Redbox Sues 20th Century Fox Over DVD Delays

[Attebery]

Apparently Blu-ray reviewers aren't the only folks Fox is slow to send titles to.

http://redboxpressroom.com/releases/...it_081209.html

[Elee s]

Despite this attempt, redbox will continue to provide our consumers access to all major new releases including 20th Century Fox titles at our more than 15,000 redbox DVD rental locations.”

So if you see someone going into bestbuy and snatching up every copy of a new movie.. you know who it is.

[darkdaze73]

I read about this on another site last night. The story stated that redbox even bought copies of fox movies from retailers to put in their kiosks.

Redbox sues Fox for delaying new releases

[Filmmaker]

I'm miles from a legal expert but I can't begin to fathom what leg Redbox is trying to stand on. Are not Fox DVDs/Blu-rays the property of Fox? Can they not dictate exactly how, when and/or who will have access to their creations? Blockbuster got an exclusive rental deal for Weinstein titles--that was fully legal. I would think that Fox could say Redbox is not allowed to carry their products ever and be completely within their rights.

[crazzeto]

yeah, as much as I'd love to support redbox they're completely off their rocker on this one.

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by crazzeto

yeah, as much as I'd love to support redbox they're completely off their rocker on this one.

+1 from me as well. They seem to think they have more rights that that really do. The movies belong to the studios.

[The_Doctor]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I'm miles from a legal expert but I can't begin to fathom what leg Redbox is trying to stand on. Are not Fox DVDs/Blu-rays the
property of Fox? Can they not dictate exactly how, when and/or who will have access to their creations? Blockbuster got an exclusive rental deal for Weinstein titles--that was fully legal. I would think that Fox could say Redbox is not allowed to carry their products ever and be completely within their rights.

Um, I'm not sure 20th Fox has a leg to stand on. It is one thing to not sell to them wholesale, but another to ban the rightful owner from using their property.

I'm not big fan of red box but if they buy the discs then they own them and fox is taking a dangerous (for all consumers) course to limit the usefulness of that property.

There maybe something to limit the property rights when it is used for rentals, but if they are allowing other businesses to rent their movies I'm not sure how strong that is. Mom and pop rental stores could be banned at this rate.

Although this is a Redbox's PR, sames as WB's, they try to make their cases seem righteous and air tight

[Rich86]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I'm miles from a legal expert but I can't begin to fathom what leg Redbox is trying to stand on. Are not Fox DVDs/Blu-rays the property of Fox? Can they not dictate exactly how, when and/or who will have access to their creations? Blockbuster got an exclusive rental deal for Weinstein titles--that was fully legal. I would think that Fox could say Redbox is not allowed to carry their products ever and be completely within their rights.

It is probably just a ploy on Fox's part to get a revenue sharing deal out of Redbox, which is what they were arguing for originally, and the matter will be settled out of court. Redbox is successful as can be - and Fox is jealous and wants more of the money than selling them the discs provides by itself. They will work out a deal, just like Sony and Lionsgate did.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

I'm not big fan of red box but if they buy the discs then they own them and fox is taking a dangerous (for all consumers) course to limit the usefulness of that property.

By that logic, I've got nearly 2,000 DVDs and Blu-rays that I should be able to use however I see fit because I bought 'em, so I own 'em. I think I'll set up an outside projector and charge everyone in the neighborhood $5 to see WATCHMEN in high-def tonight...

[The_Doctor]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

By that logic, I've got nearly 2,000 DVDs and Blu-rays that I should be able to use however I see fit because I bought 'em, so I own 'em. I think I'll set up an outside projector and charge everyone in the neighborhood $5 to see WATCHMEN in high-def tonight...

You might want to read what I said again, cause you missed the point. And I also made an allowance for rental clauses.

The way fox sees it, they should be able to stop you from watching your movies more than once each week or reselling them when you are done. Although if you want to start up a business scalping your neighbors on a crappy projector they might have something to say, that is if your neighbors don't scalp you first.

Consumers have rights as do businesses but those rights differ.
In this case it seems Fox is seeking expand their control over items after there sold to a buyer. The only wiggle room is because Redbox is rental company, although if Fox presses the point it can go farther to individual consumer, which would make the studios happy.

[twonunpackmule]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

The way fox sees it, they should be able to stop you from watching your movies more than once each week or reselling them when you are done.

Movie/record industry rep says that you shouldn't expect to be able to play your media for as long as you own it

Glyn sez, "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later is fair writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office."

"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/29...-industry.html

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

You might want to read what I said again, cause you missed the point. And I also made an allowance for rental clauses.

You're right; I must still be missing your point. For instance, with a line like "There may be something to limit the property rights when it is used for rentals, but if they are allowing other businesses to rent their movies I'm not sure how strong that is. Mom and pop rental stores could be banned at this rate", you're ignoring my earlier point that there's already a precedent with that via the Weinstein/Blockbuster connection. Again, I'm no expert but you're not making a compelling point to me yet.

[webdev511]

If this keeps up (Redbox vs studios) we might just see a return to the multi phase consumer release cycle. Way back in the day (we're talking VHS days here), studios would release a rental version of a movie for $100 and follow it up with a retail release 30-90 days later. What's to stop them from going back to that? If the studios can make more $$ with a phased release, then they should do it.

here is the order I suggest
1. Theatrical (until such time it's not making $$ on the big screen anymore)
2. PPV/On Demand & Rental (say $70 per DVD/Blu-ray) (for 15-30 days) Redbox can buy here if they wish. maybe get a lower price too...NOT.
3. Blu-ray Retail ($35 or whatever counts as MSRP for Blu these days) (first two to four weeks of retail are Blu only)
4. DVD Retail ($20 or whatever counts as MSRP for DVD these days) This is where Redbox will likely buy. I wonder where all those extra cases and slip covers are going to go?

[rise2it]

Personally, I hope a judge laughs this out of court.

The manufacturer can do what they want - it's THEIR stuff. If you (distributors, dealers) don't like it, take your marbles and play elsewhere.

[Gojira]

Originally Posted by rise2it

Personally, I hope a judge laughs this out of court.

The manufacturer can do what they want - it's THEIR stuff. If you (distributors, dealers) don't like it, take your marbles and play elsewhere.

It is a sad day when the consumer begins to side with the studios when any
company that is just making rentals more affordable ($1 dvd / $2 Blu Ray
@Redbox) is being penalized for giving the customer what they want? I stopped going to Ballbuster/Hollywood Video because of a
combination of bad selection, even worse service and over-priced rentals!
My local BB store even surcharges Blu Ray to more than $6 per rental!
The real question here is this pressure being placed on the kiosk rental
business market by studios like Universal that has stake in seeing a company
like Blockbuster keep the rental market high priced? It was the studios who originally came up with the $24.99 srp on the dvd medium. I believe studios like Warner Bros. thought that consumers would buy instead of renting and
that works if the movie warrants it (most Box Office hits). But what about
the thousands of other dvd's being released? Without rental, most of these
would have no placement in the market at all.