Redbox kiosk DVD embargo

[Smokey]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2400/2514441076_b154abc97c.jpg

Good luck finding such new-release DVDs as "Terminator: Salvation," "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian," "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs," and "Brüno" at your local Redbox kiosk.

That's because wholesale distributors for three of the biggest Hollywood studios—20th Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Brothers—have begun holding back their latest releases from the likes of Redbox and other $1-a-night DVD rental kiosks until about a month after they arrive in retail stores, essentially making for a four-week embargo.

That, in turn, has forced Redbox (which has filed lawsuits against Fox, Universal, and Warners over their "anti-competitive" policies) to buy titles like the new "Terminator" movie, "Orphan," "My Sister's Keeper," and "Aliens in the Attic" from retailers like Walmart and Target.

It's a pricey proposition even given the discount prices at Walmart and Target, considering it has 20,000 kiosks (and a projected 30,000 by the end of next year) to fill, analyst Richard Greenfield tells Home Media.

Making matters worse, Redbox is now accusing Fox and Warners of leaning on Walmart and Target to limit retail DVD sales to Redbox and other kiosk companies to just three discs per embargoed title.

Why is all this happening, you ask? Because the big Hollywood studios are blaming Redbox and other buck-a-night DVD kiosks for—in part, anyway—their dwindling DVD revenue, and they're hoping to boost sales by keeping their latest releases from the likes of Redbox until about a month after they've arrived in retail outlets.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/60462;_ylt=A0LEVEaV_BlLRWwBtwiCLZA5

[Geoffcin]

Sounds like Redbox has a good case for an Anti-trust lawsuit.

[02audionoob]

Do the studios get a royalty for each rental?

[Geoffcin]

Do the studios get a royalty for each rental?

No. Never have.

[02audionoob]

No. Never have.

I've got to read up on this stuff. Audio recordings can't just be rented out like that. I figured the video renters were paying for the right to rent.

[Smokey]

Sounds like Redbox has a good case for an Anti-trust lawsuit.

I don't know, but studios might be shooting themselves in the foot here. I know alot of people that will rent a movie to see if it is any good before buying it as price of new releases are premium and they don't to waste cash on a bad movie.

But what boggle the mind is that movie studios are telling retailers like Walmart or Target who they should sell their DVDs to. WTF??

As it was said Redbox have 20,000 vending machine and if they buy new released DVDs from WM or Target, that would add up to handsome profit for retailers. So it only make good sense for retailers to fight back and tell studios to keep their nose out of their business.

[Geoffcin]

I've got to read up on this stuff. Audio recordings can't just be rented out like that. I figured the video renters were paying for the right to rent.

No, it makes sense. Think of a recorded movie like a car;

Ford sells Avis cars. Avis has every right to rent them out to customers without paying for a licence fee to do it. Ford has nothing to say about that.

The only area where it differs is if you decide to have a showing of the film for profit. Then you would have to pay royalties. This applies even if you were to do it on your own home!

[frahengeo]

That's strange?? In my area, there hasn't been an issue having those titles in Redbox. During the 1st and 2nd week it can be difficult to rent due to availability,but I was able to rent Salvation last week.
One title that wasn't released to Redbox was "The Reader". Apparently, some exclusivity deal between Weinstein and Blockbusters. There are probably more titles, but I'm not aware of it.

I'm sort of torn about this. I feel that studios have the right to distribute their media anyway they see fit and should be allowed to utilize the best strategy to allow them to make the most money.
At the same time, I use Redbox to "screen" what's purchase worthy and what's not. I guess that I'll have to wait then.

[bfalls]

Another reason they may hold off a month before offering the titles to Redbox is piracy. Usually if a studio has a title copy-protected it's for the first 30-60 days when the majority of copies are sold. The studios are worried that mom and pop will rent the movie, rip it, then give copies to family and/or friends. This is where it really cuts into sells.

We copy-protected Twilight and saved Summit well over a million dollars in lost sales due to piracy within the first 60 days. After the initial time period subsequent reorders are either pressed without copy-protection or with protection, but not charged for it.

After 60 days either the ripping tools have created a work-around and updated their applications, or the buying frenzy is over and losses diminished. It's a continuous battle. We try something new. They break it. We do something else. Since we have to abide by the DVD standard, there will always be a way around the protection. We also have to make sure what we do doesn't cause playability issues. It's a delicate balance.

So I guessing it's not only the loss of sales due to rental warranting the action as much as the combination of rental and piracy.

[02audionoob]

No, it makes sense. Think of a recorded movie like a car;

Ford sells Avis cars. Avis has every right to rent them out to customers without paying for a licence fee to do it. Ford has nothing to say about that.

The only area where it differs is if you decide to have a showing of the film for profit. Then you would have to pay royalties. This applies even if you were to do it on your own home!

A recorded movie isn't at all like a car. A car is a product where the entire value is in the thing itself. A movie is a creative work, where the value exceeds the medium on which it is distributed. It's like a song or a book. Regardless of the laws on the matter, this fundamental difference between a movie and a car is obvious.

[Geoffcin]

A recorded movie isn't at all like a car. A car is a product where the entire value is in the thing itself. A movie is a creative work, where the value exceeds the medium on which it is distributed. It's like a song or a book. Regardless of the laws on the matter, this fundamental difference between a movie and a car is obvious.

A movie isn't like a car, but a recorded DVD is.

If I buy a car I can let you drive it,or if I buy a DVD I can let you watch it and I owe nothing to either manufacturer. However, if I decided to copy the technology in the car and sell it to you, or copy the content of the DVD and sell it, then I am breaking the law. Redbox has every right to buy DVD's and rent them, however if they so much as copy one then they are in copywrite infringment.

[Geoffcin]

A recorded movie isn't at all like a car. A car is a product where the entire value is in the thing itself. A movie is a creative work, where the value exceeds the medium on which it is distributed. It's like a song or a book.

Oh boy! There's whole legions of automotive engineers and designers who you've just dissed by saying that a car isn't a creative work comparable to film.

Again, a song or a book is also a thing that once recorded and sold by the original artist/author can be passed from person to person with no monitary renumeration owed to the author. However, if you were to copy it and sell it, or re-record it and sell it you would owe royalties.

[02audionoob]

Oh boy! There's whole legions of automotive engineers and designers who you've just dissed by saying that a car isn't a creative work comparable to film.

Again, a song or a book is also a thing that once recorded and sold by the original artist/author can be passed from person to person with no monitary renumeration owed to the author. However, if you were to copy it and sell it, or re-record it and sell it you would owe royalties.

I know you can argue 'til the cows come home, but do you honestly believe a product like a car is fundamentally the same as a creative work published on paper or disk? Seriously?

[poppachubby]

It's true, if for nothing else than by law. A DVD is property in the intellectual sense. So physically it's yours but its contents still belong to its creator, much like music. A car has been designed and produced for you to own and drive. There is no creative statement or property to claim with a car. Once it's sold, that's it, all yours.

I know everyone knows this already, but it seems to have been overlooked...

[Geoffcin]

HA!! Yes, I actually do.

People (like you) have a tendency to think of industrial made hardware as "not really a creative work" when in actuality it's just as creative to design a water pump as write a song or book. When you see a patent on something it is protecting the rights of the inventor creative work, i.e. his or her design. Software like a film has the problem that it's more easily copied, but fundamentally it's the creative work in both that is what is protected.

[02audionoob]

In order to have a meangingful debate, certain fundamental issues eventually have to be accepted as common ground. You're so far off on the extreme end that now it's just a contradiction.

[Geoffcin]

It's true, if for nothing else than by law. A DVD is property in the intellectual sense. So physically it's yours but its contents still belong to its creator, much like music. A car has been designed and produced for you to own and drive. There is no creative statement or property to claim with a car. Once it's sold, that's it, all yours.

I know everyone knows this already, but it seems to have been overlooked...

A DVD once purchased is yours, just like a car or bottle of wine. You own it and can do with it as you wish. If you want to re-sell it even at a profit there's nothing owed to the original manufacturer. You cannot however copy what is on it and sell it, just like you cannot copy the technology in your car and sell it.

A car is just as much a creative statment as a film. If you copy all or parts of either and try to sell them you are violating the law.

[Geoffcin]

In order to have a meangingful debate, certain fundamental issues eventually have to be accepted as common ground. You're so far off on the extreme end that now it's just a contradiction.


I agree, we do need to agree on fundamental issues. I think we need to accept the fact that intellectual property is not restricted to software. It's a concept as old as the first patents. There is no fundamental difference between a patent on a light bulb and a book. You, after purchasing them from the manufacturer/author own them, and can do with as you like. However, the fundamental intellectual property, i.e. the design belongs to the creator of the product, you cannot copy it.

[02audionoob]

You're missing my point. An example of the fundamentals I'm talking about would be the difference between patent and copyright.

[bobsticks]

I'm sort of torn about this. I feel that studios have the right to distribute their media anyway they see fit and should be allowed to utilize the best strategy to allow them to make the most money.
At the same time, I use Redbox to "screen" what's purchase worthy and what's not. I guess that I'll have to wait then.

Yes...

[02audionoob]

It seems like NetFlix would be a bigger problem than RedBox.

[Geoffcin]

It seems like NetFlix would be a bigger problem than RedBox.

That was my thought at the begining of the thread. How can they embargo RedBox, and not do the same to the 800lb Gorilla in the room, NetFlix? Of course to block NetFlix it would really hit their bottom line. I'm not sure how many copies NetFlix buys, but it's got to be quite a large amount of initial sales.

[nightflier]

That was my thought at the begining of the thread. How can they embargo RedBox, and not do the same to the 800lb Gorilla in the room, NetFlix? Of course to block NetFlix it would really hit their bottom line. I'm not sure how many copies NetFlix buys, but it's got to be quite a large amount of initial sales.

...to netflix by picking on its little cousin.

By the way, the difference between a car and a movie, is that with a car you can make an exact copy of it and give it away. With a movie, you can't. As long as you're not selling the car or making a profit, this is legal. Of course, the assumption the car manufacturer makes is that an individual won't have the means to make copies of cars, but the cost of copying a movie is a different story.

By the way, you can't legally lend a movie to a neighbor, or anyone else outside your home, for that matter. It's to be viewed by one household only. You can make a "backup" copy, but again, that's only for use in your own home. What RedBox is doing is buying a home version of a movie from Walmart and Target, and then renting it out for viewing to multiple households. I'm not a legal expert, but I do believe that violates the rights of artists.

It should be interesting to see who wins this one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Another reason they may hold off a month before offering the titles to Redbox is piracy. Usually if a studio has a title copy-protected it's for the first 30-60 days when the majority of copies are sold. The studios are worried that mom and pop will rent the movie, rip it, then give copies to family and/or friends. This is where it really cuts into sells.

We copy-protected Twilight and saved Summit well over a million dollars in lost sales due to piracy within the first 60 days. After the initial time period subsequent reorders are either pressed without copy-protection or with protection, but not charged for it.

After 60 days either the ripping tools have created a work-around and updated their applications, or the buying frenzy is over and losses diminished. It's a continuous battle. We try something new. They break it. We do something else. Since we have to abide by the DVD standard, there will always be a way around the protection. We also have to make sure what we do doesn't cause playability issues. It's a delicate balance.

So I guessing it's not only the loss of sales due to rental warranting the action as much as the combination of rental and piracy.

Bingo, we have a winner here! In order to get Sony's, Lionsgate, and Disney's cooperation (we have no direct contracts with them) Redbox must A) Buy in bulk from a studio sanctioned distributer which increases our profit from them B) destroy all DVD's once a title falls out of favor with the consumer. They cannot resale, and they must provide proof that they have destroyed all discs and C) they must buy a broad selection of our titles, and not just the new releases or most popular titles.

We are closely watching their litigation with Warner, Universal, and Paramount. With alot of folks renting and ripping, Redbox is a big problem for the studios, and they just want Redbox to get in line with Blockbuster and Netflix on how DVD rentals are handled.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It seems like NetFlix would be a bigger problem than RedBox.

Netflix is not a problem because they have negotiated contracts with the studio. Redbox does not. With Netflix and Blockbuster, the studios get a percentage of the rental income. With Redbox the studios don't. Redbox wants to play the game without following any rules, and that is a problem for the studios. If the three studios lose their case to Redbox, all rentals from all rental companies will be hit with a 30 day blackout across the board. I know that is going to be Disney's policy, and I have spoken to my counterparts at Sony, Lionsgate, Warner and Paramount, and they have confirmed that they will also institute a blackout period as well.

[poppachubby]

If the three studios lose their case to Redbox, all rentals from all rental companies will be hit with a 30 day blackout across the board. I know that is going to be Disney's policy, and I have spoken to my counterparts at Sony, Lionsgate, Warner and Paramount, and they have confirmed that they will also institute a blackout period as well.

I'm pretty sure that as powerful as these companies are, they can't turn off my power. What do you mean by black out T?

[Geoffcin]

...to netflix by picking on its little cousin.

By the way, the difference between a car and a movie, is that with a car you can make an exact copy of it and give it away. With a movie, you can't. As long as you're not selling the car or making a profit, this is legal. Of course, the assumption the car manufacturer makes is that an individual won't have the means to make copies of cars, but the cost of copying a movie is a different story.

By the way, you can't legally lend a movie to a neighbor, or anyone else outside your home, for that matter. It's to be viewed by one household only. You can make a "backup" copy, but again, that's only for use in your own home. What RedBox is doing is buying a home version of a movie from Walmart and Target, and then renting it out for viewing to multiple households. I'm not a legal expert, but I do believe that violates the rights of artists.

It should be interesting to see who wins this one.



I'm sorry Nightflier, but you are wrong on all counts.

If you were able to copy ANY of the patented designs in a car you would not be able to "give them away" or even manufacture a copy for private use. A patent means that the invention/design belongs to the patent holder and him alone.

You absolutely CAN lend your DVD's to your friends, neighbors, or anyone you want. You can re-sell them at a profit, rent them out, or even destroy them. What you can't do is make a COPY and give it to your friends, and even if the courts have decided that you can make an archival copy, you can not use it while your original is in use, i.e. both at the same time.

You also can not make any copy available on a server to anyone else in the household while one copy is playing. Basically if you want to watch/listen to any copywrited material in multiple stations you must have multiple copies. I don't know how the RIAA is going to enforce a rule like that, but it exists.

[Geoffcin]

I'm pretty sure that as powerful as these companies are, they can't turn off my power. What do you mean by black out T?

I think he means that the major studios will not make copies available to ANY rental agencies. i.e. if you want to watch a copy of the latest movie you would have to BUY it directly. In my view that would be a pyrric victory at best.

[nightflier]

they just want Redbox to get in line with Blockbuster and Netflix on how DVD rentals are handled.

...the Redbox price of $1 a rental is going to go up for the consumer. That is, Redbox has been renting at a price that should have been higher had they "gotten in line." If the studios win this, it will indeed be a Pyrrhic victory, because it will further irritate the millions of Redbox renters who will now have to pay higher prices. Moreover, Redbox could very well fail as a result and that will be one less way that people will have access to rentals. This would not be good for the studios either.

Geof,

No I don't think so. As long as I don't make a profit on that car, I'm pretty sure I can make an exact copy of it and give it to anyone I like. If we're talking about art, I can also make an exact copy of a Rembrandt painting, and give that away. It won't be the original worth millions, but there is nothing illegal about doing this.

As far as lending movies to neighbors and friends, that is definitely not allowed. The fact that many people do it and that it is not enforced, does not make it any more legal. Now I don't know the legality of renting them out, but I think that is exactly what this Redbox suit is all about.

[Geoffcin]

Geof,

No I don't think so. As long as I don't make a profit on that car, I'm pretty sure I can make an exact copy of it and give it to anyone I like. If we're talking about art, I can also make an exact copy of a Rembrandt painting, and give that away. It won't be the original worth millions, but there is nothing illegal about doing this.

As far as lending movies to neighbors and friends, that is definitely not allowed. The fact that many people do it and that it is not enforced, does not make it any more legal. Now I don't know the legality of renting them out, but I think that is exactly what this Redbox suit is all about.

Nobody said you have to belive me, but a patent is the right of the inventor to exclude others from making his design.

Also, from the web, since nobody seems to belive me anymore. This is for UK law which is actually stricter than US law;

http://www.moviesatwork.co.uk/help/faq.php#2

Is it legal to lend DVDs, CDs, Books etc ? [Top of Page]
The renting and lending of things like DVDs, CDs, Books, etc, is covered by UK copyright law. You can find the consolidated text of this law here.
Under this UK copyright law it is perfectly legal to lend your DVDs, CDs etc to your friends and family. This may be a surprise to you based on the warning messages that usually pop up when you play a DVD or Video. In fact "lending" is only considered as an infringement of copyright when it is done "through an establishment which is accessible to the public". What this basically means is that it is totally legal to lend to your circle of friends and family.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm pretty sure that as powerful as these companies are, they can't turn off my power. What do you mean by black out T?

A blackout period means that for 30 days only sales will be allowed before rentals can take place. The studios distributors will withhold all discs going to netflix, blockbusters, redbox, and any other kiosk based rental concern.

[poppachubby]

A blackout period means that for 30 days only sales will be allowed before rentals can take place. The studios distributors will withhold all discs going to netflix, blockbusters, redbox, and any other kiosk based rental concern.


Whoa.

[Geoffcin]

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/1998040801.html

The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy. The Supreme Court first adopted the first sale doctrine in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the exclusive right to sell copyrighted works only applied to the first sale of a copyrighted work. 210 U.S. 339, 349-350. While the copyright owner retained the underlying copyright to the expression fixed in the work, the copyright owner gave up his ability to control the fate of the work once it had been sold.

Application to DVDs and NEBG v Weinstein

No special new copyright protection was given to movies on video and DVD by the two above amendments, and consequently buyers of retail DVDs in the United States are free to sell or exchange them, and rent and lend them to others.

This right was underlined by the US courts in the case of NEBG v Weinstein[4], in which a film-industry defendant accepted that it had no right to restrict buyers of DVDs from renting them to third parties.

Copyright owners sometimes affix warning notices to packaged DVDs, or display notices on screen before showing the content, which purport to list uses of the DVD that are forbidden under copyright law. Such notices do not always fairly reflect the buyer's legal rights established by the first-sale doctrine.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You also can not make any copy available on a server to anyone else in the household while one copy is playing. Basically if you want to watch/listen to any copywrited material in multiple stations you must have multiple copies. I don't know how the RIAA is going to enforce a rule like that, but it exists.

G,
At this point even servers are off limits because to get film content on current servers in the market, they must be ripped which defeats CSS and that is illegal. This is the basis of cases with the studios and Kaleidescope and Real Network

[Geoffcin]

G,
At this point even servers are off limits because to get film content on current servers in the market, they must be ripped which defeats CSS and that is illegal. This is the basis of cases with the studios and Kaleidescope and Real Network

Yes, your right. I had made the argument by relating CD's to DVD's, but defeating the disk's copyright protection is a violation.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...the Redbox price of $1 a rental is going to go up for the consumer. That is, Redbox has been renting at a price that should have been higher had they "gotten in line." If the studios win this, it will indeed be a Pyrrhic victory, because it will further irritate the millions of Redbox renters who will now have to pay higher prices. Moreover, Redbox could very well fail as a result and that will be one less way that people will have access to rentals. This would not be good for the studios either.
.

Not quite. If Redbox fails, it will have no impact on the studios as they get no rental revenue from them, only its portion of the sale to Redbox. They would gladly sacrifice that to cut ripping of rentals. What I mean by getting in line is to come to the table and negotiate a distribution deal like Netflix and Blockbuster have done. If the result of that is a price increase, then so be it. Redbox will have to decide whether it is in their interest to take a cut in revenue so they can have the content, or they can reject it and have less content to offer. The studios and retailers are well within their right to restrict how many copies of a movie one person can purchase to protect their revenue streams. Keep in mind, if Redbox's model is allowed to continue, the retailers could be hurt as well as DVD is a loss leader to some retailers that gets consumers into stores.

[Geoffcin]

The studios and retailers are well within their right to restrict how many copies of a movie one person can purchase to protect their revenue streams. Keep in mind, if Redbox's model is allowed to continue, the retailers could be hurt as well as DVD is a loss leader to some retailers that gets consumers into stores.

The Clayton act clearly does not allow the studios to act as a monopoly so as to sell to only chosen entities, or to change pricing for one buyer over another so as to make rental services uncompetitive. If the studios do band together to do this kind of anti-competitive practices you can bet that the lawsuit will go straight to the Supreme Court.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The Clayton act clearly does not allow the studios to act as a monopoly so as to sell to only chosen entities, or to change pricing for one buyer over another so as to make rental services uncompetitive. If the studios do band together to do this kind of anti-competitive practices you can bet that the lawsuit will go straight to the Supreme Court.

The studio do not have to band together to do anything, everyone negotiates on their own terms. It has always been this way since everyone's business model is unique. As it stands right now, there are only three distribution sources that one can purchase DVD and Blurays in bulk, and these three distributors have very strong contracts, and a good business relationship with the studios. If the Redbox case goes in favor of Redbox, then DISNEY will impose a 30 day delay period for rentals, and Warner and Paramount could do more or less based on how the delay will coordinate with their business model. I do not talk to my counterparts to set up deals, or negotiate how the studio will move as a whole. I communicate to see what they are going to do, because quite frankly Disney has such a unique and different business model from the rest of the studios, it would be pretty impossible to collude with other studios without damaging ourselves.

The Clayton act does allow each studio to negotiate for themselves, and as long as there is no evidence of collusion, their policies can be identical, and they can place as many limits as they so desire under a contract. If all of the studios individually decide that it is in their best interest to place a 30 day delay on rentals, they are in no violation of the law. Everything that looks anti competitive to the eye, quite often isn't. As long as the same rule applies for everyone (and Netflix and Blockbuster have already signaled that a 30 day delay is no problem for them), and it is decided on an individual basis, then it is not against the law.

[Geoffcin]

The Clayton act does allow each studio to negotiate for themselves, and as long as there is no evidence of collusion, their policies can be identical, and they can place as many limits as they so desire under a contract. If all of the studios individually decide that it is in their best interest to place a 30 day delay on rentals, they are in no violation of the law. Everything that looks anti competitive to the eye, quite often isn't. As long as the same rule applies for everyone (and Netflix and Blockbuster have already signaled that a 30 day delay is no problem for them), and it is decided on an individual basis, then it is not against the law.

It would not be a 30 day delay on rentals, it would be a refusal of the studios to allow the sale of bulk DVD's to specific entities. That is clearly designed to be anti-competitive, and if they do it it would be in clear violation of the Clayton act. Of course a judge would have to decide the matter, but they have consistantly come down in the favor of free markets, as opposed to the manipulated market that the studios envision.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It would not be a 30 day delay on rentals, it would be a refusal of the studios to allow the sale of bulk DVD's to specific entities. That is clearly designed to be anti-competitive, and if they do it it would be in clear violation of the Clayton act. Of course a judge would have to decide the matter, but they have consistantly come down in the favor of free markets, as opposed to the manipulated market that the studios envision.

First, you have this pretty twisted. Secondly, it was Walmart, Target and others who have placed limits on how many copies can be purchased, it was not the studios who made this decision. The studios deliver their product to their distributors, the distributer delivers it to the retailers and rental businesses. ANYONE can negotiate a contract to buy in bulk, but in doing so, their are rules that must be followed. Redbox has approached three studios, and those studios have an agreement with Redbox with rules attached. Redbox wants the benefits, but they don't want to follow the rules that goes with the benefits.

It was the big box stores that decided to place limits on how many copies an individual can purchase with each visit. I don't blame them for this because it is DVD's that bring in the foot traffic that allows these big boxes to pitch other services and products to them. If one person comes in and purchases the entire stock of a titles when they first come out, then it slows down and often kills the foot traffic in the store. The big boxes made the decision that Redbox's model is hurting them, not the studios. To the studios, a sale of a disc is a sale of a disc. My question would be how would you like it if Redbox was coming in and buying all of your new releases the day of release, so you wouldn't have anything to sell or stimulate foot traffic to sell other products? That is the issue at hand.

Redbox's lawsuit against Warner, Paramount and Universal is based on their desire to skirt the rules so they can rent a disc for a dollar a night, much like Vizio skirted the rules so they can sell low cost LCD and plasma televisions. Redbox contends that Warner, Paramount and Universal has pressured Target and Walmart not to sell in bulk to Redbox. They have made this claim without a shred of proof to support it. The real issue here is that Redbox's purchasing model is unsustainable. If you want to charge $1 a night, you cannot purchase your content at retail prices. Their own investors have told them this. They do not want to go through the studios distributors because they do not want to follow the rules. They are trapped, and being forced to go through the proper channels to buy in bulk, and they don't like it.

So the issue here is not the studio refusing to sell in bulk to redbox, it is redbox unwillingness to go through the proper channels to get DVD's in bulk.

[Geoffcin]

First, you have this pretty twisted. Secondly, it was Walmart, Target and others who have placed limits on how many copies can be purchased, it was not the studios who made this decision.

That, as they say, is the question. If the studios have pressured the resellers to limit sales specifically so that companies like Redbox would faulter then you have anti-trust. I'm sure we're going to find out some pretty interesting goings-on when we get discovery in this case.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That, as they say, is the question. If the studios have pressured the resellers to limit sales specifically so that companies like Redbox would faulter then you have anti-trust. I'm sure we're going to find out some pretty interesting goings-on when we get discovery in this case.

One thing that has always bothered me about these issues. It seems that most folks want to blame the studios for everything under the sun, but they really lack the details that point otherwise. Walmart and Target have already put it on the record that the studios played no role in their decision to limit the amount of copies that can be purchased. I think they got tired of Redbox cleaning out whole regions of stores of their new releases just to supply their Kiosk with content. The fact that you already have three of the seven studio with agreements shows that the studios as a whole are not engaging in anti-trust activities. One thing that is clear, the policy of limiting the amount of copies to each customer is not new. For Walmart it is more than three to four years old, and the same for BB and Target.

I see this as a Vizio moment. When everything was laid out on the table, Vizio found themselves in a lot of hot water, and settled out of court. I think the same thing will happen to Redbox, and unfortunately consumers will not be happy with the outcome.

[nightflier]

This is for UK law which is actually stricter than US law;

http://www.moviesatwork.co.uk/help/faq.php#2

Is it legal to lend DVDs, CDs, Books etc ? [Top of Page]
The renting and lending of things like DVDs, CDs, Books, etc, is covered by UK copyright law. You can find the consolidated text of this law here.
Under this UK copyright law it is perfectly legal to lend your DVDs, CDs etc to your friends and family. This may be a surprise to you based on the warning messages that usually pop up when you play a DVD or Video. In fact "lending" is only considered as an infringement of copyright when it is done "through an establishment which is accessible to the public". What this basically means is that it is totally legal to lend to your circle of friends and family.

If UK law applied, here in the US, then I would agree. But I am still of the opinion (I don't have any legal references to back this up), that it is not within my rights to lend movies to friends. When I was a student, dorms would rent one movie and then pass it onto everyone else in the dorm to watch as well. It was not public viewing because the movies were viewed on individual VCRs, but when the campus risk management found out, they put a quick stop to it.

Likewise, if I saw a movie that I really liked and wanted my friends and family to see it as well, I could buy 2-3 copies and then tell everyone to pass them around as much as possible. This kind of behavior, if repeated across the country, would also cut into profits for the studios so I have to imagine that this is not permitted. Yes, the warning at the beginning of movies is vague, but that does not mean this is permitted outright, either.

Here's another question: if I am watching a movie, and my friend comes over, can he watch it with me? What if he brings his whole family? What if several friends come over? And they bring their families? At what point does this become public viewing? I suppose that this hasn't been tested in court yet? To be perfectly honest, I am rather curious to find out the truth behind this question.

[Geoffcin]

Here's another question: if I am watching a movie, and my friend comes over, can he watch it with me? What if he brings his whole family? What if several friends come over? And they bring their families? At what point does this become public viewing? I suppose that this hasn't been tested in court yet? To be perfectly honest, I am rather curious to find out the truth behind this question.

Actually if you go down one of my posts you'll see the U.S. "law of First sale doctrine". This, along with subsequent Supreme Court rulings have stated that; "buyers of retail DVDs in the United States are free to sell or exchange them, and rent and lend them to others"

To answer your question;

Quite simply, if you are showing a movie or ANY copywrited material at your residence and are NOT charging a fee, you are OK. However, if you broadcast it in any way, or as my learned friend Mr T has said, crack the copywrite protection then you are in violation of the law. The law regarding copying is of course always in effect.

[Geoffcin]

One thing that has always bothered me about these issues. It seems that most folks want to blame the studios for everything under the sun, but they really lack the details that point otherwise.

Yes your correct!

Studios = Evil , $1 rental Redbox = Good!!

Or as all torrenters know, free even better!

Disclaimer; Torrenting should only be used for non-copyrighted and open source material

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes your correct!

Studios = Evil , $1 rental Redbox = Good!!

Or as all torrenters know, free even better!

Disclaimer; Torrenting should only be used for non-copyrighted and open source material

LOLOL!!

[Smokey]

ANYONE can negotiate a contract to buy in bulk, but in doing so, their are rules that must be followed. Redbox has approached three studios, and those studios have an agreement with Redbox with rules attached. Redbox wants the benefits, but they don't want to follow the rules that goes with the benefits.


Could you please tell us what are these rules?

BTW guys, very informative discussion.Thanks.

[Woochifer]

Ah! This clears up a lot of the mystery behind why Redbox was getting embargoed. I didn't know that Blockbuster and Netflix have setup revenue sharing arrangements with the distributors. That was very commonplace with VHS, and helped to kill off a lot of indie video stores that still had to buy their copies at wholesale. When the DVD first came into prominence, that eliminated the rental pricing window and significantly lowered the wholesale costs.

Redbox is gaining market share by undercutting the competition, but they can do that partially because they do not adhere to the same rules that competitors like Blockbuster and Netflix have to. I have a feeling that if Redbox has to enter into a revenue sharing arrangement, their rental rates will go up. And if T's right, they are already on thin ice because they have to buy product at retail (which is absolutely ridiculous for any business to do).

[nightflier]

If RedBox prices go up, or worse, if Redbox goes under, it will upset a lot of people - which will drive more people to download legally, semi-legally and illegally.

[Woochifer]

If RedBox prices go up, or worse, if Redbox goes under, it will upset a lot of people - which will drive more people to download legally, semi-legally and illegally.

Nope, they'll just hunt out the next alternative.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acy6o2oJkeZE&pos=7

I find it very hard to believe that a large cross-section of consumers that are in the habit of renting movies on disc will suddenly switch over to downloaded torrent files just because the rental costs went up by an as-of-now unknown amount, or one kiosk option became unavailable.

Downloaded media requires that somebody either switch to watching movies on their computer (good luck getting your average couch potato to do that), or buy a network device that hooks up to their current TV, or buy a TV that can read video files off a network connection or SD card. Seems like a much simpler transition to go somewhere that has a DVDPlay kiosk, go back to regular video stores, or get a Netflix subscription.

PPV and legal downloading options are more expensive than Redbox and more lucrative to the studios, so I'm sure the studios would gladly welcome any Redbox customers that want to switch over.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If RedBox prices go up, or worse, if Redbox goes under, it will upset a lot of people - which will drive more people to download legally, semi-legally and illegally.

History has never been very friendly of your futuristic predictions.

[nightflier]

Nope, they'll just hunt out the next alternative.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acy6o2oJkeZE&pos=7

I find it very hard to believe that a large cross-section of consumers that are in the habit of renting movies on disc will suddenly switch over to downloaded torrent files just because the rental costs went up by an as-of-now unknown amount, or one kiosk option became unavailable.

Downloaded media requires that somebody either switch to watching movies on their computer (good luck getting your average couch potato to do that), or buy a network device that hooks up to their current TV, or buy a TV that can read video files off a network connection or SD card. Seems like a much simpler transition to go somewhere that has a DVDPlay kiosk, go back to regular video stores, or get a Netflix subscription.

PPV and legal downloading options are more expensive than Redbox and more lucrative to the studios, so I'm sure the studios would gladly welcome any Redbox customers that want to switch over.

Many of those same couch potatoes have a son or neighbor already doing this, so the transition won't be that hard. What you say might have been true a year or two ago, but today, things are different.

Regarding NCR, it all depends on what they will charge. If they place a Blockbuster Express vending machine next to a Redbox one but charge twice the price, then I really don't think customers will pay the higher price just for the Blockbuster name. Redbox, for all its supposed evil doings, has set the bar at $1, and that is now what customers expect to pay.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It seems that Redbox's strategy of buying discs at retail is causing a stir among Coinstar's investors. Their share price has slipped 3.6%.

http://www.videobusiness.com/blog/1120000312/post/480051048.html

Now one person here contends that folks will just go to illegal downloading if Redbox raises its prices, or folds. I have to agree with Wooch on this one. Folks that go and stand in line to rent titles for $1 dollar are not the same folks who sit in front of their computers and steal movies. Folks that steal movies will not spend one dime on a rental when they can just steal it for free. They are not going to leave their computers to walk or drive anywhere to get any movie at any price. So the idea that folks that rent physical disc will suddenly become thieves is ridiculous.

[nightflier]

I said legal and illegal downloading. That does not imply they will all be thieves, now does it? The convenience of getting movies into one's home directly, works well for people who liked the convenience of getting their movies at the grocery store.

[Woochifer]

Many of those same couch potatoes have a son or neighbor already doing this, so the transition won't be that hard. What you say might have been true a year or two ago, but today, things are different.

But, again you're ignoring the fact that downloading is a much bigger change of habit than switching rental providers. So what if a son or neighbor already downloads, the fact is that most people DON'T. Physical media still controls more than 80% of the market, so I don't see how things are as "different" as you claim.

If Redbox and $1 rentals go away, the shortest path is that consumers will still rent via other avenues, but not necessarily indulge in it as often. Downloaded and streaming media are more commonplace with people who view their media on computers, but that group remains way way way in the minority and will continue to do so.

If price sensitivity is the issue, downloads don't solve that because moving over to downloaded media incurs its own set of hardware costs (i.e., computer hardware, networking equipment, new network-enabled TV, set top box, etc.), and the costs of downloaded rentals and purchases are already at price parity with physical media rentals and purchases.


Regarding NCR, it all depends on what they will charge. If they place a Blockbuster Express vending machine next to a Redbox one but charge twice the price, then I really don't think customers will pay the higher price just for the Blockbuster name. Redbox, for all its supposed evil doings, has set the bar at $1, and that is now what customers expect to pay.

And Redbox set the bar at $1 using a potentially unsustainable business model. Redbox's current practices of buying DVDs at retail in order to get around the wholesale restrictions are clearly unsustainable, and if they don't prevail in court, this leaves them with one of two alternatives -- 1) continue to buy DVDs at retail and incur unrecoverable expenditures; or 2) agree to the same revenue sharing arrangements that other rental providers use, and potentially raise expenses (and consumer prices).

And if Redbox does prevail in court, the studios will simply move ahead with an across-the-board 30-day rental blackout period. If that happens, Redbox is screwed because the majority of their revenue comes from DVDs released within the past month, and the remaining supply of new releases that they currently get for wholesale cost would also come under that blackout period. Blockbuster is partially insulated because they sell DVDs in their stores, and could easily move more aggressively into that product line. Netflix is also insulated because their queue and wish list setup means that most of their customers don't expect to receive new releases until weeks after they come out.

Dollar rentals have been part of the video rental picture in one incarnation or another since the beginning. Every time they've gone away (usually due to the store chain promoting them going out of business or getting out of that line of business), consumers continued to rent videos, even when other digital distribution/PPV options were available.

The only fundamental change occurred when DVDs standardized around sell-through price points, and consumers switched over from renting to buying. The economic downturn and the lack of compelling catalog titles that have yet to come out on DVD have led to sales decreases and an increase in rentals. However, the overall market remains dominated and driven by physical media sales. Speculation and wishful thinking about downloads and streaming continues to ignore that fundamental fact.

[Woochifer]

I said legal and illegal downloading. That does not imply they will all be thieves, now does it? The convenience of getting movies into one's home directly, works well for people who liked the convenience of getting their movies at the grocery store.

Not if they don't want to watch movies on a computer, or jump through all the hoops and incur the additional expenses needed to bring downloaded media into their living room.

[nightflier]

But, again you're ignoring the fact that downloading is a much bigger change of habit than switching rental providers. So what if a son or neighbor already downloads, the fact is that most people DON'T. Physical media still controls more than 80% of the market, so I don't see how things are as "different" as you claim.

Most people actually do: at work, at home, and at Starbucks. 80% is only the figure for actual sales, but that doesn't take into account free content and pirated content. If we're going to talk about what people actually do, we can't just consider sales.


Downloaded and streaming media are more commonplace with people who view their media on computers, but that group remains way way way in the minority and will continue to do so.

I don't agree. The number of people familiar with the concept of downloading and streaming is far greater than you think. And it's this familiarity that we're talking about. The idea that this is somehow strange to the majority of Americans is ludicrous.


If price sensitivity is the issue, downloads don't solve that because moving over to downloaded media incurs its own set of hardware costs (i.e., computer hardware, networking equipment, new network-enabled TV, set top box, etc.), and the costs of downloaded rentals and purchases are already at price parity with physical media rentals and purchases.

You are assuming people don't already have computers and internet connections. That is a false assumption.


And Redbox set the bar at $1 using a potentially unsustainable business model. Redbox's current practices of buying DVDs at retail in order to get around the wholesale restrictions are clearly unsustainable, and if they don't prevail in court, this leaves them with one of two alternatives -- 1) continue to buy DVDs at retail and incur unrecoverable expenditures; or 2) agree to the same revenue sharing arrangements that other rental providers use, and potentially raise expenses (and consumer prices).

It was not unsustainable until the studios threatened to impose their 30-day blackout. We have yet to find out if it is legal for them to do so. When we do, then we'll see what Redbox will do.

As far as the $1 price point, the cat's out of that bag and raising prices is no longer possible. Asside from some small increase to account for inflation and small expenses, consumers will not rent from Redbox for a much higher price. $1 is redbox's reason for being, but if the price goes up, then consumers won't see the advantage over blockbuster and netflix anymore.


Dollar rentals have been part of the video rental picture in one incarnation or another since the beginning. Every time they've gone away (usually due to the store chain promoting them going out of business or getting out of that line of business), consumers continued to rent videos, even when other digital distribution/PPV options were available.

Everytime they have gone away, a portion of those customers moved onto new mediums. That's just a fact of the business. You believe that if Redbox goes away, this number will be small, and I believe that because of the number of easy and conveninent alternatives, that number will be much greater. I include in this the number of people who will move onto illegal downloads and the stuff that is streaming from gray-market sites. This developement will not be good for the studios, no matter what - hence the Pyrrhic victory reference.


However, the overall market remains dominated and driven by physical media sales. Speculation and wishful thinking about downloads and streaming continues to ignore that fundamental fact.

This sales-driven thinking completely ignores what is really happening out there. The total volume of content that is downloaded and streamed is many times greater than the volume sold for download and streaming. This gives people the false perception that physical media is that much greater. If we were to consider the total volume downloaded and streamed (legal and illegal), the picture would be very different.

[frahengeo]

Not sure what Redbox customers will do, if prices are raised. I, for one, am a frequent Redbox user. At double the price ($2), I may change my habits from being a frequent one to an occasional one. I've never used Netflix, but since this discussion started I've been looking into it. Not a bad deal and maybe better than Redbox (haven't read the fine print yet).

The other customers that use Redbox, for the most part, appear to be Moms, Dads, and families. Don't see any Teenagers, since Redbox requires a credit card.

I don't know, I can't picture "The Family" or the Kids huddled around a PC or laptop watching a movie unless the computer is hooked up to a projector, but how many people have those.

[Hyfi]

If RedBox prices go up, or worse, if Redbox goes under, it will upset a lot of people - which will drive more people to download legally, semi-legally and illegally.

Right now, there are no rental stores anywhere near me as they have all closed, including the 2 Blockbusters which I will never use anyway due to their beliefs and restrictions on renting certain movies. I don't need them policing what I want to watch.

Redbox is now my only legal choice but the selection is way limited and will never have some of the movies I want to see.




Not if they don't want to watch movies on a computer, or jump through all the hoops and incur the additional expenses needed to bring downloaded media into their living room.

Luckily I don't need to jump through hoops as my Living Room TV is the monitor for my LR PC. Because of having such a hard time finding certain movies to rent, I don't buy too many movies, I have downloaded a few torrent rips. Most are crappy and have nothing but the movie. I do like all the extras on DVDs. I don't watch enough movies to make NetFlix an economical decision to pay a monthly fee and not watch enough movies to be worth it.

So what are the alternatives?


The way I see it is there are many people that will buy every movie that comes out. Out of those people, there is a very small percentage that rent from Redbox and then go to Wall Mart and buy it. There is also a group like myself that almost never buy a DVD and only rent. That being said, what is the difference if Redbox buys it's DVDs from Target at the same time the first group is buying theirs? I highly doubt that the loss in revenue is as great as they claim for this situation. Those that are going to buy, will still buy while those who only rent will still rent.

I also don't have to be the first on my block to see anything. I'm watching movies that are a few years old or released early this year.

What is the big deal waiting a month?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Most people actually do: at work, at home, and at Starbucks. 80% is only the figure for actual sales, but that doesn't take into account free content and pirated content. If we're going to talk about what people actually do, we can't just consider sales.

You are like a broken record. Free content is not a revenue generating transaction however, while it is free to you, it isn't to advertisers. They pay for your free content, so the studio are not really out of anything. If people go to free content, then the networks and studios charge more to advertisers, and they still win. Advertisers go where the people go, and if free content is where they go, the advertisers are not far behind.



I don't agree. The number of people familiar with the concept of downloading and streaming is far greater than you think. And it's this familiarity that we're talking about. The idea that this is somehow strange to the majority of Americans is ludicrous.

Being familar with the concept does not translate to more usage. I stream netflix and hulu, but FAR LESS than I purchase movies and watch them. Familiarity does not breed a complete change in habit over night, and that is something you continuously forget over and over again in your arguments.



You are assuming people don't already have computers and internet connections. That is a false assumption.

You are assuming that people use their computers as their primary viewing source. Study after study has disproves this, and you parroting it will not change a thing.




It was not unsustainable until the studios threatened to impose their 30-day blackout. We have yet to find out if it is legal for them to do so. When we do, then we'll see what Redbox will do.

It was not sustainable from the get go, and it had nothing to do with the studios. It has more to do with Redbox trying to go around the process and undercut everyone in the business. The 30 day blackout applies to all rental concerns except Netflix and Blockbuster. They have contractual deals that allow them to rent day and date at release. Smaller rental concerns have gone to the big box stores and purchase their disc so they can rent day and date of release. They usually buy 5 copies or less, as they don't need any more to satisfy their customers. Redbox does not want to negotiate with the studios, and they do not want to wait 30 days. Their investors do not believe they can acquire enough copies of a new release to fill all of their kiosks by going to retailers, and that is why it is unsustainable. If Redbox comes to the table with the studios and strikes a deal, they will be able to fill all of their kiosks, but you can bet the rental price will be higher than $1.



As far as the $1 price point, the cat's out of that bag and raising prices is no longer possible. Asside from some small increase to account for inflation and small expenses, consumers will not rent from Redbox for a much higher price. $1 is redbox's reason for being, but if the price goes up, then consumers won't see the advantage over blockbuster and netflix anymore.

Your first statement is pure BS. They can raise their prices, but folks may rent less. Less rentals at a higher price can still provide a profit. If they let that cat out of the bag, it was at their own peril. I see Redbox at a disadvantage to Blockbuster and Netflix anyway. Their selection of titles is pretty limited in comparison to BB and Netflix, and the other two have streaming capabilities that Redbox doesn't have. In the future that is going to play a big role as renters migrate to streaming and downloading. There is no way that Redbox can get around the studio when it comes to digital delivery, so they will have to come to the table, and based on their attitude with the studios, getting a good deal with them will be difficult as hell at best.




Everytime they have gone away, a portion of those customers moved onto new mediums. That's just a fact of the business. You believe that if Redbox goes away, this number will be small, and I believe that because of the number of easy and conveninent alternatives, that number will be much greater. I include in this the number of people who will move onto illegal downloads and the stuff that is streaming from gray-market sites. This developement will not be good for the studios, no matter what - hence the Pyrrhic victory reference.

Can you provide any proof of these statements, or are they just so more of your highly inaccurate assumptions? Or are you just stating what YOU would do. I think it is pretty far fetched to think that folks would go from legit to illegal in ten seconds. What is more plausible is that folks will just find other ways to rent DVD's.




This sales-driven thinking completely ignores what is really happening out there. The total volume of content that is downloaded and streamed is many times greater than the volume sold for download and streaming. This gives people the false perception that physical media is that much greater. If we were to consider the total volume downloaded and streamed (legal and illegal), the picture would be very different.

Your head is as thick as the earth's crust. YouTube is by far the largest streaming and downloading concern on the planet. They are not streaming valuable content such as movies. They are streaming content that has no value, which is why they are leveraging their advertising income to cover the losses from housing the streaming content. The concept of leveraging seems to completely escape you, as it is costing somebody even if it is free to you. Physical media has a monetary value to it, and cannot be compared to non value content. Once again, your one sided thought process is deceiving your. Even with the free content, Google is trying to find a way to gain income to stem the loses. So you see paid advertisements that accompany that free content. Folks that want to watch their favorite movies are not going to YouTube, you cannot find it there. It is a non brainer that free content would have more activity that paid content, but in the grand scheme of things that is irrelevant.

[Hyfi]

I don't know, I can't picture "The Family" or the Kids huddled around a PC or laptop watching a movie unless the computer is hooked up to a projector, but how many people have those.

Almost everyone I work with, at a software company, have PCs as part of their living room setups and you just watch the downloaded avi file thru windows media player over the TV.

I have also setup a few client to do the same including the Netflix over BluRay.

[frahengeo]

Almost everyone I work with, at a software company, have PCs as part of their living room setups and you just watch the downloaded avi file thru windows media player over the TV.

I have also setup a few client to do the same including the Netflix over BluRay.

I guess I'm behind the times. I use the good ol' blu-ray player, AV processor, and amp combo.

[nightflier]

...It is a non brainer that free content would have more activity that paid content, but in the grand scheme of things that is irrelevant.

blah blah blah. I'm sorry, did you say something relevant?

I'm not going to rehash every error in your post. I think the impact of raising Redbox prices (or of them going away) will drive some of these people to downloading (legal and illegal). Yes it will also drive people to Netflix, Hulu, and other services, but also to plain old downloading and streaming. Actually you admit that it will, it's just a difference of opinion about how much of an impact this will have. Until Redbox has its day in court, we won't know that, so going back & forth over that is pointless until we know the outcome.

Yes, free content vastly outnumbers paid content, but the sum of both also outnumbers physical media. Convenient how you keep trying to sweep that fact under the rug. Your reference to physical media sales is not representative at all of what's really happening out there, and you just can't deal with that. Physical media may still have some life in it (I wouldn't have bought 2 new players if I didn't think so), but it will give way and then begin it's long, slow decline. 10 years from now, maybe even sooner, we'll likely be talking about BR movies like we now talk about SACDs, but that thought scares the crap out of you. Well that's still a very real possibility, no matter how much you protest.

Secondly, whether this is YouTube content or torrented HD movies, isn't my only point. In either case it represents millions of people who are familiar with, comfortable with, and regular users of downloaded/streaming content. This is not the occasional teen-age hacker up in his room between homework sessions - this is the general public. Your view of computer users is so prejudiced, that you won't even acknowledge that fact.

And what do you think will happen when Google's new phone arrives next month with twice the screen res as the iPod? It is going to be a video-focused phone, a watershed - yes that's my own interpretation from playing with it for just a few days, but don't discount that. That little device with a small 4.5" screen, the kind you have said up & down is so insignificant for movies, is going to throw another curve ball your way, the kind that will knock you flat on your rear. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Finally, you keep saying people watch downloaded content on their PCs. This is just typical of your prejudice against computer folks and is not at all representative of what's happening out there. In case you didn't know, it's not rocket science to plug a laptop or iPod with downloaded movies in to a TV with a $15 cable. Your assumptions, as usual, are just ludicrous.

[Geoffcin]

In case you didn't know, it's not rocket science to plug a laptop or iPod with downloaded movies in to a TV with a $15 cable.

I may not be a rocket scientist, but I have made parts for rockets, uh science, and I hook up my laptop to the tube, wait make that panel, all the time.

The only difference is I use a $4 HDMI cable I got on ebay. Works almost as good as the cryo-treated-single-crystal-helical-wound-24-carat-irridium-dipped-kevlar-shielded-erotically-terminated HDMI cable that costs as much as the gross national product of Equador.....per foot.

:biggrin5:

Chill out guys, it's the holidays!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

blah blah blah. I'm sorry, did you say something relevant?

If you didn't think so, then the feelings are mutual.


I'm not going to rehash every error in your post. I think the impact of raising Redbox prices (or of them going away) will drive some of these people to downloading (legal and illegal). Yes it will also drive people to Netflix, Hulu, and other services, but also to plain old downloading and streaming. Actually you admit that it will, it's just a difference of opinion about how much of an impact this will have. Until Redbox has its day in court, we won't know that, so going back & forth over that is pointless until we know the outcome.

Yes, and you predicting how people will react if the prices go up is pointless as well. You don't know what people will do, and be a man and admit it.


Yes, free content vastly outnumbers paid content, but the sum of both also outnumbers physical media. Convenient how you keep trying to sweep that fact under the rug. Your reference to physical media sales is not representative at all of what's really happening out there, and you just can't deal with that. Physical media may still have some life in it (I wouldn't have bought 2 new players if I didn't think so), but it will give way and then begin it's long, slow decline. 10 years from now, maybe even sooner, we'll likely be talking about BR movies like we now talk about SACDs, but that thought scares the crap out of you. Well that's still a very real possibility, no matter how much you protest.

Free content has always vastly outnumbered paid content. It has been that way since television was invented. This has not stopped paid content from becoming a successful revenue source. Even what you consider free, is not free to somebody. The reception of television signals is free, but the television and antenna are not and neither are the commercials. 0's and 1's freely circulate around the internet, but you have to pay for a hard drive, screen, keyboards, mouse, and internet connection to access it. Hulu is free to viewers, but not to advertisers. Somebody is always getting paid, so nothing is truly free.

My business has survived through VHS, Laserdisc, and it will survive DVD and Bluray. These are all just delivery systems, and have nothing to do with content production. What I do for a living transcends delivery systems, as you would have only half the content without what I do no matter what the delivery system is. So I am neither scared, nor do I protest any transition from delivery system to delivery system.

How do you know what scares the crap out of me? You don't, so stick to what you do know. That means this topic will be over in seconds.


Secondly, whether this is YouTube content or torrented HD movies, isn't my only point. In either case it represents millions of people who are familiar with, comfortable with, and regular users of downloaded/streaming content. This is not the occasional teen-age hacker up in his room between homework sessions - this is the general public. Your view of computer users is so prejudiced, that you won't even acknowledge that fact.

I am familar with mowing my lawn. That does not mean I actually do it. I am familiar with the construction of hometheater rooms, that does not mean I actually build them. I am familar with cooking, but that does not mean I always do it. Just because millions of people are familar with streaming and downloading, does not mean they will do that when they want to watch MOVIES. The television is still the primary source of viewing entertainment, even though folks using other devices to view content. The primary content that these devices are used for is not viewing of movies, but looking at streamed video from YouTube, already broadcast television shows, and music videos. Study after study after study has shown this. So I am not prepared to listen to a contrary OPINION that some yahoo on audioreview preports. Show me some facts and research that supports your assertions, and I will be glad to read them.


And what do you think will happen when Google's new phone arrives next month with twice the screen res as the iPod? It is going to be a video-focused phone, a watershed - yes that's my own interpretation from playing with it for just a few days, but don't discount that. That little device with a small 4.5" screen, the kind you have said up & down is so insignificant for movies, is going to throw another curve ball your way, the kind that will knock you flat on your rear. Don't say I didn't warn you.

You said the same BS about the iphone. So when google new phone arrives next month, everyone is going to ditch the new HD flat panels and Blu ray players they purchased in great numbers on black friday to watch a downloaded movie on a 4.5" screen. This assumption is stupid for even you nightfool. Wooch is right about you techno nerds, you guys just follow every direction the damn tech industry blows. Every new product is going to kill the disc and the television, and everyone in the world will migrate towards what nerds do. Right, and the Bay Bridge is for sale for $1 Study after study has shown that people prefer to watch movies in theaters, or in the comfort of their own homes on televisions, and no new phone is going to change that.


Finally, you keep saying people watch downloaded content on their PCs. This is just typical of your prejudice against computer folks and is not at all representative of what's happening out there. In case you didn't know, it's not rocket science to plug a laptop or iPod with downloaded movies in to a TV with a $15 cable. Your assumptions, as usual, are just ludicrous.

Just to show just how behind the times you are, who needs a ipod or a laptop plugged into a TV when televisions are coming out with the these capabilities already built in? I use my PS3 to do this. That does not mean I am going to ditch my PS3 Blu ray capabilities to watch movies. Besides, movies from ipods look pretty low tech next to a true HD source such as Blu ray. So, your assumptions are as usual, pretty ludicrous in their own right.

[nightflier]

Maybe you should mow your own lawn - or are you above that too? Maybe the time away from the screen would help you reflect on how obstinately insulting of a bore you can be. Geof said to keep it civil, but you're being an insulting jerk again. Furthermore, you keep twisting what I say. So let me repeat:

I didn't say the Google phone is going to blow physical media away, I said it represents a watershed. In case that's a new word for you, that means it represents a new direction for phones. And no, people will not be watching movies primarily on this device, they will use it to download, store, and move 720p content. No it will not supplant the iPhone/iPod either, it will exist in parallel, but as such will represent a further move away from physical media, which is my point about this. The video content they will likely watch on larger screens as well as on the smaller one. Now before you go twisting that around again, this doesn't mean that they will be storing 50Gb of BR quality stuff, there, either. It will be short clips, but the point is that this creates familiarity with the process and an expectation of HD quality that will be transplanted to other mediums.

And no, I am not behind the times. I know full well that a very small number of new TVs have the capability built-in. But just like all your other FUD, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it represents an infinitesimal small number of people. There are exponentially more people who use a computer or portable device than the number who have this built into a TV. Stop wasting everybody's time with this misdirection and sensationalist drivel.

Redbox isn't backing down from the challenge, so I have to believe that they feel they can win this. But it they don't it will be a loss to a lot of people and will likely drive some of them to downloading. It will also represent one less option for competitively priced physical media, and hence another reason some of these people will go online. In any case, this is not a win for the studios. It will be a bitter-sweet victory for them, as usual.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Maybe you should mow your own lawn - or are you above that too? Maybe the time away from the screen would help you reflect on how obstinately insulting of a bore you can be. Geof said to keep it civil, but you're being an insulting jerk again. Furthermore, you keep twisting what I say. So let me repeat:

Maybe you should mind your own business and not worry about who mows my lawn. Second, perhaps you should step away from the forum to reflect how stupid, one dimensional, and just play asinine and shortsighted your thinking process is. And please, don't repeat. You have been doing this far more than necessary, and you have been wrong every time you do it.


I didn't say the Google phone is going to blow physical media away, I said it represents a watershed. In case that's a new word for you, that means it represents a new direction for phones. And no, people will not be watching movies primarily on this device, they will use it to download, store, and move 720p content. No it will not supplant the iPhone/iPod either, it will exist in parallel, but as such will represent a further move away from physical media, which is my point about this. The video content they will likely watch on larger screens as well as on the smaller one. Now before you go twisting that around again, this doesn't mean that they will be storing 50Gb of BR quality stuff, there, either. It will be short clips, but the point is that this creates familiarity with the process and an expectation of HD quality that will be transplanted to other mediums.

So a new direction in phones will represent a further move away from physical media? How absolutely stupid is that???? And watching short clips on a tiny screen will create an expectation of HD quality that will be transplanted to other mediums? Wow, you can't even ascertain HD on a 4.5" screen, so how can this experience be transplanted anywhere in the HD world? These comments are so far reaching into the realm of idiocracy, I cannot believe you even wrote it.(well maybe I can). First 720p is history, and no basis to push HD anywhere where 1080p is the dominate resolution and benchmark. We don't go backwards in technology, we push forward. The trend in viewing movies is towards bigger screens, not small phone or video device sized screens. I don't need my phone to transport video when I can access it right in my own home from anywhere on the net via a networked television, or a entertainment device such as a PS3. If I wanted to move data around, I could easily use a flash drive, and stick it right in my PS3. I do not need a phone to do this.


And no, I am not behind the times. I know full well that a very small number of new TVs have the capability built-in. But just like all your other FUD, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it represents an infinitesimal small number of people. There are exponentially more people who use a computer or portable device than the number who have this built into a TV. Stop wasting everybody's time with this misdirection and sensationalist drivel.

An argument can be made that the number of people hooking up their computers or portable devices to TV screens represents an infinitesimal small number of people when compared to those that view television via cable or OTA. That can also be said when compared to the amount of folks that view movies from DVD and Blu ray players. So just who is spewing FUD here, and perhaps you should stop wasting everyone time with misdirected, sensationalistic predictions and opinions.


Redbox isn't backing down from the challenge, so I have to believe that they feel they can win this. But it they don't it will be a loss to a lot of people and will likely drive some of them to downloading. It will also represent one less option for competitively priced physical media, and hence another reason some of these people will go online. In any case, this is not a win for the studios. It will be a bitter-sweet victory for them, as usual.

Well, as usual you are alone in your belief. Nobody believes that Redbox is going to win (not even folks who hate the studios) because they have no proof of their assertions. Both Walmart, BB and Target have had limits on how many copies of DVD's that one person can purchase in certain locations for years, and that is a fact. Most analysts believe that in the long run, Redbox is hurting themselves big time because all of these lawsuits will piss the studios off just enough to make negotiations much too difficult to get a good deal to support their business plan. What do you think will happen to them when most renters of physical media finally switch to digital downloads? The studios will kill them with the price of that digital file, and they are well within their right to do so. So if folks go towards downloads, great, the studio still get a percentage of that revenue. As downloading grows, they'll ask for a larger percentage of that revenue. The studios control the content, and you need content to download or you basically have nothing to rent. The studios are not as dumb as you think they are, and you are not as smart as you think you are.

[Geoffcin]

I'm sorry guys, but the thread just started getting way to personal. News & Rumors is not the place for it.