Court rules against Disney: It's perfectly legal to break up bundles (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

My conscience is 100% clear.

 

[Blimpoy06]

That's easy. The studio is selling one copy in different forms for that particular owner and extended family, etc. If you sell the code, fine. Sell your discs with it. Who thinks you should be able to sell your movie and still be able to watch? There's no version of that which is ethical to me. That's not right on the face of it.

Then by your reasoning anyone who rips a CD and then sells it should erase their hard drive? I say it's the same argument for movies and music.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I would be willing to bet that at the end of the day, when the final court arguments are heard, that the court is going to hesitate to actually say it's "let's round people up and throw them in jail" over this.

On the surface of it, selling codes independently of the disc seems to be more of a "terms of service" violation rather than a legal violation. And it seems that the studios would probably be in the clear to cancel the usage of any codes that violated the terms they laid out.

What I think the studios would like would be to have the ability to sue people who sell codes, but I'm not sure they'll get that. What the people who sell codes would like is the freedom to do it without any consequences or reprisals, and I'm not sure that they'll get what they want either.

Just a guess, but I wouldn't be shocked to see the court split the difference and say, "No, it's not against the law to sell one, and you can't get someone arrested for trying to do so; but the company also has the right to determine what the appropriate usage of their product is, and is within their rights to cancel any redemptions where the person redeeming doesn't have the disc, so long as they explicitly state their terms and conditions up front."

Then by your reasoning anyone who rips a CD and then sells it should erase their hard drive?

Legally speaking, I believe it's been established that that is what one is supposed to do. It's a little bit different in that you made a copy of the CD yourself as a backup, which you're entitled to do; but you're not entitled to keep a backup if you've transferred ownership of the item that is being backed up.

What's being argued by some people bringing the suit here is that with Blu-rays, the code and the disc are separate products which can be broken up and sold individually. If the court accepted that the digital code was the same as a backup, which the studio would probably love, then it would follow that if you transferred ownership of the original product, that you'd no longer be entitled to a backup.

 

[Carabimero]

Then by your reasoning anyone who rips a CD and then sells it should erase their hard drive? I say it's the same argument for movies and music.

You can't buy something, essentially sell it and get your money back, and yet still have the thing you bought. That's called stealing in my book. At the very least piracy. It doesn't matter what I think about it. It's illegal Under Title 17, and the DMCA when it comes to breaking an encryption.

And Fair Use can't be claimed, because it hurts the market. There are now two copies of the work in existence for the price of one. Fair Use might be considered if you kept the original as a backup and used your copy, but even the DMCA says no if you had to break an encryption to make the backup.

 

[Blimpoy06]

You can't buy something, essentially sell it and get your money back, and yet still have the thing you bought. That's called stealing in my book. At the very least piracy. It doesn't matter what I think about it. It's illegal Under Title 17, and the DMCA when it comes to breaking an encryption.

I agree. Again, I'm playing Devil's advocate and raising the point that many, not all, collectors of music and movies practice this on some level. Legal and ethical will be at odds with each other on many issues. Everyone will have to rationalize and justify what they practice at the end of the day. I am merely making analogies that may be similar to the situation. There were many court cases about music rights issues when mp3 technology was being widely adopted.

 

[Carabimero]

I agree. Again, I'm playing Devil's advocate and raising the point that many, not all, collectors of music and movies practice this on some level. Legal and ethical will be at odds with each other on many issues. Everyone will have to rationalize and justify what they practice at the end of the day. I am merely making analogies that may be similar to the situation. There were many court cases about music rights issues when mp3 technology was being widely adopted.

I agree. I am simply saying as an adult I will never make an ethical or moral argument for that kind of behavior, and it saddens me when I see reputable forums fostering piracy.

The best argument I ever heard for justifying illegally downloading a song or a movie was: the owner lost nothing physical, and no harm to the market was done because I never would have bought it anyway. In fact, illegally downloading it increases the chances I will buy it because after I see or hear it, I will like it so much I will want to own it in better quality.

There are some truths to that argument but I still say it's stealing because the illegal down loader got something for free that the owner wasn't offering for free.

That's not exactly what happened in court. As part of their lawsuit, Disney asked the court to grant an injunction preventing Redbox from selling codes until the case could go to trial. The court today decided not to grant that. The lawsuit will still proceed and the outcome of that will determine the legality of the practice.

Which is not me offering an opinion one way or the other on what will happen, but just trying to say, it ain't over yet.

In my view all this means is that the court didn't feel immediate irreparable harm was being done to Disney. That's basically what you have to show to get an injunction. But as Josh S. said, that has nothing to do with the legality of what's going on.

My opinion is that if it's sold as one unit, you have to resell it that way. If the court rules otherwise, I will be very interested in reading that decision and how they justify it. Could be as simple as: "Everyone's doing it and reputable forums are facilitating it. So the law has to change."

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The thing is, legally, right now it seems to be a "terms of service" violation rather than actual piracy - that's where it looks like the court is going with this.

 

[Blimpoy06]

The best argument I ever heard for justifying illegally downloading a song or a movie was: the owner lost nothing physical, and no harm to the market was done because I never would have bought it anyway. In fact, illegally downloading it increases the chances I will buy it because after I see or hear it, I will like it so much I want to own it in better quality.

There was a recent direct to video movie that intentional released the film to torrent sites with the intention of raising awareness of the film.

 

[Carabimero]

The thing is, legally, right now it seems to be a "terms of service" violation rather than actual piracy - that's where it looks like the court is going with this.

Since large numbers of people are doing it, and because it's being facilitated in large forums like this one, the courts are left with no other choice.

 

[Cranston37+]

You can't buy something, essentially sell it and get your money back, and yet still have the thing you bought.

You don’t still have the thing you bought, though.

If you sell the digital code, you no longer have the ability to add a copy of the film to your MA account. You absolutely do not maintain the full value of your original purchase. You do lose something.

If you were able to redeem the code then sell it to someone who was also able to redeem the code, then I would agree with you.

 

[Carabimero]

You don’t still have the thing you bought, though.

If you sell the digital code, you no longer have the ability to add a copy of the film to your MA account. You absolutely do not maintain the full value of your original purchase. You do lose something.

If you were able to redeem the code then sell it to someone who was also able to redeem the code, then I would agree with you.

Yes, but you made the purchase for the movie. The code is there, according to the people who provided it, for the convenience of the buyer who bought the movie, not for them to recoup money on their investment in the movie, which they still have and can watch.

This is an important case for the future of our society in a lot of different ways. I hope I'm wrong but my gut is, selling codes will become legal.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Actually, Redbox does purchase their titles from retailers when they do not have a contract with a studio, and that is partially why they began selling digital codes to help recoup some of those costs since they do not have a contract with Disney.

Exactly. For the studios that do have a contract with Redbox, they produce Redbox versions of their discs, often stripped down as compared to the retail release, with no digital copies included. Because Disney opted not to contract with Redbox, they don't have the same leverage.

That's easy. The studio is selling one copy in different forms for that particular owner and extended family, etc. The movie was sold as one item. If you sell the code, fine. Sell your discs with it. Who thinks you should be able to sell your movie and still be able to watch? There's no version of that which is ethical to me. That's not right on the face of it.

I think a fair argument could be made for Redbox's position, which is that the studio is selling two copies of the same movie in two formats bundled together in one package for the same price. When it comes to Blu-Ray/DVD combo packs, for instance, it is completely lawful to keep the Blu-Ray copy and give the DVD copy to a relative, or even sell it on eBay. The same principle would seem to apply to digital copies.

Then by your reasoning anyone who rips a CD and then sells it should erase their hard drive? I say it's the same argument for movies and music.

Your scenario is clearly illegal. If you rip a CD and then sell the CD, you're committing a form of piracy. If you check a CD out of the library, rip it, and then return it to the library, you're committing a form of piracy.

A more equivalent example would be if you bought an album that came with an mp3 download, with the physical CD mailed later. In that case, the agreed upon terms of sale included two copies of the album bundled together for one price.

 

[Blimpoy06]

Your scenario is clearly illegal. If you rip a CD and then sell the CD, you're committing a form of piracy. If you check a CD out of the library, rip it, and then return it to the library, you're committing a form of piracy.

Of course it is. My argument is that most people engage in some form of activity that copyright holders wish we wouldn't. I used to transfer vinyl I rented at the library to cassette tape and record songs off the radio. Digital has just become a more expedient method. That's why studios are excited about streaming.

The mindset of the general public has become comfortable and accustom to breaking a few copyright laws. Myself included. I admire this forum for it's efforts in not promoting piracy and downloads. I find it amusing that it is OK to openly discuss and link to third party hardware to circumvent region locks on playback equipment. That's why I made my statement that each individual has to reconcile what they consider ethical or not. No judgement implied.

 

[Cranston37+]

Yes, but you made the purchase for the movie. The code is there, according to the people who provided it, for the convenience of the buyer who bought the movie, not for them to recoup money on their investment in the movie, which they still have and can watch.

The only way for that to be a valid argument you would need to say that it’s acceptable for a company to maintain some say in how a product is used after you’ve purchased it. I can’t think of any consumer product where that is acceptable, nor can I think of a single scenario where a company is allowed to tell you that you can’t sell part of a purchase in order to recoup some of your original investment. After the sale is completed, ownership transfers wholly to the purchaser, and it will remain that way.

And don't insist that this is a different situation because you can sell the product but essentially still keep the product - that just isn’t true. You can keep the movie on disc but you lose the movie digitally, and that has its own separate, unique value, one studios often place a higher monetary value on than the disc. It is not just there as a free add-on - it’s half of the original product you bought.

What you are doing is telling someone who has 2 bottles of Coke and then sells one of the bottles, that they still have Coke to drink, so therefore they must have done something immoral. That’s a twisted logic.

And let me ask you this - if your argument is correct, why hasn’t, after all these years, Disney sued those who sell the discs but keep the codes? Or buy the movie through Wal-Mart, get the digital copy through InstaWatch, then sell the disc and code still factory sealed? Or sell the blu-ray but keep the DVD? Have you looked through a Half Price Books or eBay lately?

 

[Carabimero]

After the sale is completed, ownership transfers wholly to the purchaser, and it will remain that way.

This is not true for intellectual property. You might wholly own a hammer and be able to show it to a hundred people, but you can't take a movie you bought and screen it in public for a hundred people without permission. Why? Because legally the movie is not what you actually bought. What you actually bought--the only thing you wholly own--is a license for home viewing. You can sell the physical media and transfer the license, but the next owner doesn't wholly own the movie any more than you did. They own the license.

What you are doing is telling someone who has 2 bottles of Coke and then sells one of the bottles, that they still have Coke to drink, so therefore they must have done something immoral. That’s a twisted logic.

Coke is not intellectual property. The laws are simply different. Legally, for a digital movie, you're bound by what you really bought: not the digital movie, but a non-transferable license to watch the digital movie. It doesn't matter if you haven't used the code. Legally you can't resell it because you don't have a license to resell it. And just because the IP owner isn't disputing your reselling it doesn't make it legal.

I think a fair argument could be made for Redbox's position, which is that the studio is selling two copies of the same movie in two formats bundled together in one package for the same price. When it comes to Blu-Ray/DVD combo packs, for instance, it is completely lawful to keep the Blu-Ray copy and give the DVD copy to a relative, or even sell it on eBay. The same principle would seem to apply to digital copies.

This is a good argument--if you hold that selling the DVD is legal. Just because someone sells something on eBay, however, doesn't make it legal. Again, there is a license involved. It only seems legal because no one is legally disputing it. If the copyright or IP owner wanted to dispute the legality of breaking up a bundle on eBay, they would have standing. Still, as with codes, if enough people sell them, I think it will become legal. Or at least eventually go unchallenged.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

This is not true for intellectual property. You might wholly own a hammer and be able to show it to a hundred people, but you can't take a movie you bought and screen it in public for a hundred people without permission. Why? Because legally the movie is not what you actually bought. What you actually bought--the only thing you wholly own--is a license for home viewing. You can sell the physical media and transfer the license, but the next owner doesn't wholly own the movie any more than you did. They own the license.

Not quite. You purchase a license to watch the film on a certain format, or in this case, formats at home. If it was the purchase of just a license to watch the film regardless of format, then we shouldn't be required to repurchase a film every time it is released in a new format.

In this case, people are simply selling the ability to watch the film in one of the formats that they purchased.

 

[Cranston37+]

In this case, people are simply selling the ability to watch the film in one of the formats that they purchased.

Exactly. You are purchasing 2 things - the ability to watch the film on disc and the ability to watch the film digitally. If you sell the code, you are selling your ability to watch it digitally. You are absolutely not retaining the thing you sold.

 

[Malcolm R]

Exactly. You are purchasing 2 things - the ability to watch the film on disc and the ability to watch the film digitally. If you sell the code, you are selling your ability to watch it digitally. You are absolutely not retaining the thing you sold.

Sounds right to me, demonstrated by the fact that you can buy just digital codes separately at retail for many recent films if all you want is the digital version.

The studios need to eliminate combo packs if they want the use rules to apply to all variations. If I'm paying for three formats in one package, but I only want one, I don't see anything wrong with selling the formats I'm not going to use to offset the inflated price of the combo pack where I'm paying for formats I don't even want. Sell all three formats separately for $10 each, rather than a $25 combo pack. If you want a physical format and a digital code, you'll have to buy two formats for a total of $20.

 

[Carabimero]

If it was the purchase of just a license to watch the film regardless of format, then we shouldn't be required to repurchase a film every time it is released in a new format.

If you take the two sections of my previous post out of context, you can infer that. But if you read my entire post, I am clearly speaking about different licenses for home viewing; one that you can resell (physical media) and one that you legally can't (digital media). That's why there are two parts to my post. I never said it was a license to watch at home regardless of format. You inferred it because you took my comment out of context, but I did not imply it. The second part to my post demonstrates that.

Exactly. You are purchasing 2 things - the ability to watch the film on disc and the ability to watch the film digitally. If you sell the code, you are selling your ability to watch it digitally. You are absolutely not retaining the thing you sold.

It doesn't matter what you retain or what you don't. When you buy a digital movie, you buy a non-transferable license. That means you can't legally resell it.

Everything I just said, I said in my previous post.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

If you take the two sections of my previous post out of context, you can infer that. But if you read my entire post, I am clearly speaking about different licenses for home viewing; one that you can resell (physical media) and one that you legally can't (digital media). That's why there are two parts to my post. I never said it was a license to watch at home regardless of format. You inferred it because you took my comment out of context, but I did not imply it. The second part to my post demonstrates that.


It doesn't matter what you retain or what you don't. When you buy a digital movie, you buy a non-transferable license. That means you can't legally resell it.

Everything I just said, I said in my previous post.

But does a person actually have that digital license if they have not claimed the digital code?