Disney loses bid to stop Redbox from selling its digital download codes

&gt;<i>But in a Tuesday ruling, US District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied the studio’s request for an injunction, arguing that the warning that “Codes are not for sale or transfer” on the DVD and Blu-ray packaging did not constitute a binding contract. Furthermore, he wrote that the licensing agreements that Disney utilizes on the Movies Anywhere and RedeemDigitalMovie websites improperly forced consumers to give up some of their basic ownership rights.</i><p>Well now. That&#x27;s quite a nice result. I wonder how well this will extend into other &quot;basic ownership rights&quot; in other digital fields.

And here&#x27;s the full ruling, since (as usual for news sites) The Verge didn&#x27;t bother to attach a copy:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;drop.qoid.us&#x2F;031127591204.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;drop.qoid.us&#x2F;031127591204.pdf</a><p>edit: actually, The Verge&#x27;s article links to a Hollywood Reporter article as its source, which does have a copy. So I should have looked harder. Still...

Disney only lost the preliminary injunction. Redbox can continue to sell codes pending the completion of the full trial (plus appeals, if Disney loses).

There&#x27;s the downside to litigation like this. Loads of people who&#x27;ve never heard of RedBox (like me), now do and have a cheap alternative for Disney movies.

Tried to visit redbox.com, but get an access denied: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;QoVUJ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;QoVUJ</a><p>&gt; Access Denied You don&#x27;t have permission to access &quot;<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.redbox.com&#x2F;&quot;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.redbox.com&#x2F;&quot;</a> on this server. Reference #18.18a9645f.1519288990.4e3b07

So how does RedBox actually sell the code for such a discount and make profit? Is it because when they buy the physical copy they essentially get two copies? (One physical and one digital) and then they rent the physical one and make profit from that?

My initial response was that Disney should have won this. It seems to me that Disney gets to control the distribution of it&#x27;s copyrighted materials. They bundle a physical and digital version of the movie. So, 1 purchase = 1 &quot;household&quot; can watch the media privately.<p>What Redbox is doing is constituting 1 purchase = 2 households can watch the media privately (the renter of the DVD and the purchaser of the code).<p>I&#x27;m not an expert on the First Sale Doctrine, but it seems like the end result is that Disney would sell fewer copies of it&#x27;s content (i.e. damages) in respect to RedBox&#x27;s actions.<p>(not a lawyer)

Looking at Redbox&#x27;s website, it looks like you have to buy a physical thing containing the code and pick it up at the box. I assume directly telling you the code digitally would be more legally troubling.

&gt; <i>The case results from Redbox’s lack of an existing business arrangement with Disney. The rental service has distribution deals in place with major studios like Warner Bros., which allow Redbox to purchase physical DVDs and Blu-rays of popular movies that it then offers for rental at its standalone kiosks. Disney has struck no such deal, so Redbox purchases retail copies of the films and rents those discs, instead.</i><p>That&#x27;s basically what VidAngel did -- a physical retail copy for each simultaneous rental -- but the courts shut VidAngel down.

Any lawyers here? This doesn&#x27;t seem fair - retail copies were meant for end consumers, not for another company to hawk and rent out.<p>The Crux of the legal argument lies in equating Redbox to a regular end-consumer, which is inaccurate. Can any lawyers comment on this.

HN has an illogical aversion to anything DRM. This particular case is harmful to anyone producing digital good (apps, music, movies, blogs, etc).<p>Let&#x27;s understand this really damaging verdict by using an app as an example.<p>1. Disney puts out an app that can either be bought as a disk at Walmart or as a download on the app store<p>2. A third party app store that doesn&#x27;t have a re-seller&#x2F;partner agreement with Disney buys a disk, and claims that the legal purchase of the disk now entitles it to re-distribute the app as it deems fit, including selling DIGITAL copies of the app on it&#x27;s own app store.<p>Does this seem logical or fair to you guys?<p>The logical fallacy here is in equating the third-party app store to a regular end-user. Additionally, the third-party app store selling the app digitally is equivalent to Spotify streaming content it hasn&#x27;t licensed under the guise of owning CDs of the said content.<p>This is wrong and dangerous for the digital economy. If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and &quot;rent&quot; it to whom-so-ever I want!!