Starz sues Disney over iTunes downloads
Liberty Media Holding Corp.'s Starz Entertainment cable network said Thursday it is suing a unit of Walt Disney Co. for allowing other movie download services to sell titles while they were exclusively licensed to Starz.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, was brought by Starz against Disney's Buena Vista Television, according to Reuters.
In recent months Disney has signed deals to sell movies on Apple Inc's iTunes online store and Wal-Mart Inc.'s new movie download site.
The lawsuit claims that Disney is barred under a 2005 licensing agreement with Starz from selling some of its films, such as the blockbuster "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," for transmission over the Internet before and during a period of exclusivity agreed upon for Starz.
Starz has paid over $1 billion for the exclusive rights to Disney films since 1993, according to the lawsuit. Retuers reports that Starz, under the terms of its deal, also has the right to offer the films on its subscription Internet download service, Vongo.
Last month Disney said it sold over 1.3 million movie downloads through iTunes in its first 3 months on the service, putting pressure on other Hollywood studios to join Apple?s digital download revolution.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, was brought by Starz against Disney's Buena Vista Television, according to Reuters.
In recent months Disney has signed deals to sell movies on Apple Inc's iTunes online store and Wal-Mart Inc.'s new movie download site.
The lawsuit claims that Disney is barred under a 2005 licensing agreement with Starz from selling some of its films, such as the blockbuster "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," for transmission over the Internet before and during a period of exclusivity agreed upon for Starz.
Starz has paid over $1 billion for the exclusive rights to Disney films since 1993, according to the lawsuit. Retuers reports that Starz, under the terms of its deal, also has the right to offer the films on its subscription Internet download service, Vongo.
Last month Disney said it sold over 1.3 million movie downloads through iTunes in its first 3 months on the service, putting pressure on other Hollywood studios to join Apple?s digital download revolution.
Comments
hmmmm. Starz has a dowloading supscription based model... itunes is a buy it download model. What do you bet that Starz doesn't have that one covered in their agreement? It would be stupid of Disney to break a deal like that... Eisner is gone, so no more stupidity at the helm...
Here's hoping you are correct
hmmmm. Starz has a dowloading supscription based model... itunes is a buy it download model. What do you bet that Starz doesn't have that one covered in their agreement? It would be stupid of Disney to break a deal like that... Eisner is gone, so no more stupidity at the helm...
Good point, but how exclusive IS exclusive. Depending on who's talking, IS can have a different meaning.
How stupid is Disney anyway wouldn't their lawyers have said something?
I agree, iTunes is selling content just as Amazon does. Don't see how Starz could sue Disney for that?
How stupid is Disney anyway wouldn't their lawyers have said something?
I probably does come down to the definition of 'transmission'. Just my guess.
Good point, but how exclusive IS exclusive. Depending on who's talking, IS can have a different meaning.
Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
As a sidenote, I've never heard of Starz before, which makes me wonder whether their $1bn investment was worthwhile.
Starz is one of the major premium cable movie channels. At least here in the States.
Yes Starz is like Showtime. However, since when does subscription over Satellite and Cable networks include buy to own via streaming over tcp/ip networks?
A subscription based service like Vongo "over the internet" is as much of a download as your dish downloading movies from Starz. Downloading to own is quite different, it's basically like buying a DVD
They're just picking apart at words and ignoring the intent of the contract. Hopefully the judge will see right through this. Case dismissed.
Eisner is gone, so no more stupidity at the helm...
Except for the fact that they are still making sequels and trequels (I know not a word) of all their classics....
If I'm paying for a exclusive title, why would it matter how it's delivered. If the contract included "transmission" type then ok, but if not, a contract has been brokern.
With that kind of logic, 'no matter how it's delivered' would mean no more physical distribution as well. Sounds to me like the lawyers did not do a very good job reading over those contracts.
With that kind of logic, 'no matter how it's delivered' would mean no more physical distribution as well. Sounds to me like the lawyers did not do a very good job reading over those contracts.
"The lawsuit claims that Disney is barred under a 2005 licensing agreement with Starz from selling some of its films, such as the blockbuster "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," for transmission over the Internet before and during a period of exclusivity agreed upon for Starz."
How is this not a breach of contract.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with physical distribution. RTFA.
"The lawsuit claims that Disney is barred under a 2005 licensing agreement with Starz from selling some of its films, such as the blockbuster "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," for transmission over the Internet before and during a period of exclusivity agreed upon for Starz."
How is this not a breach of contract.
Um, what?
What the lawsuit claims is different from what the contract actually claims. Clearly, there is a misunderstanding between what Disney believes the contract means and what Starz believes the contract means.
Just because the lawsuit claims breach of contract doesn't mean the contract was breached—it just means Starz believes, or wants the courts to believe, that the contract was breached.
Therefore, as Feynman says, depending on the wording of the contract, the case can go either way.
The iTunes + Disney deal was announced ages ago. They could have easily put a stop to it in the early days, but they wanted to see how much money it would make so that they could claim that amount in "damages".
As a sidenote, I've never heard of Starz before, which makes me wonder whether their $1bn investment was worthwhile.
I'm not sure why you put "damages" is quotation marks. If Starz is right about their exclusivity prohibiting Disney sales through iTunes, the legal damages could be real and substantial.
The fact that Starz waited to see if it had damages is a good thing; you'd rather they run to court over something insignificant?
The lawsuit has nothing to do with physical distribution. RTFA.
"The lawsuit claims that Disney is barred under a 2005 licensing agreement with Starz from selling some of its films, such as the blockbuster "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," for transmission over the Internet before and during a period of exclusivity agreed upon for Starz."
How is this not a breach of contract.
Courts don't interpret news reports about contracts; courts interpret the actual contracts.
I gather you were born yesterday, so happy birthday!
This seems to me to be making iTunes out as licensing the movies for broadcasting, but instead of a transmission over the airwaves, it's a quote "transmission over the internet". And I'm sure those were the exact words used in their agreement. But a download from iTunes may technically be a transmission, but it's not a broadcast.
A subscription based service like Vongo "over the internet" is as much of a download as your dish downloading movies from Starz. Downloading to own is quite different, it's basically like buying a DVD
They're just picking apart at words and ignoring the intent of the contract. Hopefully the judge will see right through this. Case dismissed.
There is absolutely no difference between a subscription service 'over the internet' and downloading to own. Both require you to download the file to your computer (as opposed to a streaming model, which is a different kind of transmission, but still involves transmitting a file over the internet to your computer). And its also exactly the same as Starz downloading the movie to your DVR. It gets transmitted and stored on a hard drive for later viewing. Again, the only difference being how long you get to view it for (and this is also different than just turning on starz and watching a movie at 8pm or something).