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?
No, because had they acted promptly, they could have sought an injunction and prevented any damages before the movies were even sold on the iTS.
Instead, they chose to wait in order to milk the damages.
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 wonder. With the churn rate at some of these corporations, I doubt there would always be someone in legal who would be familiar with the terms of every single agreement.
These kinds of deals would best be tracked with artificial intelligence at some point in the future. These long term contracts outlast individual employment terms.
Yeah Starz disney completely forgot about the agreement. They're that stupid. You've already won the case. Good luck with that, douche.
When I was working with Disney a couple of years ago, they were axing people left and right without regard to who would continue their projects. It was pretty bad.
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.
Disney unlike Startz does not stream the movie, it simply copies one file to another file, similar to an FTP. Not that different from puting a dvd in a box, in a truck and ship it to the customer direct. Does this makes a difference?
Startz moves a stream of data whose purpose is inmidiate display on the TV during play back which the user can pause, rewind, and play again, therefore influenzing/controlling the stream.
Obviously, I do not know the particular legal bla bla. I am sure that there is some contract somewhere that forbids every company to do just about anything at any particular time. This is the world we live in. It just seems to me that there are an awful lot of people trying to ride the Apple gravy train. I also see a lot of old media types scared to death. For them, the Grim Reaper is SJ. They have put their entire weight into trying to roll back the hands of time. They know that their time is almost ended and they are not going out without a fight. They have tried to beat Apple in the market place and they can't even put up a decent fight in that arena. The only thing left for them is to try and win in court what they can't win in the marketplace. Almost every lawsuit in the tech sector I have followed recently comes down to that. It is so bad, there are now companies that do nothing but buy patents and sue for infringement. I despise these parasites. I despise old media. As a consumer, I will do everything in my power to hasten their demise. My position has nothing to do with being an Apple fan boy. I really do not like SJ, but I like parasitical hypocrites even less. RIAA, MPAA; the bell tolls for thee.
This is one place where the Internet blurs boundaries that were previously clear. Whereas a cable/sat channel was clearly different from a DVD, the internet version of both have more similarities than differences, at least on a conceptual level. From a user's point of view, the main difference between video on demand and an iTunes download is that one is time-limited, the other is not.
I don't really trust this article enough to form an opinion. If it goes to trial and there is a judgement made, then the judgment will depend on the actual words in the contract and the legal interpretation of said contract. As the contract is probably not available to the public right now, and that it might be kept confidential even during a trial, we won't know until there is a released judgment.
If the word transmission was used with respect with Internet, then Disney might be hosed, because sending a signal of any kind is technically a transmission in engineering terms. It could be analog, digital, wired, wireless, point to point, point to multipoint, stream, packet, it doesn't even matter if the final result is a file, it got there by a network transmission. Whether the legal definition of transmission is the same is another question.
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).
There's a huge difference which you made mention of. How long you get to view it for. We're talking about a license that you buy "over the internet". The subscription license is far different from a license to own. Any license which lets you keep the downloaded content for the rest of your life clearly falls into a different category than a subscription based license. The only question is: what type of license is the contract referring to? It's all speculation unless we know that.
Disney unlike Startz does not stream the movie, it simply copies one file to another file, similar to an FTP. Not that different from puting a dvd in a box, in a truck and ship it to the customer direct. Does this makes a difference?
Startz moves a stream of data whose purpose is inmidiate display on the TV during play back which the user can pause, rewind, and play again, therefore influenzing/controlling the stream.
Sounds different to me
Sorry, but that's not all they do. Starz also has a service to have movies downloaded to your cable/satellite DVR and store the content for later viewing. Its Starz On demand, or something like that. So this is transmitting the movie for later viewing. The same thing that iTunes let's you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
There's a huge difference which you made mention of. How long you get to view it for. We're talking about a license that you buy "over the internet". The subscription license is far different from a license to own. Any license which lets you keep the downloaded content for the rest of your life clearly falls into a different category than a subscription based license. The only question is: what type of license is the contract referring to? It's all speculation unless we know that.
It doesn't matter. They state that they have exclusive rights to internet transmission. It don't matter if they're selling it or renting it or streaming it. If its over the internet, its their exclusive right. (Of course, that assumes that's what the contract ACTUALLY says).
It's in Disney's best interest to break the contract, pay some damages or broker a settlement and move on from there. The world has changed and Disney is not going to want to be limited by that contract in light of all the potential sources of revenue and distribution that are going to be coming on line within the next 12-24 months.
Comments
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?
No, because had they acted promptly, they could have sought an injunction and prevented any damages before the movies were even sold on the iTS.
Instead, they chose to wait in order to milk the damages.
Courts don't interpret news reports about contracts; courts interpret the actual contracts.
I gather you were born yesterday, so happy birthday!
So no one on these board have seen the real contact, we all are talking out the side of our neck.
No, because had they acted promptly, they could have sought an injunction and prevented any damages before the movies were even sold on the iTS.
Instead, they chose to wait in order to milk the damages.
Which is why that Cisco lawsuit on the iphone name was so weird. You'd think they would've waited...
Except for the fact that they are still making sequels and trequels (I know not a word) of all their classics....
I think Steve Jobs calls them "cheapquels"... clever.
Which is why that Cisco lawsuit on the iphone name was so weird. You'd think they would've waited...
You can't legally wait, particularly not with trademark issues. If you're not actively protecting your mark, you lose it.
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 wonder. With the churn rate at some of these corporations, I doubt there would always be someone in legal who would be familiar with the terms of every single agreement.
These kinds of deals would best be tracked with artificial intelligence at some point in the future. These long term contracts outlast individual employment terms.
Yeah Starz disney completely forgot about the agreement. They're that stupid. You've already won the case. Good luck with that, douche.
When I was working with Disney a couple of years ago, they were axing people left and right without regard to who would continue their projects. It was pretty bad.
Starz is one of the major premium cable movie channels. At least here in the States.
Is a cable channel like HBO and Cinemax
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.
Disney unlike Startz does not stream the movie, it simply copies one file to another file, similar to an FTP. Not that different from puting a dvd in a box, in a truck and ship it to the customer direct. Does this makes a difference?
Startz moves a stream of data whose purpose is inmidiate display on the TV during play back which the user can pause, rewind, and play again, therefore influenzing/controlling the stream.
Sounds different to me
I don't really trust this article enough to form an opinion. If it goes to trial and there is a judgement made, then the judgment will depend on the actual words in the contract and the legal interpretation of said contract. As the contract is probably not available to the public right now, and that it might be kept confidential even during a trial, we won't know until there is a released judgment.
If the word transmission was used with respect with Internet, then Disney might be hosed, because sending a signal of any kind is technically a transmission in engineering terms. It could be analog, digital, wired, wireless, point to point, point to multipoint, stream, packet, it doesn't even matter if the final result is a file, it got there by a network transmission. Whether the legal definition of transmission is the same is another question.
Apple merely a distributor of sellable media. It is no different than Best Buy selling Pirates on DVD. IMO Starz doesn't have a leg to stand on.
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).
There's a huge difference which you made mention of. How long you get to view it for. We're talking about a license that you buy "over the internet". The subscription license is far different from a license to own. Any license which lets you keep the downloaded content for the rest of your life clearly falls into a different category than a subscription based license. The only question is: what type of license is the contract referring to? It's all speculation unless we know that.
This is bogus.
Apple merely a distributor of sellable media. It is no different than Best Buy selling Pirates on DVD. IMO Starz doesn't have a leg to stand on.
This is purely a contract matter. You may very well be right, but if you haven't read it you're talking out your a@@.
If i were born yesterday, how is today my birthday. I see you're a real sharp fellow. Here's your asshat.
So no one on these board have seen the real contact, we all are talking out the side of our neck.
Reread the post, netdork, then reread yours. You made my point.
Reread the post, netdork
That sort of personal attack / abusive talk is poor netiquette.
Disney unlike Startz does not stream the movie, it simply copies one file to another file, similar to an FTP. Not that different from puting a dvd in a box, in a truck and ship it to the customer direct. Does this makes a difference?
Startz moves a stream of data whose purpose is inmidiate display on the TV during play back which the user can pause, rewind, and play again, therefore influenzing/controlling the stream.
Sounds different to me
Sorry, but that's not all they do. Starz also has a service to have movies downloaded to your cable/satellite DVR and store the content for later viewing. Its Starz On demand, or something like that. So this is transmitting the movie for later viewing. The same thing that iTunes let's you do.
There's a huge difference which you made mention of. How long you get to view it for. We're talking about a license that you buy "over the internet". The subscription license is far different from a license to own. Any license which lets you keep the downloaded content for the rest of your life clearly falls into a different category than a subscription based license. The only question is: what type of license is the contract referring to? It's all speculation unless we know that.
It doesn't matter. They state that they have exclusive rights to internet transmission. It don't matter if they're selling it or renting it or streaming it. If its over the internet, its their exclusive right. (Of course, that assumes that's what the contract ACTUALLY says).