approach, but this shutdown should be of no surprise.
I skimmed TFA, but does this mean that their business model was nothing more than "standard video rental" on the internet with artificial restrictions in place to prevent one real copy from being distributed to more than one person at a time?
The Geek Problem (Score:2)
Like some many times before they forgot its not about the letter of the law, but rather the spirit most of the time. HINT if you think you have found some CLEVER exploit in the law, its only really clever if you have at least as many highly paid lawyers as whoever what ever it is that your doing is going to annoy.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, they are within the actual spirit of the law as well. Video rental is intentionally legal. The only thing they violate is the will of the MPAA and their hired lapdogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed] about Fair Use saying you can copy an entire DVD.
Slingbox? (Score:2)
Why is what Zediva does any different than Slingbox? (Individuals rent DVDs and view remotely).
Slingbox exactly allows for this, along with remote cable TV viewing as well. So Zediva is nothing more than renting the use of a Slingbox setup, including the DVD rental.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So then, if I rent a DVD and stream it to my phone from my desktop that is illegal as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, mp3.com ripped a load of commercial CD's and kept them on a server. The subscriber would place a commercial CD into their computer, which would fingerprint it to verify ownership and allow the user to stream/download the pre-ripped mp3's (it's been a while, I forgot which one they did).
They lost, because while it was fair use for the end user to rip their own CD themselves, it was somehow a copyright violation to have/hire a 3rd party do it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I also "rebroadcast" content from my DVD player to my TV using an HDMI cable. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the directv sat-go (Score:2)
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/equipment/satgo [directv.com]
this may fall into the same trap or does the mirroring / outlet fee to tie it to your home account some how make it ok?
Re: (Score:2)
No binding precedent (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing about the ruling in On Command was binding on this court, so I'm not sure why everyone thinks the argument was ridiculous. I think it's absurd to construe the prohibition against transmitting copyrighted acts to "the public" as encompassing this activity. How is someone sitting at home on their computer "the public"? It is clear that Congress intended, by this phrase, to prohibit transmitting of copyrighted works to the public at large, not to individual people for individual use.
It's legal to rent
And how is this not the same as cable VOD? ppv? (Score:2)
And how is this not the same as cable VOD? ppv? push PPV / VOD?
Most cable and satellite systems have PPV and or some kind of VOD system. Does it have to do the fees they pay and the higher cost? In the past some cable systems pushed out VOD in clear QAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are done with the consent of the copyright owners, through contracts.
Sound like it should be legal if: (Score:3)
1) You are renting a video player which is located in the store and provide exclusive access to you while renting through an encrypted virtual interface
2) You are separately renting a movie
3) You ask as delivery method that someone is placing your rented movie inside your rented dvd player
4) You connect the rented player to your display unit
5) You see the movie
Streaming was done by you from your equipment to your equipment. The streaming can in this case not be said to be done by the store, as it is solely initiated by the client from his own rented player with his own rented physical media. I don't see how this can be illegal. Maybe I did not understand it right, and they don't rent the player out separate from the movie? In that case there might be problems...
well that sounds like cable VOD (Score:2)
1) You are in away renting a HD or SD slot / bandwidth for the movie.
2) You then rent a movie from a list
3) a QAM slot on the cable system is opened from the movie sever at the head end to your local node and then to the cable box.
4) The movie starts up and you have control of that movie for X time.
Now is seems to be about the same the with the DVD players being the movie sever and then there being a data link from them to your local player.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, If I rent a web server and I create streaming content on it, then it is me and not my hosting service that create the streaming content.
If I now rent a dvd player with SSH or HTTP / SSL connection and I log into my rented box and flip the switch to start a stream, who is it that now create the stream? My service provider or me?
Notice that there is already several DVD players on the market that allows you to output the movie to your TV using Wifi and streaming:
(Example: http://www.amazon [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can see that is not the issue: They ARE authorized to rent out the movies, what the studios refuse is rending out streaming over the Internet. However, in this case they are:
1) renting the physical dvd's to the clients
2) placing the physical dvd rented into the physical dvd player also being rented by the client
3) providing an interface to use the physically rented dvd player to the clients that lets the end user initiate a stream over a secure connection
Step 2 and 3 is apparently OK if the movi
Angels dancing... (Score:2)
Only the MPAA version is: Can the same "work" (whatever that means) be present in multiple places at the same time?
"transmitting"? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is "transmitting" the video over the Internet any different than "transmitting" it over an HDMI cable from a local DVD player to a television? In both cases, bits are being moved, and only one person has access to them.
I hate how convoluted copyright law has become.
Definition of "publicly" in US copyright law (Score:2)
How is "transmitting" the video over the Internet any different than "transmitting" it over an HDMI cable from a local DVD player to a television?
Because in the former case, "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" potentially have access to it.
"at the same time or at different times" (Score:2)
So, by definition, if you transmit a video over the internet, everyone and their mother potentially have access to it?
If you encrypt it to transmit it to one subscriber, then you encrypt it to transmit it to another subscriber, eventually you'll have encrypted it to transmit it to "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". This is true "whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Re: (Score:2)
If a DVD rental store lends their DVD to one customer, and then lends it to another, and then another, eventually they will have lent it to a substantial number of people too. I'm not seeing your point. If you're suggesting that this encryption can happen numerous times concurrently from one video source to multiple simultaneous viewers, well, OK, but that's not what Zediva's doing.
Distribution != performance (Score:2)
If a DVD rental store lends their DVD to one customer, and then lends it to another, and then another, eventually they will have lent it to a substantial number of people too. I'm not seeing your point.
The U.S. copyright statute is worded such that the right to distribute copies of a work and the right to perform a work publicly are completely separate. This means that the exhaustion of the exclusive right to distribute a particular copy after the first sale (17 USC 109) does not exhaust the exclusive right to perform a work by transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
So, to distinguish between whether a movie was "distributed" to an audience of one or "performed" for an audience of one, we need only ask who pressed the play button?
Re: (Score:2)
Judge's ruling pro-biz, anti-law (Score:4, Interesting)
The 12-page injunction took issue with nearly every argument Zediva made in its defense, and even went further, arguing that since Zediva's users could occasionally encounter movies that were "out of stock," consumers would be confused about how streaming video services work, potentially ruining the market for Hollywood.
Oddly, Martin also argued that Zediva's service, which charges per movie, could cause "confusion or doubt regarding whether payment is required for access to the Copyrighted Works."
Shocking (Score:2)
This is pretty shocking. I hope very much that they get it reversed.
slingbox (Score:2)
So does this mean that slingbox is illegal? Or that it is illegal to watch a movie that you own via slingbox?
Public Performance (Score:3, Informative)
It was that Zediva was playing movies for other people (and taking money for it) without having the public performance rights to do so. This is the same principle that stops someone from opening a movie theatre and just buying a DVD of each movie they want to show. The 1991 case said a hotel can't get around that by having a bunch of VCRs and sending the output of each to a single hotel room, and the judge for the Zediva case found this to be no different. And he's right.
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: the 1991 court ruling was absurd for the same reason this one is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's basing it on the transmission part (2).
His definition of "the public" found in section 2 is what's causing the trouble.
I can't find any valid reference or definition were "to one specific person" is equivalent with "to the public".
To perform or display a work "publicly" means -
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or
at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a
normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is
gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or
display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to
the public, by means of any device or process, whether the
members of the public capable of receiving the performance or
display receive it in the same place or in separate places and
at the same time or at different times.
Re: (Score:2)
it may be no different but does it make it right?
suppose you have a hotel next door to a blockbuster or near by and the hotel provides dvd players in its rooms a customer asks the night manager if they can nip next door and get a dvd of a particular movie , the night manager fetches the dvd from the blockbuster next door and gives the dvd to the customer in his room. Later the dvd is returned to the night manager who takes it back to blockbuster.
Or perhaps a person staying at the hotel gets a taxi driver to
Re: (Score:2)
An easy and quick fix for this is to create two companies.
One is a co-op, where all renters pay $10 to be co-owners. They now own 1/xxth of a time-share DVD player. This should not be run as a for profit business, but as a true co-op. The $10 is returned to you if you ever decide to quit the co-op.
Another (unrelated) company provides services to your time-shared DVD player, by providing you with disks to play in your own player. This is a for profit company, renting out discs.
Now you're the one transmitting
Re: (Score:2)
How does the Zediva case substantially differ from Cartoon Network vs. Cablevision [wikipedia.org], in which a very similar "hosted DVR" scheme was ruled lawful on all counts? (i.e. automated copies and multiple "buffer contents" copies noninfringing, transmission to the renting user not public performance)?
Well they can't beat cable satellite before DVD (Score:2)
Well they can't beat cable and satellite before DVD release to ppv. I was able to see Source Code 2-3 weeks before DVD on Directv push VOD in 1080p Same price as other new VOD / ppv movies and it was push out to the DRV box ready to view.
Directv also has download VOD / PPV and right now 36 PPV HD channels + more SD ones. The PPV HD bandwidth does get used for stuff like RSN HD over flows and NFL ST bandwidth. But more on Zediva if Direct can push PPV movies in at least 3 different ways then Zediva has got t
Zediva was screwed anyways (Score:2)
It's the standard Redbox problem. Redbox was sending their workers out on the day that a new DVD came out and then buying up all they could. They would then label them (barcode and case) and then put them into their machines. Then they can rent them legally as they see fit. However, once the distributors realized what was happening, they ma
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny to me about that is that it actually worked with Redbox. I live in a small city, pop 350k or so, and we have 1 Sam's, 1 Costco, 4 (freaking four) Walmarts, 1 Target, and 1 Best Buy. Those are the major retailers that I can think of off the top of my head, that's 40 discs in a couple hours easy per buyer per trip to the store. Are they really putting 40 of any one disc into a Redbox machine?
A service I would subscribe to... (Score:2)
You know, I would really REALLY love to see a video subscription service that specializes in non-MPAA movies and shows. I know I would subscribe to it out of principle alone. It could become like YouTube on steroids. And there could be lots of content... even historical and reference content. Schools could literally create their own documentaries to publish on such a service. Maybe since I am having the idea, it's not a good one since I rarely come up with good ideas... and if it is good, someone else
Re:Who didn't see this coming?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
sigh (Score:2)
broadcast != unicast.
Re:Who didn't see this coming?? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Only one person can rent a DVD at one time, meaning that if Zediva bought 20 copies of a movie, only 20 people can watch it simultaneously. Still, Zediva saves money because it could serve many more customers with the same physical copy of a DVD than a company that has to mail out a DVD and wait for its return. "
So they're not using a single DVD to broadcast to multiple people simultaneously; they are basically a renting organization that is very similar to RedBox except it is done through streaming and online purchasing but the limitation is still a 1:1 ratio of viewer-to-physical dvd copy. Ask yourself this: if Redbox has 20 copies of a movie and every day 20 people rent it and return it (some the same day, some after a day or two), how is this different than Zediva's business model other than the online factor vs. physical stand?
Re: (Score:2)
It's different because the First Sale Doctrine explicitly allows resale or rental of specific things (and DISALLOWS rental of specific things, e.g. software).
I do think they *should* be equivalent (since Zediva has a physical player & DVD media for each customer), but I don't think it's 100% obvious that they are.. which is why there is a legal case.
Re: (Score:3)
So Zediva thought they could purchase a single DVD and re-broadcast the content to multiple customers, essentially relying on a very loose interpretation of the first sale doctrine and avoid paying the same licensing fees as Netflix or Amazon.
If the MPAA didn’t take them to court, then Amazon or Netflix or Redbox, hell the entire legitimate broadcast industry would have.
No. The person renting the video has exclusive use of the DVD (and DVD player) for the period of their rental, which would generally be about the length of the movie. Two people can't be watching the same movie at the same time unless Zediva purchased two copies of the video, just like a physical rental store. Except for the obvious savings because the rental period only lasts as long as the person is watching the video, and it is instantly "returned" when they are finished, it is no different in this respe
Re:Who didn't see this coming?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we stop using the word "broadcast" to refer to long-distance, point-to-point communications, please? If we keep using these terms wrong, we shouldn't be surprised when judges arrive at absurd conclusions about laws which are concerned with "broadcasting".
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an interesting part that sounds very similar to Zediva:
The record clearly demonstrates that showcasing a video cassette at Maxwell's is a significantly different transaction than leasing a tape for home use. Maxwell's never disposed of the tapes in its showcasing operations, nor did the tapes ever leave the store. At all times, Maxwell's maintained physical dominion and control over the tapes. Its employees actually played the cassettes on its machines. The charges or fees received for viewing the cassettes at Maxwell's facilities are analytically indistinguishable from admission fees paid by patrons to gain adimission to any public theater. Plainly, [**16] in their showcasing operation, the appellants do not sell, rent, or otherwise dispose of the video cassette. On the facts presented, Maxwell's "showcasing" operation is a public performance, which, as a matter of law, constitutes a copyright infringement.
Even though the tapes wer
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because that is an actual covered exception under the first sale doctrine. Streaming the movie over the Internet to people is on the other hand not a covered exception.
Re: (Score:2)
and the dvd and dvd player just happens to be in their data center and using their network hardware and management systems
Re: (Score:2)
and the MPAA would be right to Sue Blockbuster if i went in and rented a DVD and a DVD Player and just sat there and watched it in their store?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that is illegal then so is every managed-server facility in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. The First Sale Doctrine is a limitation on the rights of the content producer. The idea is that the content producer loses control over how and to whom a particular (legal/licensed) copy of its work is sold after the first sale. In other words, you have the right to sell or give your own copy of a copyrighted work to anyone you please so long as what you're selling or giving is a legitimate, non-infringing copy.
Yes, it is a limitation on their rights and as such makes legal certain activities, that could otherwise be called exceptions to copyright law, that otherwise would be violations of copyright. So basically you claim to disagree with me yet say the exact same thing I was just in different words.
Re:Who didn't see this coming?? (Score:4, Informative)
No, not exactly. Their claim to legitimacy was that they purchased dozens of copies of each DVD, and thousands of DVD players paired to slingbox-type products. When the user rented the DVD, the DVD was loaded into a player, plugged into the internet streamer, and unicast to the subscriber. That DVD and DVD player were inaccessible to any other user during that time. It behaved just like a normal rental, except the subscriber did not have to physically go and pick up the DVD. The only real difference between this and a traditional rental service is the turnover rate per disc is much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
I pretty much have this. The HTPC in my living room has rips of every DVD I own. You can then stream these via vlc or copy them to any other machine in the house and watch them that way.
I guess I am breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I am breaking the law.
Yes, if we ignore that your situation is not the same as what Zediva was doing, than yes, under your strawman you would be breaking the law. What you fail to point out is that you weren't selling a commercial service to rebroadcast licensed content to other people without a license to do so. You streaming a DVD to yourself on another TV is not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They rent the DVD, which gives them limited time ownership of it and they rent the player. Then this renter using his rented property streams the video from the disk to himself.
Considering both of use are using our property, his rented mine owned I fail to see how this is any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are breaking the law, even if you weren't streaming them around your house. You're violating the DMCA by breaking the encryption on the DVDs in the first place.
Am I saying anyone's ever going to catch you? No, just like most speeders don't get caught. That doesn't mean you're NOT breaking