Movie Rental Service Zediva Shut Down by Courts

49

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

shawtrishia

Shaw Capital Management Warning

Somehow, I cant help but link this with Netflix and Redbox. Maybe it's the nature of the market they are in..

 

avatar

Caboose

Piss off you piece of shit!

avatar

pastorbob

While I am no fan of the MPAA or the RIAA I think all of you are missing the point. Zediva wasn't doing anything different than what Netflix or Hulu does except they were doing it without paying any royalties or licensing fees. I hate to shake you but that has nothing to do with not keeping up with the technology. That goes all the way back to the early days of radio and the broadcasters paying a fee each time they play a song. Zediva was making a profit on somebody else's intellectual property without paying the required fees. It's no different than if I set up a movie theatre using my private DVD collection and charged admission to show the movies without paying the fees. Terms of usage and copyright law strictly forbid that.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the flame blast.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Actually it's completely different. Typical streaming requires licensing because you don't have the physical discs. You have one digital file that you use over and over again, and you must pay royalties each time you stream it.

Licensing and royalties are not required when you purchase the physical disc, which is what Zediva does -- they buy hundreds or thousands of copies of any given title, so yes, they were paying, just like any other DVD rental service.

Not the same thing.

avatar

MaximumMike

PastorBob, your analogy falls apart because in a movie theatre there are many people viewing one copy of the content. But in this case there is a physical copy of the disk being used for every viewing. If you believe that this business model should be illegal, then what about BlockBuster and RedBox? The only difference is the means of distribution. Now, if it is determined that the contents of one disk are going to multiple locations at the same time, you might have a point. But that's not how the article read.

avatar

Nimrod

And yet you sheep continue to put up with fascism.

avatar

Carlidan

Our country is corpartism than fascism. We still have a two party system, just influenced interest groups and coporate lobbyist. 

avatar

CaptainFabulous

This will easily be overturned. This judge didn't do his homework.

avatar

someuid

Another case where the law hasn't kept up with technological advances.

I don't get the MPAA.  Why do they put such a tight grip on watching their movies?  The other day my wife returned a DVD to Neflix without watching it because the DVD was locked down so tight she couldn't forward, reverse, pause or stop the playback.  Neither the BlueRay or the standard DVD player would allow it.  "operation prohibited by disc"

I noticed the other day on the BluRay player that I could no longer chapter skip through the previews.  I have to fast forward through them now.

It's the reason I stopped buying physical media.  There are few feelings worse that plunking down cold hard cash only to find out that some dipsh*t manager at a movie house thinks I must watch previews every time I watch the movie.

The sacrific of not owning these movies was worth the money saved (hello Steam Sales!).

avatar

Caboose

This is where I love having a HTPC with AnyDVD HD. I've got mine set up to remove any prohibited action. I can now chapter skip through all the warnings, previews, etc. Its great!

avatar

Darth Do'Urden

Talk about not doing one's homework. The reason you couldn't control playback reverse, ff, etc. was because you were still in the previews. On rental discs (like from Netflix or Blockbuster) the playback controls are often locked during previews so as to make you sit through them. It's done by the studios as a method of self-advertising, which you are effectively agreeing to through the rental. You'll also notice that the extra features of such a rental disc are stripped down to almost nothing nowadays.

However, if you and  your wife had simply been patient for all of 3 minutes you could have gotten to the movie proper and been able to control playback just fine. Also, if you were to buy the same movie from a retail outlet, you wouldn't have those playback lockouts at all, would be able to skip the previews to your heart's content, and had all the extra features available to you out of the box.

And Steam is better than this how?

avatar

MaximumMike

Your reasoning is logical, but its just not so. I have playback lockouts on the previews of many movies that I own and purchased legitamately. It's really quite infuriating. Now, I have never had playback of the actual movie locked down, but it happens all the time with the previews.

avatar

Caboose

Um.. The discs you get from Blockbuster, Netflix, RedBox, etc, are all the same as the ones you can buy yourself. They're no different.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Actually they are. They are often loaded with more ads and previews and have the special features stripped out. 

avatar

Caboose

Your Blockbuster is screwed than. When I used to rent from BB, it was a normal, same as retail discs. Maybe US Blockbusters were different than Canadian ones *shrugs*

avatar

CaptainFabulous

At one time they were the same, but it hasn't been that way for a few years now. Movie studios offer up these stripped down DVDs at a significant discount so they are very appealing to DVD outlets. And by removing the extras the studios think it's gonna force people to run out and buy the movie, which of course is total bullshit.

avatar

HeartBurnKid

I've never had a Steam game force advertising on me before allowing me to play my game.

Just saying.

avatar

Darth Do'Urden

And if you BUY the movie instead of renting it you won't be forced to see any ads or previews either.

avatar

Danthrax66

It's unfortunate that terrorists go after governments they should go after lobbiest groups/monopolies, seeing as the governemnt isn't.

avatar

routine

Um... it's the government that makes the monopolies.

avatar

Carlidan

Wait I thought you were all for less governemnt intervention in the private sector? Yes, governemnt created these monopolies by not doing their job. By letting big corporations merging to become  even more bigger coparate enities which are now quote "Too Big To Fail". So what are you for? Less goverment or more goverment on private sector. You can't have both ways.

avatar

routine

Both ways? I want less government. I want that big, hairy gorrilla off my back.

I merely pointed out that government is the cause of a monopoly. If you want to get rid of monopoly, you have to get rid of big government.

If there is zero government intervention, a monopoly cannot exist. Think about it for a second.

Only the USPS can deliver mail in your mailbox, b/c there is a law that says so. That is a monopoly on your mailbox.

Apple builds an iPod. Apple applies for patent on said iPod. Government approves patent, says no other can build an iPod. Apple now has a monopoly on iPods.

I'm not saying we should get rid of patents. I'm just pointing out an example.

Government's job is to have a set of laws that everyone follows. A level playing field.

The problem, today, is we have a set of laws for this group of people and a different set of laws for that group of people.

 

avatar

Carlidan

I guess you haven't read your history. It was because of government that stop monopolies. There are many forms of monopolies.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=628&type=educator

Do you remember the rail road tycoons or Ma Bell monopolies?

 

 Government has a set of  laws that everyone must follow. It's that government doesn't enforce it or that a group of people find of a way to circumvent or abuse the law. 

 

Now with your anology.

 

"Only the USPS can deliver mail in your mailbox, b/c there is a law that says so. That is a monopoly on your mailbox."

You do not need to use the USPS to send/recieve your mail. You have the right not to recieve any mail by USPS. You can use other couriers to do your mailing. 

Apple builds an iPod. Apple applies for patent on said iPod. Government approves patent, says no other can build an iPod. Apple now has a monopoly on iPods.

I agree that pantents are lame. But that is what as a society we agreed on to protect intellectual property. 

 

 

 

 

 

avatar

MaximumMike

Just because you have demonstrated that the government has busted up a monopoly does not mean that the government doesn't also establish and protect monopolies. If your reasoning was logical, it would be nearly impossible to convict anyone of rape. All the assailant would have to do is march into the court room with a slew of women who had at some point encountered him and NOT been raped. By your logic, this would be overwhelming proof that the man was not a rapist, sufficient, I dare say, to warrant a not-guilty veridct.

 

Also, Ma Bell is a VERY VERY bad example. Years ago, ATT Wireless broke away from ATT and was subsequently gobbled up by Cingular, which had broken away from Bell South. Then Bell South gobbled up Cingular. Then ATT gobbled up Bell South, one of the very companies that the government forced to break away from ATT. The only difference at this point was that Bell South was much much larger. Did the government say anything about all this? No. Now ATT is eating up T-Mobile, and that deal is expected to be approved. If it happens, most people with any knowledge of the telecommunications industry believe Sprint will either go under or be gobbled up by Verizon. The result will be a virtual duopoly created by your ever favorite big government. I'd say that wasn't the best example to strengthen your position.

avatar

Carlidan

First your anology to this debate doesn't make sense. Secondly, as I stated below. The reason AT&T is gobbling all these other companies is that the agency that overlooks mergers should of stop AT&T from gobbling all those other companies. It's their job to stop it. We bitch about the EU but at least they are doing their job. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

 

avatar

MaximumMike

First, my analogy is a good one. You provided an example of the government doing one thing, as if that was evidence that it had not at some other point done just the opposite. My analogy demonstrates why that kind of reasoning is ridiculous. If you cannot understand it, that's not my problem.

Secondly, I don't know anyone who thinks the government shouldn't prevent monopolies, except maybe for monopolies. When people talk about deregulation of industry, they're generally not talking about doing away with anti-trust laws, unless of course they're corporate lobyists. Everyone agrees with you that it's the government's job to enforce anti-trust laws. But, as you said, they're not doing their job. When the government approves these mergers like the proposed ATT and T-mobile merger, they are endorsing monopolies. In cases like utility companies and cable providers, it's in-your-face disregard for consumers.

Furthermore, government has so over regulated so many markets that it virtually takes a mega-corporation to survive in those markets. This makes it hard to start small businesses and limits the markets they can exist in. This creates an environment where free-market economics don't apply, because frankly, they don't exist there.

The government is obvioulsy corrupt and not capable of creating a healthy market through massive legislation bills and tons of oversight. These practices have led us to where we are. Instead, the government should take its hands off for the most part. Sure, we need some regulation- just not much. 

avatar

Carlidan

Well we have to agree to disagree with your anology.  And it is my problem that I don't think your analogy doesn't make sense..:)

 

Now with regulations, I think right now we have less regulation which causes these problems. And I can state facts with that. But we can agree to disagree with this too. It doubtful I can sway you anyways. :)

But we can agree with one part! Goverment is corrupt. But I believe that it's corrupt because there are policiticans being bought by interest groups/ coparate lobbyist to look the other way. 

 

 

Well it was nice chatting with you.

 

avatar

warptek2010

Less government intervention doesn't mean no government intervention. In this case it's clearly warranted.

avatar

Carlidan

The problem is that there has been none. This is why there is so less competition. You can talk with your money, but what happens when that's the only business in town for your needs? 

avatar

MaximumMike

That's false. There has been plenty of government intervention. Government has created monopolies where there otherwise wouldn't have been any. You want to gripe about evil monopolies, but at the same time want to endorse the government that creates and enforces them. You sit there and pretend that the government has been complicit and that what we are dealing with is a result of the free market, but that is a lie and you know it. There are no studies that show that free market economies lead to monopolies. But the facts clearly show that government intervention does. All of the things that you moan and complain about were caused by the very same government you turn to to fix them. Guess what, the government will never fix them. It's full of corrupt people, just like the evil corporations you hate so much. The part that baffles me is how you can so clearly see what's wrong with big corporations, but manage to miss the fact that big government is even worse.

avatar

Carlidan

If your going make that arguement. Please state some evidence. I not saying your wrong or right. But if your going to make a statement like that, at least give examples to back em up. And show how goverment intervention has lead to monopolistic behaviors. And anologies don't count as examples. 

avatar

warptek2010

Howabout the obvious evidence? Human beings... it takes humans to run things, yes even the government. If allowed by either lack of oversight or electoral sanction, human beings have and will act in imperfect ways at the least end of the spectrum to very corrupt ways in the opposite end of the spectrum. It makes zero difference if the group of people are left, center or right, in a private corporation, public benefit corp, or civil service. There is an old saying... trust but verify. Very too often we trust and very to often fail to verify.

avatar

Carlidan

I can agree with that.

avatar

MaximumMike

Off the top of my head, how about utility companies? I've never lived anywhere where there was more than one place to get my electricity from. Or how about cable companies? Most places will only allow one cable company. Be it some local provider or Comcast, you're still stuck with only one option. These are government endorsed monopolies.

avatar

Carlidan

Again. as a keep stating. It's that the agency that is suppose to stop monopolies is not doing it's job. We have laws to prevent it. It's that our goverment isn't ENFORCING IT!  And yes free market is the reason of monopolies because it's the reason for all mergers. They want to get bigger not smaller. How can we have competiton when the free market wants to eat them up for more profit.

avatar

MaximumMike

You're really confused about free markets and how they work. In general, large conglomerates don't rise out of a free market, unless of course someone figures out how to cheat. That's where government "should" step in. The problem is that the government helps them to cheat, instead of preventing them from cheating. 

Yes, you're right that businesses want to get bigger, but so do other businesses. That's why competition is a good thing. When the government establishes a district, awards a license to Comcast to operate in that district, and then refuses to allow anyone else a license, there can be no competition.

Since I've been harping on about cable companies, here's a good article on the issue:  http://mises.org/daily/1297

Of particular interest, you might find this bit here:

"This report admits that in the days when cable was challenging airwave broadcasters, regulators "did not hesitate to grant exclusive franchises to cable operators". It speaks specifically of a long history of successful regulatory lobbying by the cable industry. This report claims that lobbying of regulators resulted in a variety of tactics to deter competition (p. 35). It claims that regulators protected and favored cable incumbents for years. Licensing policies have directly or effectively barred competition in many local markets (p. 44). Such practices are no longer official, but cable companies still succeed in enlisting the help of regulators to bar direct competition (p. 44). Incumbent cable companies have also gotten regulators to use "level playing field laws" to increase the costs of entering the cable market (p. 45). Cable companies have also saddled new competitors with disproportionate shares of subsidies for public education and government programming (p. 45). The cable industry has also succeeded in getting the FCC to quash new competitors with prices for leased access no competitor "could pay and remain commercially viable" (p. 47)."

 

avatar

Carlidan

Interesting read.

 On March 31, 1999 this act ended Federal Price Regulation. Since then rates have skyrocketed and service has declined.

Sounds like that regulation helped. Too bad it ended.

avatar

MaximumMike

You missed the point of the article. There wasn't any competition before deregulation. The initial study was written to suggest that deregulation actually made things worse. And that's where you stopped reading, apparently. The point of the article is that some regulation ended, but not enough to allow competition.  For there to have been true competition benefiting consumers, deregulation should have gone further. But instead of creating competittion, the government propped up monopolies. The government played favorites with some companies, while making it terribly difficult for new start ups to compete. If the government had kept its hands out of the cookie jar prices would have been lower, as suggested by the fact that regions with 2 cable providers had prices 17% lower. It's all in there if you just read it.

avatar

Carlidan

I've read it but I just don't believe what's hes saying. He says the PIRG are skewing the data to favor more regulation but doesn't give examples from that report. And his arguements for no goverment intervention are iffy at best. 

 

avatar

MaximumMike

Ok, I get that you don't agree with the article. But how can you say the author doesn't provide examples to back up his statements. He relies heavily on documentation from the original report. Also, the article is both annotated and sourced. If you want to verify his claims, you can refer to any of the original document, the annotations, or the sources. I fail to see how you think he doesn't give examples or cite sources for his claims.

Certainly there is an argumentative element to the report that is mostly ideological and departs from any real analysis of the original report. In that regard, a reader will either agree or disagree. However, it's hard to argue that the remaining government regulations have not impeded competition when the author has so clearly shown that they have. To do that, you would either need to conduct a new study or refute the original PIRG report.

avatar

Carlidan

As you stated above there isn't that much real anaylsis. He didn't really give a good analysis of why he thought PIRG is skewing the facts for more regulation. It was a good read though. There is some interesting points to the article. 

avatar

MaximumMike

Well, if papers full of hefty data analysis, charts, and statistical equations are what floats your boat, you can always sink your teeth into this one:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~thazlett/pubs/Rate%20Deregulation.pdf

avatar

Carlidan

Okay will read it later, Thanks for the material. 

avatar

Carlidan

Thanks for the article. Will read it later. As you know, the idea of free market doesn't really live up to it's hype in th real world. Yes the idea you have of free market is probably great. But the free market in the real world is not what it is cracked up to be. 

avatar

MaximumMike

>But the free market in the real world is not what it is cracked up to be.

 

No, and it won't be as long as government continues to interfere with it.

avatar

routine

@MaximumMike: Very well said. Thank you.

avatar

Nimrod

and that stages the terror attacks

avatar

Holly Golightly

Giant MPAA crushes small business. Nothing unusual, just greed at its finest.

avatar

MaximumMike

These kinds of rulings really piss me off.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.