Striking back, Redbox is suing Warner Bros., Deadline Hollywood Daily's Nikki Finke reports. Redbox is also calling on its customer base for help, in an attempt to win the battle of public opinion.
There's no doubt that access to $1 rentals is a benefit for consumers, but it seems as though Warner Bros. has a right to sell its products any way it likes. What do you think, Consumerists?
Redbox Now Trying To Enlist Consumers In PR War Against Hollywood Studios Cartel [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
(Photo: phototaker)
This is exactly why I shop at alt.binaries.dvd
]]>As I noted below in another post responding to another one of your posts, the license for home viewing (which is allowed b/c home viewing is fair use of performance) is as opposed to a public viewing or publication, not as opposed to rental. Warnings on DVDs are only reminders that a public performance license is not granted. Moreover, Per First Sale, A company is not required to have an agreement with the publisher or copyright holder that says that gives the company the right to only rent out the movies. I'm not saying it's not done, but there would probably be some pretty valuable consideration given for such a restrictive agreement. If a company decided to step out of that agreement and violate the terms, you'd be talking about contract law, not copyright.
If you bought a DVD at the store, you would be allowed to rent it out. You would be allowed to sell it. You would be allowed to show it in your home to your family. Same thing with books or CDs. Redbox can do the same if they own the physical embodiment of the copyrighted material (the DVD). You don't need a license to do that. First Sale takes care of it. They (nor you) can publish or perform the work without the license, though.
]]>The First Sale Doctrine, as mentioned on this board and several other places on the internet, does not restrict the owner of a physical piece of copyrighted material from lending out that physical piece.
]]>ReaveT: you are mixing up your concepts. nobodyman is absolutely correct: when one (say Redbox) acquires the tangible work in which there is an underlying copyright (a copy of a DVD), that person/company (Redbox) may resell, loan, give away or rent that copy of that work without infringing on the bundle of rights which is copyright. Those ARE the rules for renting. [en.wikipedia.org]
That's what has allowed movie rentals, garage sales, even retail sales for decades.
Yeah, zacox mentioned this when he said, "The studios can't keep Redbox and Netflix from owning the DVDs and renting the DVDs...."
>>>It's the same act that allows you to buy hardware and reverse engineer it, even if the EULA states otherwise.
Reverse engineering and first sale doctrine are mutually exclusive. They are not the same and they did not come from the same act.
>>>Prior to this, studios tried to control what Blockbuster, et al did with their media...
According to your source, the First Sale Doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908, well before Blockbuster.
]]>@12-Inch Idongivafuck Sandwich: Yes, they are. I can wait another 28 days to see a movie and get it from Netflix. If I really like the movie, I'll buy it. If I saw it at the theater and liked it, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I'll just rent it.
]]>The manufacturers are able to dictate which products are available to which dealers through the contract between manufacturer and distributor. If one of the dealers is doing something that may be harmful to one of the manufacturers intellectual properties, they may impose restrictions on that dealer.
From my research into this subject, the studios like Warner Bros and Universal view Redbox as the $1 theater proposition, and similarly there are no new releases in $1 theaters. In addition, companies like Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, and I think Netflix all pay a royalty to the studios for the movies they rent in addition to the price of the wholesale movies they purchase. Redbox does not pay ANY royalties to the studios from what Ive read, which is probably one of the main reasons, if not THE reason, how they can charge so little.
Now dont get me wrong, I like a good deal like any one else, but allowing a discount-operation to undercut ALL your other dealer-base by a significant margin is bad business plain and simple. Then theres the issue of brand equity. Warner Bros is a premium brand that provides a premium product to its customers. It hurts their brand image by allowing flea-market prices on their newest most-desirable content. Companies spend many years and hundreds of millions, of dollars to achieve a premium brand image, and have the right to maintain that as much as they can within the confines of the law.
If profitability leaves the equation then theres no incentive to continue producing any movies worth a damn. My suggestion would be to stay behind the new releases by a month and then nothing to complain about.
Bottom line is, for those who want the premium product, the premium service, and in the premium amount of time, then expect to pay what else....a premium! Shouldnt be too much of a shocker in a country where people regularly pay double the price over msrp on a new car just to get theirs 3 months ahead of everyone else. Paying $50,000 for a $25,000 POS PT Cruiser. Wow, just wow!
]]>@Hooray4Zoidberg: "Blu Ray will probably suffer a similar fate in the next 5 years once online distribution is the standard? "
Online distribution is going to die an early death if the ISP's have anything to do about it. Sure, downloading a dvd (4.5Gb) and watching it at home is a great idea, and if it only costs a couple dollars, why not? Until you realize you're paying twice for it. Once for the movie, and again for the bandwidth, since it's capped by the majority of ISPs in the north at least.
]]>@frodolives35: AUGH Edit button 4 disks not dicks. That is my worst typo ever.
]]>Yardsale dvd's are down to $1 now. Vhs .25 or .50. Some of us can wait. I live with rabbit ears 3 networks 5 channels and have 100's of dvds and tapes less then 10 dvds bought for full price. Last weekend I bought friends season 1 and 2 4 dicks each for $ 1 each at a yardsale. I don't mind redbox prices and an extra 28 days for the rare movie I have to see is no problem. The funny thing is the people who can't wait are the people much more likely to use torrents so WB will now just lose some rental market share. Forget hollywood GO PBS!!!
]]>The thing is warner is thinking people are stupid enough to buy movies they can't rent (what I call the "blockbuster exclusive effect"...why rent it for 6 bucks when you can buy it for 10-15?). They're banking on their stupidity but usually people make a decision to rent a movie when they actually get to the box/store, so it likely won't increase sales of their lame duck titles.
]]>PTB: We're rich. Oh, also, don't vote for those other guys who hate America.
Morons: What, they hate America? I will vote for you.
PTB: Suckers!
Morons: What?
PTB: We said something about values and stem cell research.
Morons: Hooray!
PTB: LOL
Morons: What?
PTB: Those other guys we're laughing at you.
Et cetera...
]]>It's the same act that allows you to buy hardware and reverse engineer it, even if the EULA states otherwise.
Prior to this, studios tried to control what Blockbuster, et al did with their media...
]]>@Cant_stop_the_rock: Well, it looks like they fixed the tag, but not the misspelling of the flix company: "Neftlix."
And I only point it out, since you mentioned the tag typo.
@Geekmom: Thank you for confirming my belief of not even renting it.
]]>@zombies.like.lattés.too: You know, I hadn't given much thought to what my favorite Christmas movie might be, but now that you mention it, I could see DH being in the top 5. You and I probably could run the lines (at least while the movie is playing).
]]>Just look at the movie Taken. There are 3 editions.
1) a rental edition which contains the unrated cut and some trailers
2) a single disc edition that has theatrical and unrated cuts, commentary, and a bunch of docs
3) the 2 disc edition with the same as previous and a digital copy of the movie.
That, and most rental places have the bare-bones single disc editions of movies anyway, leaving 2+ disc deluxe editions to stores. Just look at releases such as Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Indy 4, Mummy 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3, Bank Job, and a whole ton of others.
]]>Consumers have lost so much power it's insane. Buying power may have been the strongest thing we had going, but what does it say to shitty businesses that don't get our money when, thanks to the government, they get our money anyway?
]]>I imagine WB is aiming to benefit from people that (1) were on the fence about buying a new release DVD, (2) refuse to rent from Blockbuster/etc, and (3) use Netflix/Redbox for new releases. You are either saying that (i) no one satisfies these three criteria or (ii) those that do still won't buy the DVD.
I disagree and would wager there are SOME people that satisfy these criteria and will then buy the DVD as a result of WB's strategy, even if it is a small percentage of the overall population. There is some small gain WB apparently wants to exploit at risk of ticking off Netflix/Redbox users. My guess is that it is a good short-term but bad long-term strategy.
]]>If the studios pressure wholesalers to avoid selling to Redbox for x number of days after release, Redbox will have a GREAT antitrust suit against the studios!
]]>@statgrad: Well, in WB's mind it will benefit them, since they seem to think that consumers who can't rent the movie right away will buy it instead. In reality, it probably won't make any difference at all - the people who weren't going to buy the movie in the first place won't mind waiting to rent it.
]]>Redbox is 100% in the right on this one.
]]>Sure, they can sell to whomever they like. And once it's been sold, the owners can do with it whatever they like. Redbox and Netflix should just order a thousand copies from Walmart when it hits retail shelves and rent those.
]]>Government just takes, and if the the service sucks, too bad.
]]>Because it's so expensive, we have all but stopped going to the theater to see new releases becuase we can wait for 6ish months for it to come out on DVD. I can definitely wait another 28 days for WB to stop being douchey.
It will also stick in my head that they did this and will make me less inclined to purchase anything they release.
]]>@Scatter: Explanation != justification. raincntry doesn't say whether or not they approve of illegally downloading movies, just that it probably will happen.
]]>The problem is, if you, as the consumer, want to see a DVD movie on release, you now have only four options since Redbox/Netflix won't have it:
1) Wait for a month until they do
2) Rent the DVD at Blockbuster or another rental outlet for $6
3) Buy the DVD for $18
4) Acquire an illegal copy from somewhere at no cost.
There's also the rebellion aspect here. The idea is customers will be pissed at WB for withdrawing their movies and therefore may be more prone to seek out the movie illegally (thus screwing the company out of revenue) to demonstrate a dislike of this new policy.
]]>The flip side is that for movies that did OK in theaters, this doesn't do them much good. Folks who loved the movie in the theater will know whether they want to own the DVD or not, so all they're doing is pissing off the people who either a) have already decided they don't want to buy the DVD or b) were going to rent the DVD before they made up their mind.
]]>The only time I will buy a movie without having seen it is if I see it in a cheapo bargain bin or flea market for next nothing. I'm not about to plunk down $18 for something I'm not sure about.
]]>I don't see how this move can hurt WB unless customers, Netflix, and/or Redbox refuse to buy WB products due to these actions. Otherwise WB has, at worst, just delayed viewing of their movie for those people that still refuse to buy the DVD. (I'm all for a ban... I'm happy with my present selection of media.)
]]>Methinks this is really intended as the first step in moving the DVD rental outfits into paying royalties per rental rather than just buying copies at a flat rate. But that could backfire, too.
]]>Wow, I love the "if we don't like the rules you set it place we'll just break the law" attitude here. And by the way, not everyone is as likely to break the law as you seem to be. In fact, a large portion of our population (I hate to generalize but mostly older folk) don't even know what torrents are and how to use them.
]]>This never fails to make me laugh.
]]>The movie industry just does not get it. Several years ago, when the Pixar movie "Cars" came out, we were unable to get to the theatre to take the kids to see it. It looked like a really good movie, so we rented the movie. The entire family enjoyed it so much, that "Santa" ultimately brought the movie for the kids. I am sorry, but there are few movies that I will simply buy without being able to watch in the theatre or through a rental. If I enjoyed the movie enough that I will probably want to watch it multiple times, I will buy the movie. Rentals from Redbox or Netflix are no different than rentals from BlockBuster several years ago, so how are these new services any different than that? What has changed in the past +20 years since the release of VCRs and video stores popping up all over town.
]]>For whatever reason, DVDs did not follow the same track. DVDs for rent are the same DVDs you and I buy at Walmart, and often the rental business pays less for them because of quantity discounts.
I see why the studios want to limit the number of copies going to certain places, but the same studios will be on the losing end in the future.
Redbox and Netflix will begin charging more because their DVDs are more expensive (bought through retail channels instead of distributors). That cost, passed onto the consumer, means fewer dollars available for actual purchase of said movies. Methinks Redbox and Netflix will actually *grow* their userbase as a result!
The studios can't keep Redbox and Netflix from owning the DVDs and renting the DVDs, anymore than they can keep regular people from downloading them and watching them for free.
]]>If they can't rent it and don't want to pay 15 or 20 bucks to purchase a movie that they are only going to watch once, they'll just go to a file sharing site and get it.
Then Warner will make even less.
Stupid move.
If the movie is good enough to watch more than once, people will buy it, regardless of cheap rentals.
Redbox only has current or popular movies.
]]>I think that's the story?
]]>Poor business model. DVD's are released at a point in time when "buzz" for a movie is probably its lowest. The release itself is an attempt to regain buzz and make some extra cash beyond initial release. You really lessen your ability to regain buzz when you pull your product from a large sector of your audience.
And let's not forget: Netflix and Redbox BUY movies from the studios. They don't obtain them for free. The fewer people who think to add the movie to their queue, the fewer copies Netflix buys. They would do better to get their movies out there and talked about. Especially for those of us who don't see movies in the theater anymore and wouldn't consider buying a DVD until we've rented it.
]]>If the price of owning a DVD or BluRay wasn't so expensive, then I would buy them. $20 for a DVD and $30 for a BluRay is just too much for a movie you're probably going to watch only once. They need to cut the price of DVDs and BluRays down about 80% so that it's right around the price of a rental. That way the consumer only has to spend a few extra dollars more to own the DVD or BluRay and not a weeks worth of gas on a stupid movie.
Right now $1 dollar for the price of a movie is a total steal. I would rather pay $1 than $20 or $30.
]]>Earth to WB: most movies made these days SUCK. By my reckoning, there are maybe two good movies worth seeing a month out of the hundreds released. And by my same reckoning, there are fewer than five movies a year I would want to own -- flicks that are so good (and their DVDs so packed with extras) that I can watch them again and again, whenever I like. This year, for example, the only two I have liked enough to own are Gran Torino, Star Trek, and Drag Me to Hell. Of those, GT doesn't have enough worthwhile extras on the DVD to merit a purchase. So all WB is doing with this restrictive rental policy is inconveniencing movie-watchers. Way to go, studio clowns!
]]>I remember waiting at least a year for VHS releases...now it's like, eh it'll be on DVD in 3 months. And then they'll come out with a special edition or collectors edition later. Which is why I haven't bought watchmen yet...they've gotta be releasing a super duper fan set near christmas
]]>i think WB makes a pretty flawed assumption here. they obviously think a person is going to seek out their movie at redbox/netflix, not be able to find it & go purchase it instead. i know when i use these services, i know i want to watch A movie. i see one i like & i rent it. i don't, by any means, go buy a movie i can't rent. ever.
do they understand their business or their customers at all?!?
]]>As far as originality goes, get with it, Hollywood...there are a TON of books out there that would make GREAT movies!!! No more lame TV shows. And I hate remakes with a passion, because they always do a classic, excellent film that doesn't NEED to be remade. Case in point: "The Day the Earth Stood Still," and "The Omen." Complete waste of money to remake movies that still stand out as excellently shot, acted, etc.
And please, please please, no one go see Keanu Reeves as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Please don't.
]]>Could it be perhaps sales are suffering because people are starting to realize DVD is dying in lieu of Blu Ray and Blu Ray will probably suffer a similar fate in the next 5 years once online distribution is the standard? I stopped buying DVDs about 5 years ago once the blu ray and HD-DVD war started. I assume I'm not alone.
]]>We have to wait long enough for the damn things to come out on DVD as it is. Don't make me wait longer.
]]>You can't restrict people from renting your DVD, period.
You know how to solve the problem? Make "movie only" rental copies you sell to the rental markets, and make double-disc feature laden copies for general sale-- people who really want to buy will buy.
]]>WB has the right to sell their product anyway they see fit. Is it customer friendly? Absolutely not. Will I buy one more of their movies because of this? No way. They underestimate my patience.
]]>but perhaps the consumers will actually not allow this to happen. this is why divx didn't work, cause they charged you each time you watched the disc.
]]>DVD sales increased continuously for the first 10 years of production...
I agree with the rest of your comment though, I think people are less likely to replace DVDs with Blu-Rays than they were to replace VHS with DVD. For many movies I just don't see the need - unless the movie relies on impressive visuals, Blu-Ray doesn't really make the movie any more enjoyable. Only a few of the Blu-Rays I've bought have been movies I already owned on DVD. And I'm still buying some DVDs, mostly TV shows.
]]>We occasionally buy unseen DVDs of things by people we really like and that we'll watch repeatedly, like anything involving Wallace and Gromit.
But everything else? I regularly wait MONTHS to get it free from the library! If a studio refused to sell to libraries, I guess I wouldn't see their crap. Too few movies are worth paying for these days!
]]>Oh, and remember the scene where they're farting in the restaurant? Claaaassic.
]]>@raincntry: Yup ... I imediatly thought
"Now people will just torrent them down, and not buy the DVD until they find it on clearance if they buy it at all."
]]>I've been saying it since I was a college freshman in 1984. The two groups that have biggest impact on peoples lives, government and business are and have been for decades TOTALLY IGNORANT OF REALITY. This country is going to hell in full afterburner.
]]>@roshambo: It's also the cost of seeing in theaters. I really want to see District 9, but I'd rather see Inglourious Basterds and if it's a tossup between who gets our $17 (that's how much it costs to see it in theaters!) we would rather go with a Tarantino movie. That said, there is still plenty of originality in cinema nowadays (500 Days of Summer, Adam, Julie & Julia, even though it's based on two books).
]]>@coren: Maybe Warner Bros. doesn't think Blockbuster is even viable as competition anymore.
]]>I rent a movie because I didn't catch it in the theatre. If I really enjoy the movie and can see me watching it multiple times I'll consider buying it. That said my main reason for not buying many movies anymore is that there isn't much out there worth seeing more than once or even the first time. There is hardly anything original. It seems everything is a remake of a remake or was a tv show or video game. If they spent as much time making quality original movies as they did trying to come up with ways to force customers to buy their movies maybe they would get somewhere.
]]>@harvey_birdman: I give it at least 5 years to halfway die off. The reason is that there are a lot of people who may have broadband, but it's not nearly fast enough to download a movie within reasonable time, or fast enough to stream. So that leaves services such as iTunes, which isn't inciting the rage of Warner Bros. nearly as much as Redbox. Why Warner Bros. isn't targeted iTunes I have no idea.
]]>@Red_Eye: Copyright law has NOTHING to do with capitalism. It is a government granted monopoly. Go back to school.
]]>@coren: The LA Times link doesn't mention Blockbuster by name, but does say something akin to 'Redbox and all of its competitors.'
]]>@Cameraman: "No, I saw that if Hollywood doesn't want my money after a bona fide effort to give it to them, well, the hell with them."
HELLO! EXACTLY!
]]>@zombies.like.lattés.too: Digital media has all but rendered physical media obsolete. It's just a matter of time.
]]>Interesting is the lack of Blockbuster mention. Is it because Blockbuster already inked a deal similar to what they're pressing for with Netflix and Redbox? Or is it their brick and mortar component? I guess one could see if Hollywood Video was encountering the same problem as a test. *shrug*
]]>Well, guess what? It works that way because Time Warner ... and the other studios ... set it up that way! Rental outfits like these didn't emerge in a vacuum. TW willingly used them to rent out their movies. And they made money on rentals (and still do). TW was happy to have that rental market, of people who lined up at the Redbox every Tuesday to get the latest releases.
But suddenly, this once-good-thing has become not-good-enough-any-longer? Suddenly, these "early rentals" are harmful? What gives?
]]>Warner Bros does have the right to sell its products any way it likes, but whoever buy their product should be able to use the product any way they like too. If somebody buys their DVDs, then decides to go off and rent them to someone else, so be it.
]]>Most of my movie collection are kids movies that my little girls love.
]]>@HurtsSoGood: I buy DVDs, but that's because I don't have cable and I like having many digital media selections at my fingertips. And when I get them for ~$1 per movie (used) it works out to be cheaper than my old Blockbuster account.
But I agree with pecan that I wouldn't go out and buy DVDs of movies like "The Little Black Book" or "The Mummy 3" or "White Chicks", etc. I buy movies that I actually plan on enjoying down the road - like Die Hard(my favorite Christmas movie).
]]>This kind of stupidity will just get worse when/if digital downloads ever become the main method of film distribution... Of course, the downloads will be locked down with DRM and you won't be able to swap with a friend, the studios will be able to dictate how many times you watch a title before it expires, etc... Big media is pushing to make copyright more draconian to fill their pockets. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem ready and willing to give in and just accept it.
]]>The customers will speak, and eventually they WILL get their way.
]]>Yeah, I think the movie publishers should be able to choose how they sell their product. Redbox can still buy the DVDs elsewhere - i.e. at retail. Or they could make a deal with Walmart and have Walmart sell to them in quantity at slightly higher than wholesale cost. No one is going to threaten to stop selling movies to Walmart.
]]>I'd have to agree that it's WB's right to distribute its own movies as it sees fit, but I'm no lawyer. I'd be interested to know if the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" deal applies here.
]]>Sure they can, but from what I understand they are trying to tell a 3rd party (wholesale company) that they must wait the 28 days before selling to redbox. That seems more like collusion to restrict a specific segment of the market.
]]>Add to that that there's one Blu-Ray player in the house (the PS3) but 7 things that can play DVDs (counting the PS3, our laptops, the DVD player in the bedroom, etc), and you have a lot of reasons not to re-purchase the entire library that we built up between 1999 and 2008.
]]>This is the same if WB was telling consumers that while they were permitted to buy titles from retail stores, they're not permitted to lend the movies to friends for 28 days after the initial release. Ridiculous.
]]>My fiancé and I are fairly serious collectors (I was a grad student in film studies, and we both work in media), but even then, we know which DVDs (or, now, Blu-Rays) we'll be buying well before their release dates, and the rest are either Netflix or not at all. WB doesn't seem to get that.
]]>Instead, a lot of people have a decent DVD collection built up, and most Blu-Ray adopters don't feel the need to toss that and replace it wholly--they have a few nice things to show off if need be. (Especially since Blu-Ray is markedly more expensive). This is why DVD sales are generally down; it has almost nothing to do with piracy. People just don't need more DVDs. They only buy DVDs when it's a new fave, something they want to own. If they just want "something to watch to kill time" then Netflix/Redbox takes care of it for them. For instance, the people who know they want the Watchmen director's cut are just going to buy it, rental availability means nothing to them.
In fact, it is entirely possible that someone will rent a movie on a lark and decide they like it a lot and want to buy it. Therefore Warner Brothers strategy is completely counter productive: people who just want to watch "some new movie" are just going to skip their releases and their chance to make a later semi-impulse sale will be diminished.
]]>Additionally, movies would come in a few days before release.
I think this is Red Box's problem. It's not that WB is stopping them from renting their movies, its that they aren't supplying them before hand.
I'm not sure if you're aware how much work would actually go into waiting until the street date, going to Walmart to buy mass copies, and paying full retail.
Red box would still not have to movies ready on release day, and unlike the profit sharing scenario, there's a huge risk for losing should the movie end up being a bomb (no, its not as easy to predict rentals based on box office gross as you would think).
]]>@HurtsSoGood: Well, to be fair to us people who buy DVDs, we only buy DVDs of movies we'll watch a lot. So that means we have purchased maybe 10 DVD products in the last two years, which is definitely a drop.
]]>WB has the right to dictate to whom they will sell and when. But, holy cow, just how many drugs does one have to take and for how long before this seems like a good idea?
Why does Hollywood not understand that this will just encourage piracy? I love movies, and I would rather watch a movie legally. I have 3 at a time Netflix and I use Redbox- my thoughtful movies come from Netflix and my popcorn viewing comes from Redbox, because adding Delta Farce and Waltz With Bashir to my Netflix queue in the same week totally hosed my reccomendations. But if I cannot find the movie I'm looking for, well, out come the torrents. I do not say, well, if I cannot see a movie legally I'd best just give up. No, I saw that if Hollywood doesn't want my money after a bona fide effort to give it to them, well, the hell with them.
]]>Probably 90% of the people that I know (say the 18-35 demographic) use either Redbox or Netflix when renting movies. Only a few use Blockbuster, and most of us don't purchase movies when they are brand new (except for an occasional splurge).
By restricting Redbox and Netflix, the exposure to these movies will decrease dramatically, hurting WB.
Right? Or am I way off base?
]]>As for Warner's fix for this? I don't see people rushing to the store to plunk down $20 or whatever for a DVD just so they can watch it a month before Netflix is allowed to offer it, especially since it will probably get watched just the one time, then put on the shelf until the owner gets tired of watching it collect dust.
The rental model for movies has always worked better than the sales model, all the way back to the 80s with videotape. Warner ought to realize this and stop the stupidity.
]]>Is there a differentiation between selling to private consumers vice corporations? Is there some form of discrimination in selling to one corporation (Best Buy, for example) versus Redbox distributors? Why should the intent of the purchase affect the purchase overall? This seems uber-lame overall, of course, but I'm just curious about the quasi-legality of it all.
]]>In other words, redbox can just buy the DVDs on their release date and start renting them, whether or not WB wants them to.
Now, I'm probably missing something here, such as agreements between rental companies and studios. I think most studios provide redbox with the new-release movies a few days before they're released, and possibly at a lower cost than retail or even wholesale.
But the principal of the matter is that after WB sells the DVD, it cannot decide if/how the new owner sells or rents it.
]]>Yep, this is what I was going to post. If it is all rental companies, I am okay with it. If it is only Netflix/Redbox, then it seems anti-competitive.
]]>Warner Bros. is going about this all wrong. Their goal is to protect their DVD sales profits, and they believe that rental services like Netflix and Redbox are getting in the way.
First off, just because Warner Bros. releases a DVD, doesn't mean people will buy it.
Secondly, just because people want to see the movie, doesn't mean they can't wait a measly 28 days for it. Warner Bros. really, really, underestimates the collective intelligence and patience of people who want their product for less.
Thirdly, Sony and Lionsgate have both signed deals with Redbox. Warner Bros. is holding out under the guise that it's not alone in this. It's not as if companies are united in this effort against rentals. It's just that Sony and Lionsgate recognize that rentals are one of the ways they can get their product out to people who want it. Rentals are a big part of the market, whether they like it or not. And in this economy, companies need to adapt to recognize their customers' needs and changing spending habits.
]]>Now, the real question is: are they restricting ALL rentals, or just those two? I can understand if redbox is ticked because Blockbuster gets to rent them out and not the 'box. THAT might be sue-worthy.
]]>when will these companies learn how to interact with their customers? Has nobody learned from the music industries trials with file sharing?
]]>Doesn't Warner Brothers realize that they are just going to push people to the illegal sources? True a few people might go purchase the DVD or maybe watch it on demand, but how many more are going to seek out a download instead?
]]>