MPAA Launched Streaming Lawsuit Against DVD-Rental ServiceAdded: Saturday, April 16th, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Under the flag of the MPAA, 6 major movie studios recently filed a case against the quasi DVD-rental service Zediva, calling it a “sham” since Zediva uses an interesting way to bypass a licensing roadblock. The lawsuit in question became another bizarre yet brilliant example of how controversial the current copyright restrictions are.
Zediva is quite a new movie streaming service allowing its customers to rent and view physical DVDs remotely. The new scheme of providing a service was a result of the entertainment industry’s set of harsh copyright rules. However, Zediva also became a company that managed to bypass those restrictions at the same time. In fact, the scheme is the only legitimate way to let the public watch fresh DVDs online, since all other services must abide by set long delays before being able to legitimately stream digital (contrary to physical) copies of the movie. The matter is that the movie studios fear that providing people with access to their content straight away will kill their DVD sales.
A new DVD-rental service believed it had cleverly bypassed the limitation in question by allowing people to rent a physical DVD which plays in a real DVD-player at Zediva’s data center. The only difference is a huge Internet cable attached to a player. Of course, it’s hilarious that the company had to go to such an extreme to provide its customers with access to DVDs in the first place, but Zediva thought its plan was quite solid.
However, the Motion Picture Association of America didn’t agree, and a couple days ago filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. In the lawsuit, the MPAA called the new service a sham, saying that it is illegally streaming movies to the consumers lacking required licenses from the studios. The stake of the copyright outfit in this is clear – money. Meanwhile, the MPAA is not so much interested in Zediva in particular, but in the loophole it exploited to bypass the industry’s copyright restrictions. Indeed, if the others pick up this scheme, the entertainment industry may easily lose its grip on carefully constructed copyright restrictions.
Meanwhile, the judge at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles may wonder why visiting a brick-and-mortar DVD-rental store to get a DVD so much differs from playing the same physical DVD remotely, as the latter is undoubtedly more “green”, effective, and cheaper both for the retailer and consumer.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article
April 16th,2011Posted by:
Saturday, April 16th, 2011
|Like there (Zediva) idea and the direction they are taking the issue. Agree completely with in being more " green". If they did away with physical dvd sales they could save so much money without all the artwork, rights, shipping ( Which is really, really good for the enviroment. ) and so on they could offer the product sooooo much cheaper and make more profit. ( Downside....less jobs. )Not to mention all the plastic they use toke covers and dvds...which also use ALOT of oil to make. END RANT.|
|Here's where Zediva's lawyer messed up..|
Read the warning at the beginning of the dvds you've bought. They all should contain the warning of it is only for personal view, not for public view etc - or along that line. A special license will be needed.., the license will cover royalty fee's to the relevant distributors/artists. But you will need to purchase separate copies.. the copies you Bought, specifically state "Not for resale or Rental", either on the box, or upon loading the disk. It is also a fine for a video store to rent a dvd that is classified as a retail dvd (ie: kamrt disks). they have to use the more expensive ones that IIRC cost in the order of $100 each or some silly amount.(makes it a lot harder for a video rental place to make money when they need 10 or so disks of a new release and rent it for $5 per night (take about 30 people renting the same disk before the store starts to see a return on investment. I think it is also the reason that movies are staying in the "new release" section for far longer than they use to (IIRC block buster now has 3 different levels of "new releases").
Also it seems that you can't just rent DVDs you have bought. I think legally copyright holders of films can't restrict rental under the copyright act but they can restrict it through contracts.
"Owners of copyright in films do not have a right under the Copyright Act to control rental. In practice, rental of videos and DVDs is regulated by contracts between the suppliers and the rental outlets. You may need to check your purchase agreement for the videos or DVDs for terms relating to rental or lending"
I think this is where two-tier pricing comes in. One for retail sale and another for rental market. Each with different contract of sale.
So if I were Zediva I'd be getting a lawyer to sue the Lawyer or Lawyers who gave bad legal advice and make a deal with the MPAA and use this as a defense in the lawsuit.
Most Popular Stories