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

[Josh Steinberg]

But you shouldn't be able to split the bundle and sell it as that is tantamount to selling a backup, which is illegal.

I'm not sure that's true - the combo pack isn't being marketed as containing a primary disc and a backup disc. It's being marketed as containing multiple items. It says "Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy", not "Blu-ray, plus a backup if that disc ever breaks".

If you give someone else your code, you may be violating the terms of service agreement that authorizes the use of that code. But you are not breaking a law. A terms of service agreement is not the same as a statutory law.

 

[Carabimero]

I'm not sure that's true - the combo pack isn't being marketed as containing a primary disc and a backup disc. It's being marketed as containing multiple items. It says "Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy", not "Blu-ray, plus a backup if that disc ever breaks".

If you give someone else your code, you may be violating the terms of service agreement that authorizes the use of that code. But you are not breaking a law. A terms of service agreement is not the same as a statutory law.

I think there's standing to say in principle it is because if needed it can serve that purpose. The argument against it is that it wasn't included in the bundle for that purpose, but as it was there for the convenience of the owner of the license, I think the standing is there as it does serve that function because it's the same movie. That's the nutshell of my entire argument: as far as intellectual property goes, we're dealing with a single property: one movie--and legally it should be treated that way. The single movie is The Thing.

I've made my argument in post 58; to anyone who further quotes me, don't take offense if I don't respond.

I'm out of this thread before I say something that needs to be said by somebody but unfortunately violates terms of service.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Ultimately, this is in court right now because it is not settled law. Just as I can only speculate on what the court will decide to do, you can only speculate on how you feel the court should rule. The law, as it stands today, does not treat digital copy codes in the manner that you believe they should be treated. The court is giving indications that they are not likely to agree that a Terms of Service violation is also a violation of statutory law. If and when the court does rule that way, there are multiple avenues that Disney (or any other interested studio) may pursue. They can change their product configuration. They can change the terms of services on the codes to make redemption more closely tied to the physical disc. They can petition lawmakers to change the law and support legislation that would provide for the type of restrictions they would like to exist.

But the law, as written today, does not seem to consider a terms of service violation regarding a digital copy code redemption as an illegal violation of statutory law.

I am not making any moral argument for or against the practice of trading or selling codes. I am not saying I am in favor of selling codes. I am not saying I am in favor of terms of service violations. I am simply stating that the law, as currently written, does not appear to support Disney's current argument. The law, as it currently is written, does not allow for Disney to call the police and demand that people be arrested or incarcerated for copyright violations in the way that the law would allow them to make that call for someone who used an illegal downloading service to pirate their material. I am merely stating that, at present, the law does not consider a terms of service violation relating to a code sale to be a criminal offense.

 

[Carabimero]

Ultimately, this is in court right now because it is not settled law. Just as I can only speculate on what the court will decide to do, you can only speculate on how you feel the court should rule. The law, as it stands today, does not treat digital copy codes in the manner that you believe they should be treated. The court is giving indications that they are not likely to agree that a Terms of Service violation is also a violation of statutory law. If and when the court does rule that way, there are multiple avenues that Disney (or any other interested studio) may pursue. They can change their product configuration. They can change the terms of services on the codes to make redemption more closely tied to the physical disc. They can petition lawmakers to change the law and support legislation that would provide for the type of restrictions they would like to exist.

But the law, as written today, does not seem to consider a terms of service violation regarding a digital copy code redemption as an illegal violation of statutory law.

I am not making any moral argument for or against the practice of trading or selling codes. I am not saying I am in favor of selling codes. I am not saying I am in favor of terms of service violations. I am simply stating that the law, as currently written, does not appear to support Disney's current argument. The law, as it currently is written, does not allow for Disney to call the police and demand that people be arrested or incarcerated for copyright violations in the way that the law would allow them to make that call for someone who used an illegal downloading service to pirate their material. I am merely stating that, at present, the law does not consider a terms of service violation relating to a code sale to be a criminal offense.

I agree with everything you just said. That's not my beef. Peace out.

Edit: I've communicated my beef privately with the higher ups. I've always appreciated that they listen.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It seems to me that the easiest thing for Disney or any other studio to do here is not to provide codes at all.

When the formats were invented, Blu-rays and DVDs did not originally have digital codes with them. That has become common practice in the last few years, but it doesn't have to be. I have lots of Blu-rays that never came with digital codes, including some Disney titles. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 for me was a Blu-ray single without a code or a DVD. In that case, the code was exclusively available with the Blu-ray 3D and my regular 2D Blu-ray was by itself. (Disney has since released a repackaged version which is the 2D Blu+digital with different box art, but that's not what they put out the first time.) I also wanted to give a friend the movie on DVD, so I made a separate purchase to do that.

If Disney wants complete control over this issue, they can get it regardless of what the court decides by selling the Blu-ray, the DVD and the digital as separate products. If a user buys a digital movie directly from Vudu, thy charge the credit card on file and immediately deposit the movie into the account. There is no code involved in that transaction.

The use of the code is if you buy a combo pack, entering the code tells Vudu that you already have the rights to that film and they can put it in your account but don't need to charge you for it.

Therefore, if Disney wants to eliminate the sale or transfer of codes, the easiest way to accomplish this is to make digital versions completely separate purchases directly from the vendor, therefore eliminating the need for codes to be produced. They can do that at any time. But they choose to continue including codes because they think a combo pack is an attractive value to consumers that helps increase their sales.

They've already started eliminating DVDs. Last year, when I bought Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, it was a Blu-ray+DVD+digital combo. Net week, Black Panther will be available for sale only as a Blu+digital, with no DVD. The DVD will be available as a separate standalone product, but if I want that too, I'd have to buy both. Unlike The Last Jedi with the Target exclusive throwing in a DVD, even those exclusives are only variant packaging, not combos. I don't need the DVD, so I'm perfectly fine with this change, but it is a change from how Disney was recently packaging these titles. Even Thor Ragnarok, released two months ago, had a DVD in it, so the elimination of them on new live-action releases is a very recent choice that seems to have started with the general release of The Last Jedi.

Eliminating the digital codes would be the next logical step, but they won't, because they think streaming is the future and want digital codes to get disc purchasers comfortable with streaming. But they could eliminate this whole issue by eliminating codes.

Interestingly, Wal-Mart actually has an exclusive version of Black Panther which is just the Blu-ray with no digital. You can tell because on the regular edition, the digital code is mentioned on the cover, and here it just says Blu-ray. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Black-Panther-Walmart-Exclusive-Blu-ray/827390794. I wonder who, if anyone, will actually seek out the Blu-ray-only version, when it seems easier just to throw out the digital code if you don't want it. $22.99 is what I'm paying for the Blu+digital version from Target, so since Wal-Mart is also pricing their version the same, it doesn't appear that there will be a price break for not taking the digital code.

That seems to me to be a problem in the making, as the digital codes have become so standardized now that people may buy this version assuming it has one and end up being incorrect/possibly upset/disappointed that they bought the wrong one by mistake. Presumably Wal-Mart will carry both their exclusive without the digital code and the regular edition which has one.

 

[DaveF]

Disney wants to have their digital cake and dictate who can eat it too.

 

[Cranston37+]

You didn’t mention that WalMart also sells a 4K/Blu/Digital version for $28 along with the Blu only for $23. So there is a price break for not taking the digital code.

Disney is not dropping digital codes, they’re just charging extra for them, which, to bring this thread full circle, shows that they see codes as something that has its own added monetary value. And if that’s the case, I’m going to sell mine if I wish, because this proves I paid extra for it.

And at the end of the day, isn’t it a good thing WalMart/Disney are giving you choices with different price levels?

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Black-Panther-4K-Ultra-HD-Blu-ray-Digital-Code/492655980

 

[Jake Lipson]

You didn’t mention that WalMart also sells a 4K/Blu/Digital version for $28 along with the Blu only for $23. So there is a price break for not taking the digital code.

Actually, no, there is no price break for not taking the code, because I was comparing Wal-Mart's price for the Blu only to the standard Blu+digital version that is being sold as the general release. Target.com and BestBuy.com are selling this version for $22.99, which is the same as what Wal-Mart is asking people to pay for the version which is the same disc less the digital copy code. I don't see the Blu+digital version on Walmart.com right now, but I would be very surprised if they didn't carry it, and it will probably be the same price as it is everywhere else.

Of course the 4K edition is more expensive because it adds a different format, so that's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Cranston37+]

Comparing releases across retailers isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison, either, as they inevitably will have different release variants and different prices.

My only beef with your post is that you’re saying WalMart isn’t offering a price break for not getting a code, and my point is that that only holds up when trying to compare releases across retailers, but when you compare releases within a retailer it just isn’t true. Code-less releases are always at a lower price...

 

[Jake Lipson]

My only beef with your post is that you’re saying WalMart isn’t offering a price break for not getting a code

I'm only comparing across retailers because there does not currently appear to be a page on Walmart.com right now for the Blu+digital version. However, every time I've ever been to Wal-Mart, if they have an exclusive, the regular version is also there. I expect that on May 15 if you go into a Wal-Mart store, you'll be able to find the exclusive code-less version for $22.99, and you'll also be able to find the regular version with code for $22.99. If that is the case, then there is no price break for not taking the code.

There is a lower price for the non-4K edition, which happens to include a code too. But if, like me, you're only looking to buy it on Blu-ray, then there is not currently evidence to suggest that there will be a price break without the code. My point assumes the availability of the Blu-ray+digital edition at Wal-Mart at the same price point. Your point assumes that the 4K version with the code is only being up-charged because of the code, when in fact the price discrepancy is due to the inclusion of 4K.

If Wal-Mart actually offers the Blu-ray only version for less money than the Blu-ray+digital version, then and only then would there be a price break for not taking the code. At that point, the exclusive might make sense for people who don't care about digital. But right now, that doesn't appear to be the likely case.

 

[tempest21]

I don't see why Disney sued in the first place. This is no different than someone buying a Disney Blu-ray and then they turn around and sell the code to someone else. Long as Redbox is not selling the same digital code, over and over again, then Disney shouldn't have a problem. Redbox is simply selling the digital code that came with each copy of the DVD and/or Blu-ray the code came with.

 

[Dave Moritz]

It seems to me that the easiest thing for Disney or any other studio to do here is not to provide codes at all.

I wouldn't care ether way about the digital code if they offered it or stopped offering it. How ever because I feel studios are trying to persuade people to go digital instead of physical media I don't see digital codes going away for some time. It is a good way to get people to go digital so they can get rid of physical media if they can.

 

[tempest21]

Exactly. I don't like digital media for the simple fact that the entertainment industry has tried for a very long time to prevent their own consumers from transferring their digital content from one device or one computer to another. If I purchase digital content, you can bet that I'm going to create backups of that content or transfer it to my other devices and no major corporation is going to tell me otherwise. The fact that they have tried even suing their consumers in court over it just speaks volumes of the9ir attitudes toward their own consomers.

 

[Sam Posten]

Fight tha powah!

 

[Cranston37+]

The end of the story...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...ain-sell-disneys-movie-download-codes-1255134

 

[Sam Posten]

Doesn't change anything for consumers

 

[Jake Lipson]

Doesn't change anything for consumers

Except those who were hoping Redbox would eventually resume sales of Disney digital codes.

Although those people are probably happy to pay $6.99/month for Disney+ and get access to everything anyway.

 

[Cranston37+]

Doesn't change anything for consumers

Does change the validity of your thread title though

 

[Edwin-S]

Exactly. I don't like digital media for the simple fact that the entertainment industry has tried for a very long time to prevent their own consumers from transferring their digital content from one device or one computer to another. If I purchase digital content, you can bet that I'm going to create backups of that content or transfer it to my other devices and no major corporation is going to tell me otherwise. The fact that they have tried even suing their consumers in court over it just speaks volumes of the9ir attitudes toward their own consomers.

I can't really blame them for their attitude toward consumers when those same consumers are already posting HQ copies of "The Mandalorian" to pirate sites. i don't doubt that they want to restrict archival copying when they suspect that those "archival copies" will end up on pirate sites.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm kind of surprised that a company like Disney wouldn't require a commercial entity like RedBox to buy a commercial version of a film that would include only a Blu-ray or a DVD. If they wanted to stock both then they would have to buy separate copies of the same film.