Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?

from the what-first-sale-doctrine dept

We have written many times about one of Hollywood's latest attempts at adapting to the modern digital age, Ultraviolet. Unfortunately for Hollywood studios, this service is not well received by people who have tried to use it. So what is someone to do with those unwanted free Ultraviolet codes that come in movie combo packs? You know, the Bluray, DVD and digital box sets that most movies come in. According to the Consumerist, one creative customer took to selling his unwanted digital copies on eBay. Unfortunately for him, eBay flagged his auction as copyright infringement and threatened his account if he listed it again.

This rightly confused him. After all, he was the legal owner of that unwanted, unused Ultraviolet redemption code. How could it be copyright infringement to sell that code to someone else, if you aren't using it? Selling or handing off that code is no different than selling or giving away the DVD copy that you would not use. Additionally, he pointed out many more eBay auctions doing the exact same thing, selling unwanted Ultraviolet codes.

What may make his case unique over the others is that he is selling a code for the recently released Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Since the movie has only been out for a few days now, Paramount may be working overtime to make sure that people are only buying the retail packages rather than just the digital version. Even if Paramount's end goal is to promote retail sales of the movie, flagging these sales as copyright infringement is tantamount to copyfraud.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:20am

    Copyright Scope Creep

    It seems that a consumer selling anything do do with a movie will be regarded as copyright infringement. It will soon be that if you buy anything which is copyright, then without even breaking the shrink wrap, try to sell it again, that will be infringement. Notice that no copying happened at all, you bought something, then you tried to sell it.

    In this new world, only buying is legal. Selling is always illegal. When you buy something, do you own it? No, because you are not allowed to sell it, therefore it cannot be yours. Your property rights have been cleverly taken off you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:47am

      Re: Copyright Scope Creep

      You want to solve your problem then do what I have done for years.
      Boycott all MAFIAA Stuff
      No Theater Going
      No Buying New MAFIAA
      Buy only USED MAFIAA
      Spend your cash on New INDIE

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Yoshord, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 8:06pm

        Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

        But, the secondary market helps the primary market, so buying used MAFIAA stuff indirectly helps sell unused MAFIAA stuff.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:59am

      Re: Copyright Scope Creep

      I think it's wrong to target this type of transaction as infringement but playing devil's advocate...

      The code was sold as part of a bundle pack. You may not be allowed to sell of individual components of that pack separately. I've seen this in other industries too. Stores can not sell individual cigarets from a pack. You could buy a trip through a travel agency but could not then re-sell the hotel reservation to a 3rd party while still keeping the airline tickets. You can't sell a mail-in rebate to a 3rd person.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:08pm

        Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

        This was my initial thought as well. However, on thinking about it, I don't think it should be considered copyright infringement since the copies that were made were done so legally by the manufacturer and so weren't infringing.

        Breaking the items out of a bundle and selling them separately could be a violation of the license agreement, I suppose, but it's hard to understand how one can engage in copyright infringement without making any copies at all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

          That's what I meant. It's odd for them to go after it as "copyright infringement" but I can somewhat understand if this practice is illegal (Or at least grey market) for other reasons. Though I'm not sure what reselling components, or bonus items, of a bundled package would fall under. I'm assuming the "Not for individual resell" labels I've seen on other items have some sort of legal weight.

          Looks to me that the industry is further trying to confuse "infringement" with "theft" and/or other crimes. Perhaps trying to make it a catch-all offense for anything they dislike. Similar to the "disorderly conduct" charges officers use to arrest you if you do something they don't like but have nothing else to charge you with.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

            Also, I haven't used UltraViolet, but I'm assuming the code is deactivated once redeemed? If not, which just points to even more stupidity in the industry, they could try to argue he added the code to his account, then resold the code to another person, thus making multiple copies from one purchase thereby leading to infringement. But then again, that would be more the fault of the industry for designing such an easily exploited system to begin with. (Not saying the user in this case should not also get some form of punishment, just because the shopkeeper left his door unlock doesn't mean you can rob it.)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

              I was curious and had some time to kill, so I just tried out a little Google-Fu and came across this. It's more to do with reselling "Promotional - Not for resell" music but I think it would basically cover this type of transaction too.

              http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/01/07/132744291/for-promotional-use-only-not-for-res ale-oh-yes-it-is

              The basic summary is the First Sale Doctrine allows you to resell all or part of an item you purchased without violating copyright laws as long as you did not make a copy.

              So assuming he didn't use the code, from my understanding it would be perfectly legal to do what he was doing, even if the industry disagrees.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

            I'm assuming the "Not for individual resell" labels I've seen on other items have some sort of legal weight.


            Those labels don't actually have any legal weight outside of contractual agreements between retailers and suppliers. In fact, you'll notice that the trend is to word them as "not labelled for individual sale" rather than the old-fashioned "Not for individual resale".

            Promo music is a good example of how this works. Radio stations (used to?) receive discs that were labelled "not for resale". They were contractually restricted from reselling them, but once they were in the hands of someone who wasn't party to the contract, there was no law against selling them. That's why it was not uncommon to find them in used music stores.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

          The problem with the license issue is that you did not agree to any specific terms when buying the combo pack. If you do not have a UV account and have not redeemed the UV code, you are not liable to those terms either.

          Without some sort of license that someone must agree to, then you can't even claim it as a violation of a license.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 2:11pm

        Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep

        Bundling agreements only apply to retailers unless you sign an agreement. I find it difficult to believe that anyone signed such an agreement upon purchasing a movie. Right of First Sale still applies.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      LostOnTheLine, Aug 21st, 2012 @ 8:38pm

      Re: Copyright Scope Creep

      Well, technically you aren't allowed to sell a movie you've watched. I think if it's still shrink-wrapped you'd just be a retailer even if you don't have a retail license. But the way the law actually is written says that you don't own the movie, you own a license to view the movie.
      If you look you'll see that they always say they are for private home use only, meaning that if you showed it outside of your home you're in violation.
      The way this works in the law is that you are buying the right to watch the movie, that money goes to the studio, if a store buys the movie but never opens it, it has never used that right to view, so it can be transferred to someone else & the studio still gets paid for that viewing. Once you've watched the movie you've 'activated' your viewing right like a 'redemption code'. Once the redemption code for an iTunes or UV copy have been used they can only be used again by the account that activated it.
      So if you sell your old VHS tapes or DVDs you are making money on that sale, but the studio is not.
      Fortunately they don't press very hard on this issue. The reason they don't is because 'technically' by the same laws, you own the right to view the movie, so if you had a VHS of Independence Day & the tape was damaged because it was watched so many times they'd be required to replace it for a minimal fee, & once they stop making VHS players they would be required to convert them to a supported format at the cost of the media (the DVD) only, which would be 4-12˘

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:23am

    Fun fact: I can name at least 3 sales that have been lost as a direct result of Ultraviolet being included on the package. I've literally picked up a movie I wanted, noticed "Ultraviolet" on the box, then put it down. There's no way I'm going to support this moronic scheme, even indirectly. Meanwhile, I'd be willing to bet that no pirate has even been delayed in obtaining a copy of the films in question.

    But, of course, those actual, quantifiable, lost sales will just be blamed on "piracy" and so they'll continue their anti-consumer practices. All because the usual suspects are incapable of listening to their own customer base.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:04am

      Re:

      Yeah, I worry about this circumstance as well. As a consumer, my primary mode of communicating with companies is either buying their product or not buying it. If a company uses practices that I disagree with, I'll generally try to avoid giving them business. The entertainment industry however doesn't seem driven to analyze their market and consumers, arriving at the conclusion that all lost sales are someone else's fault and that all potential customers are stealing. (Not to discount the difficulty of separating these different market factors, but surely someone could if they attempted)

      Normally I wouldn't care if a business or industry arrived at a faulty and ineffectual rendering of their market, but entertainment's reaction to technology has been to reach out and tamper with other industries that I am participating in. This is a pretty good kick in the nuts as a consumer who's playing by the rules and expecting some semblance of balance on the other side of the equation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Glen, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      If I have purchased the movie that has an "Ultraviolet" sign on it, I have yet to use it. I'm not gonna bother. I'll still look for the DRM free version of the movie.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:46am

      Re:

      " Meanwhile, I'd be willing to bet that no pirate has even been delayed in obtaining a copy of the films in question"

      If DVD rippers like yourself don't buy a copy, then yes, piracy has been delayed.

      Thanks for playing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:02am

        Re: Re:

        "If DVD rippers like yourself don't buy a copy, then yes, piracy has been delayed.

        Thanks for playing."

        Playing what? He's pointing out a fact, a legitimate sale has been lost because of a DRM type restriction. The pirates, who these measures are aimed at deterring, are unaffected by such measures. They have workarounds and methods to beat such schemes. As such, while there might be a delay in acquiring the product (per release schedules/windowing), no one who is pirating the product is genuinely delayed in any meaningful way.

        Sorry, thanks for not playing. Or at least the not playing the "let's think logically and use a bit of reason and common sense game". Which is what the rest of us are playing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re:

        Oh yes, when you can't address the facts, make a personal attack and pretend that anybody who doesn't bow down before DRM must be a pirate.

        Yawn... I wonder if you people will ever get tired of attacking the people who are actually buying legal content...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          LostOnTheLine (profile), Aug 21st, 2012 @ 9:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I put most of my stuff in iTunes, I could get an iTunes digital copy with it's DRM for a 2GB SD (480) version of the film, nevermind that it costs the same as buying the disk or more.
          But if I rip it myself (Purely of the movies that I own & for me & my house only) I can get a higher quality Video, 5.1/7.1 Surround sound &, after tagging it myself, more complete tags at 1080 for just over 2GB & an SD copy at 480 with Dolby/ProLogic sound for 400-800MB. Granted a 2hr movie will take 7hrs to transcode at 1080 & 3-5hr at 480, but I'm not gonna pay more for less.
          If Apple gets a clue & offers their Digital Copies at a better compression, since they only have to transcode it once for thousands of downloads, & complete tags I'll buy them, but now I download the digital copy into iTunes, then replace it with the ones I make myself.
          DRMs aren't MY problem in concept, but I hate them nonetheless because they want to take more space to save them a few minutes & you have to buy a bigger HDD.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:27am

    Oh good grief. Clearly, you aren't qualified or able to make any sort of legal argument or conclusion. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Absolutely no analysis or nuance. This is standard Techdirt fare. Jumping to conclusions and idiotically working backwards. Great job, Zach. Par for the course. Real cutting-edge, in-depth treatment of the topic. Not.

    Mike, where's all the great nuance you pretend to provide on your site? This article is just another turd stain on the internet. Great job hiring Zach, who knows nothing about the law, to write legal articles. Awesome nuance, Mikey. Da best!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:36am

      Re:

      If he did make an atempt to spoud legal argumentation it was lost on me. I only saw "common sense"-arguments.

      There is a huge difference in some situations.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:38am

      Re:

      2 paragraphs, nothing but whining and attacks, no actual facts in rebuttal and the debating maturity of a 5 year old. All while accusing others of bias and one-sidedness.

      Don't you people ever get tired of this?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:10am

        Re: Re:

        Really just need to report stuff like this and move on. There no substance at all and it just drifts aimlessly from ad hom to ad hom.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:48am

        Re: Re:

        He fooled you! - Didn't you realize this was a spoof - I know the "real" trolls have been bad lately - but come on ....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If he fooled anyone it was because he sounded way, way too authentic. What the AC said is about as perfect of a troll as any.

          Which is just plain sad.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Poe's law... plus I'm at work and bored. I'm essentially poking him with a stick to see if he reacts and tries to defend his ridiculous post. It is hard to tell who's serious sometimes.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ashley sheridan, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:38am

      Re:

      Oh good grief. Clearly, you aren't qualified or able to make any sort of legal argument or conclusion. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Absolutely no analysis or nuance.


      Grammatical errors aside, what on earth are you on about? There's no legal case he's trying to make there. In-fact, apart from the cold hard facts, the only conjecture is prefaced with 'may', which does not mean the same thing as 'will'. It doesn't seem like a far-flung conclusion, and cites several references as source for establishing a behavioural pattern.

      I would suggest laying off the caffiene, getting some fresh air, and maybe a frontal lobotomy, as you seem to have some trouble functioning in the world.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dannie blaze (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:39am

      Re:

      Are you going to explain what was actually wrong with it? Or are you just going to make unverified accusations as to the accuracy of the article?

      Flailing about and talking trash about an article does not invalidate its content. Only a valid, well-though-out counter argument can do that.

      But from the looks of things, you don't seem terribly capable of something that clever.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:41am

      Re:

      I award you a 5 out of 10 for effort. Including "Mikey" in your trolling is always good, but I just didn't feel the douchebaggery emanating from it that would be required to respond with anything other than apathy.

      Not a bad attempt as far as some go, but you're going to have to do better; we expect a higher caliber of troll here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rick E, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:44am

      Re: Anonymous Coward's post

      But did you like the story?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:45am

      Re:

      It is better to be loved than hated, but better to be hated than ignored.

      Ponder the message your complaints actually convey. Apathy is a much scarier prospect to some people.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:52am

      Re:

      Oh good grief. Clearly, you aren't qualified or able to make any sort of legal argument or conclusion. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Absolutely no analysis or nuance. This is standard Techdirt fare. Jumping to conclusions and idiotically working backwards.
      Oh good grief. Clearly, you aren't qualified or able to make any sort of legal argument or conclusion. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Absolutely no analysis or nuance. This is standard troll fare. Jumping to conclusions and idiotically working backwards.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:17am

      Re:

      Troll word of the week: 'nuance'. Minimum of three times per troll post please!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:11am

      Re:

      umm I don't want to burst your bubble but "nuance" was last the word for last week.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws.org (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:47pm

      Re:

      So how long are you gonna go on about "nuance" till you come up with new BS? It's getting tired already.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mega1987 (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:28am

    Retailing is now a copyright infringement?

    If the TPP got THAT kind of policy and the US manage to lure the Philippines into it...

    There's go our "Ukay-Ukay" and flee markets as those rely on reselling and retailing of majority of items....

    What a way to go to fight infringement...

    We might as well en up in a Modern feudal era at this rate...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:32am

    Selling your Ultraviolet code should be illegal, but not for copyright infringement reasons.
    There is an expectation of the item being useable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty
    (the warranty of title is worth looking at.)

    It would be nice for people to begin to understand the deeper problem here that your paying the same price (or more) for digital things you purchase, but you have no rights to resell them like physical goods.

    Why should you pay as much for a dead tree copy of a book as you do for the digital copy?
    The dead tree copy can be resold, loaned to a friend, donated to a library, etc.
    The digital copy isn't something you can own and you have no rights.

    Isn't technology about making things easier, cheaper, faster... and somehow this is perverted time and time again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:19am

      Re:

      the warranty of title is worth looking at? why? it just states that you imply you have the right to sell it. which, as far as i'm concerned, you do. it does not state that the buyer has a right to re-sale after using the product.

      you've lost me here. you're argument doesn't make sense, or at least is very far from being clear.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:36am

        Re: Re:

        Ultraviolet codes are most likely unusable as the system is flawed.

        When we purchase things we assume we own that thing, this would mean that we would have title over that object. This should allow us to resell those things we own.

        The buyer should have the right to resell property they purchase be it physical or digital. We need to get past the idea that because someone MIGHT be able to make a copy and then sell the original we should remove peoples ability to do so.

        They charge more for digital goods, and then tell you it isn't your property.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        kirillian (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:35am

        Re: Re:

        Try this:

        You are paying more and getting less than what you expect.

        You pay more now for digital copies, but you don't have the traditional benefits of ownership:
        - as GP stated, you don't have TITLE to the item.
        - you don't have a guarantee of service (i.e. if that service fails in 5 years, you can't hack together your own system to keep using the item at your convenience). So now what you have purchased is limited by time.
        - No transfer of ownership possible with the new system.

        GP is pointing out that we are paying extra to give away rights consumers have traditionally held. This wouldn't be a problem if they were up front about it, but it's hidden in legalese and in EULAs so that the user never actually reads about what is happening.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:37am

    Public Perception

    I was actually really surprised by how many commenters on Consumerist seemed to agree that this was copyright infringement or illegal in some way. A lot of the arguments pointed out that the code was "free" with the disc, or that ownership of the digital copy was predicated by ownership of the disc.

    I don't feel that this is correct, since they are obviously separate items packaged together. Would they make the same argument for selling the DVD included in a BlueRay bundle? And the price you "paid" (whether it was free or included in the price of the disc) shouldn't enter the equation either. If you own something, you should be able to sell it, no matter what price you paid yourself.

    I guess that means the real matter boils down to whether or not people "own" the digital copies they receive from the seller or "own" the right to access a digital copy. I imagine we'll eventually see a statement from Ultraviolet on the matter that will make consumers even more wary of this drm-full "bonus" content that is intended to assuage the erosion of our fair use rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:07am

      Re: Public Perception

      I wonder what would have happened with me, if I had done it myself. A few months ago, I built a gaming computer and with my two graphics I got two download codes for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. Instead, I just went to a community forum and gave away the codes...but I should have sold them! But it seems like that selling something that was bundled for free with something you paid for, that you don't need and can't make use of (I had already bought a copy of ACB prior to my decision to build the computer) is a mortal sin.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:08am

        Re: Re: Public Perception

        *with my two graphics cards

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:28am

        Re: Re: Public Perception

        Huh, that's interesting. I hadn't heard about game downloads being bundled with cards like that. Do you think the situation would be any different if they had included game discs in the box instead of download codes? Or how about mail-in coupons for game discs?

        Personally, I feel like you were sold two copies of the game and you should be entitled to use them as you would any other property.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:34am

          Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

          I saw one game publisher use the hash of graphic cards to tell if the hardware was the same and they got bitten by it because people do upgrade the graphics often enough to cause a problem :)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            ashley sheridan, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

            So it bit the people who purchased the game legally, but probably did nothing to real pirates who this was intended to stop?

            I had a similar situation happen to me with a film my sister bought me for Christmas one year on DVD. It was using an updated copy protection system and wouldn't play on my computer because of it. The solution? Download the film. It took an hour to download, less time than it would have taken if I'd tried to find a solution a different way. It has put me off of making some purchases I might have otherwise now though. So what cost piracy? It was actually the anti-piracy methods which caused the problems, although critics would argue that without piracy the situation would never have gotten to this point.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              varagix, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

              "So it bit the people who purchased the game legally, but probably did nothing to real pirates who this was intended to stop?"

              Actually, I think AC ment that it caused problems for the game publisher. Fallout with the consumer base, you know? PC gamers, generally speaking, tend to be pretty well informed bunch, and when a company does something like that, the company's gotta do a lot of quick PR work or they lose sales on the next game.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                ashley sheridan, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

                Except that it doesn't often happen like that. There have been more than a few Techdirt articles about some form of annoying PC game DRM, and many more videos on YouTube of raging gamers hit by such DRM.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

          Yeah, it's actually become something they do as of late. I know when I shop on Newegg there's almost always a "buy X graphics card, get X game free (download code to redeem game, not physical copy itself... in fine print)" special going on.

          Not sure if I've ever seen it be that you get a mail-in coupon for game discs (with new graphics card purchase), although on a few occasions I've seen them offer mail-in rebates if you already owned the game or had just recently purchased it (within days of the special going on), which just meant you got refunded what you spent on the game.

          But coupons/rebates redeemable for physical copies? Haven't seen yet.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

          The funny thing is, both the manufacturer website and the retailer website advertised the graphics cards as coming with download vouchers (with photos of everything that's supposed to come in the box), but I got discs instead. I tried giving the serial numbers away that were on the back of the CD envelope but according to the online peeps, they didn't work.
          Either way, I got something for free that I couldn't use, and according to this article, giving it away or selling it is a crime.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

            "Either way, I got something for free that I couldn't use, and according to this article, giving it away or selling it is a crime."

            What's worse is I've been reading more and more about this happening. Download vouchers/codes that were incomplete (missing digits), incorrect (straight up wrong) or left out entirely. In one case, it was so widespread one company issued a statement saying "contact us or if you'd prefer you can guess the missing digit" (ranging from 0-9 or A-Z).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

          " I hadn't heard about game downloads being bundled with cards like that. "

          It is actually a very common practice these days. Off the top of my head Dirt 3, Deus Ex, Batman AC have all been offered like this.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:30am

          Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

          My current Graphics card came with the Witcher. I have also gotten Far Cry as well. Don't play either of them, but the Witcher has always been of interest to me, just haven't had the time to fire it up in Wine on Linux.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            AzureSky (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

            If your anti-windows as your Wine comment seems to indicate, you really shouldnt be playing windows games, by playing them you are supporting and encouraging developers to stick with windows/directx as their primary target.

            just saying, playing the game rather then sending the voucher to the publisher with a letter explaining how horrible it is that the games not got a native linux port is encouraging them to keep producing windows only titles, much like buying from the mafiaa or pirating their works is said to encourage their actions.

            mind I personally use windows for my main os, and *nix as my secondary, and fully understand why developers dont want to go down the road to native linux support.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

              If your anti-windows as your Wine comment seems to indicate


              Being primarily a Linux user does not automatically mean being anti-Windows. Just sayin'.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                AzureSky (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:16pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

                but anybody trying to be a linux gamer from my exp has 1 of 2 reasons for this.

                1. they are anti-windows/MS and thus will go to any lingths to avoid windows.

                2. they are a masochist and enjoy the pain of trying to get games working under an os they where never intended to operate under.

                it could be 1+2 i guess, I do know one guy whos a bit insain who would spend months getting 1 game working because he finds tinkering with wine and linux to make stuff work more fun then...actually using his computer for anything useful :P

                this from a guy who dosnt hate linux/unix at all, but who sees its strengths and weaknesses and accepts them.

                Linux is amazing for some uses, like the system i setup a while back for a friends mother, xp had died on here again due to somebody(not her) installing copious amounts of crapware on it(over 85 apps total....), stuck vector linux on it gave her a basic rundown for her use pattern and shes happy as a clam.

                I also know why many developers who despite using linux for a dev platform(its gotten to be around 50/50 since windows has gotten better, use to be more linux then windows for dev work) who wouldnt dream of making games for linux.

                the reasons for this are many, main ones being that theres no unified framework that "just works" and every modern version supports, under windows you have DirectX that has
                d3d
                ddraw
                dinput
                dsound
                exct

                and for the most part they "just work" if the user needs to update the video driver thats a simple process under windows, in linux.....dont get me started trying to teach an average WoW type "gamer" how to update drivers under linux....its less painful to close your genitals in a desk drawer...

                under linux you cant be sure that whatever linux distro you try and install on will support any set of dependencies or even support the installer package you want to use.

                its just a pain to try and support linux because there are thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of distros out there, no 2 are identical in what they support....

                again, I do not hate linux, I just know how big a pain it can be to support it....(part of why no shop I have ever worked for will officially support linux)

                BSD is great IF your hardware is supported, and infact would be my top choice for a system that had decent specs and was a few years old, unlike linux its got a stable driver api/abi, has a set of standard installer packages and driver updates arent that hard...ofcourse there arent hundeds/thousands/tends of thousands of distros of bsd(thank god!!!)

                dont get me started on OSX and Apple when it comes to drivers and "it just works" i could rant for a week strait on that flat out LIE they tell their users......who then blame whoever they run into at a computer shop for telling them it dosnt really "just work" :P

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

                  Well, there is a possible 3rd reason. I use Linux exclusively for my personal machines, and only play games that I can run under it for the third reason: it's too much of a hassle to bother to boot into Windows.

                  A bare majority of modern games can be made to run under Linux without a huge amount of effort, and I've yet to find a game that both doesn't run under Linux and is compelling enough to overcome my inherent laziness.

                  (Also, since I hadn't even booted into Windows for over a year, I finally reclaimed that partition and no longer have a Windows machine at all.)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  PaulT (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

                  "2. they are a masochist and enjoy the pain of trying to get games working under an os they where never intended to operate under."

                  I remember the pains of trying to get certain games working under DOS and early Windows versions. To pretend that this is somehow unique to Linux is disingenuous, and if it weren't for MS's own DirectX having become the defacto system for a while (as opposed to OpenGL, etc), then either Windows would be just as difficult or Linux would have the same support under the cross-platform system.

                  "dont get me started on OSX and Apple when it comes to drivers and "it just works" i could rant for a week strait on that flat out LIE they tell their user"

                  Care to elaborate? I've never had a single issue with either of my Mac systems, for gaming or any other activity. I have, however, seen people with severe driver & other issues on Windows system.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 8:48am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

                    I've never had a single issue with either of my Mac systems, for gaming or any other activity.


                    I've sure had troubles. This is not a slam against Apple machines at all -- all complex systems introduce headaches -- but I've found the Mac to be a very difficult platform to deal with when something goes wrong, and something goes often enough for this to matter.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      PaulT (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:26am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

                      Well, in that case it really comes down to personal experience, not necessarily something inherent in the system. I used Linux almost exclusively for a number of years, and work extensively with MS products in my day job, and OSX is the one that's given me the least trouble overall.

                      That doesn't mean it doesn't have its problems, of course, but I'm always suspicious when someone attacks it, especially compared to Windows. Driver and virus issues alone were the bane of my personal and professional life under Windows 9x/XP, and Vista was a shoddy pile of crap that couldn't even copy a file across my home network until SP1 (7 is excellent, I'm suspicious about 8). I've had more luck under Linux, though at least I knew that when it broke, it was usually my tinkering that caused it rather than an inherent flaw.

                      However, your personal experience may be different, and that's fine. I can be a little suspicious of people who claim massive problems with OSX, but we all have bad runs. I just prefer them to be quantified, especially when people start ranting about "driver issues" - OSX is the only system I've never encountered with such a problem.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception

              Am I anti-windows? Maybe. I still like a few odd games developed for Windows only. However, they are older games that I played back before I made the switch to 100% Linux. At this current time, I have decided to only buy games that support Linux natively. So far, the Humble Indie Bundle has provided me with more games than I can play right now.

              However, I did not seek out my graphics card because of The Witcher. I got my graphics card because the manufacturer supports Linux with native drivers.

              As for your insistence that Linux is difficult to use, only if you want it to be. Ubuntu and several other distros have made huge stride toward user friendliness and installing drivers is as easy as clicking a menu option during set up.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:42am

    I doubt that many are even aware of the ultraviolet code, since they are not buying plastic disks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Czachez (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:55am

    I feel that it should be illegal, and it is not "proper" to sell digital copies like that.

    I think of these like games, you get a digital version and CD version but the two are sharing the same license (cd key with games).

    Its like splitting the cost of a video game, and sharing the CD-key with someone else, except you both don't go online so no one would ever know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:18am

      Re:

      "I think of these like games, you get a digital version and CD version but the two are sharing the same license (cd key with games). "

      Except, DVDs and Blu Rays have never involved explicit licences before now. Until this bull started, you owned the copy of the DVD you bought and could do anything with it you wanted - including reselling one part of the package if you wished. Software's different as there's always been a distinct licence and EULA with each copy.

      "Its like splitting the cost of a video game, and sharing the CD-key with someone else"

      Is it? Or is it more like getting a pack with a Blu-Ray and a DVD, and selling one of the discs because you know you'll never use it? How is that wrong, exactly, if only one person has access to the digital licence or other licence being sold?

      In this case, I somehow doubt there's an EULA or licence agreement on the packaging or the DVD/Blu discs so your comparison isn't really apt. At best, this is just an example of how rights that used to be taken as granted (first sale doctrine, for example) are being systematically removed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:20am

      Re:

      I don't think that's how games work. Is it? I know on Steam they disable accounts that are being sold with tons of games purchase, and you can't transfer ownership of games on there (which may be in line with what you're saying to a degree).

      But most games come with one way of purchasing them. Either a digital copy and you receive a onetime use redeem code to unlock/license. Or a physical copy with a registration serial to also be used one time.

      "Its like splitting the cost of a video game, and sharing the CD-key with someone else, except you both don't go online so no one would ever know."

      As far as that goes, well that's wrong. But it doesn't seem to be equivalent to buying a bundled product and then reselling the parts of the bundle you didn't want/don't plan on using at all.

      If he was selling codes he'd already used (if that were even possible, for them to be used and reused repeatedly) then this would be another story and I'd agree with you. But that's not the case and as such I don't.

      As far as "this should be illegal" though, that's a bit much. You're now advocating for the loss of the ability to resell an item for consumers. Which the way things are going is an inevitability, but as consumers our rights are being eroded away at constantly. In every industry but the entertainment one (or at least as far as movie, music and software purchases goes) you can ask for refunds if items do not meet your satisfaction (although there may be some penalties/fees associated with doing so), nor are terms changed on a standard basis as the person who creates the product or owns the copyright/patents on it sees fit (regarding EULAs).

      I mean "proper" is all in the eye of the beholder. You think this isn't proper. I think it is. I personally have done similar. Purchased bundled music albums (physical copy, with a digital copy redeemable by code, that also came with t-shirts/key chains/lighters/etc) and given away (not sold though) portions of it. Is that not "proper"? And if it isn't, why not? Factoring in that I DID NOT sell the stuff I didn't want. And if I had, what's wrong with that? The item was paid for in full up front. So why can't I sell a portion of it? We're already watching the attack on the second hand/used goods market. Let's not add to it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:21am

      Re:

      Isn't the CD key meant to be used in conjunction with the disc to enable a single instance of the game? It would seem more similar to me if they included a game disc in the box and a download code; meaning two separate and independent instances of the game.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:31am

      Re:

      The thing with licences...is they're never on the consumer's side.
      If I buy a widget, I am obtaining that object and all control over it, and I am compensating the widget's maker/retailer for that privilage monetarily. If the maker/retailer wanted me to forgo the right to resell it, he can sit me down and negotiate with me. I would of course argue for a reduced price, to reflect the reduced control I would have over the widget.

      Not the same with DVDs it appears. I'm not sat down to negotiate and sign a licence prior to purchase. The message I'm getting is that I have to pay BEFORE I can see the licence. What happens if I want to see the licence beforehand? I can't. I don't know what's in the licence. Not all licences are the same. I can't guess. What happens if the licence says that upon playing the movie, I now have to give them my car? Or something as outrageous, and they say I agreed to it by playing the movie?
      I'm at the counter, pay for the DVD and then AFTER the sale, I'm told that my control over this object has been reduced.
      Now, the item is a bundle. The purchase price we're told is for the one widget, and whatever else is in the package is free. Only...according to you, I can't resell it? Why the hell not? Did I or did I not just pay for the damn thing? The guy selling his Ultraviolet code (assuming he hadn't already used it up) wouldn't have been able to use it at the same as the guy he attempted to sell it to, so you worrying over "except you both don't go online so no one would ever know" doesn't count.
      As for splitting the cost of a video game...what are you on about? If someone went half's on a game with me, we would both expect to be able to play it (maybe not at the same time, if its a console game, maybe work out a system of swapping disks on certain days of the week).

      "I think of these like games, you get a digital version and CD version but the two are sharing the same license (cd key with games). "
      Then have it in big bold lettering on the box BEFORE we pay, so we can know exactly what we're purchasing. For thousands of years, economics has worked that if I pay you for Widget A, I get Widget A and all control over it. This is more or less ingrained into human nature. How are we supposed to know or accept for that matter, that attempting to sell something we got for free is illegal?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:21am

      Re:

      How is selling the key selling the digital copy?
      The key only allows access to the copy, it is not the copy in and of itself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:38am

      Re:

      The Ultraviolet code is not tied to the Bluray or DVD discs in any way. Why would selling an unused code be a problem? When you buy these packs you are getting 3 separate and distinct parts. Non of which are tied to the other in any way other than being in the same box. This is like buying a packaged game in which you get 5 games for one price. You would not be committing copyright infringement for selling the games you didn't want.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        David, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re:

        I actually had some idiots at ebay remove my auctions for selling the DVDs & 3D physical discs I didn't want!

        What the hell? I did sell the digital copies before (which have been removed) but then they started remove discs.

        Don't you think I should be able to sell those physical items?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:46am

      Re:

      So if he wants to 'sell' or give away the DVD or blu-ray box... he can't. If he wants to 'sell' or give away the DVD or blu-ray artwork pack... he can't. If he wants to 'sell' or give away the spare DVD with a blu-ray... he can't. According to you.

      How is an unwanted 'digital copy' any different?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:05am

    "This is my rifle, this is my gun."

    I'm sorry sir but technically we do not "sell" rifles and guns, what we do is we lease them to you. The rifles and guns will be "yours" only you don't actually have any rights associated with ownership other than the actual having.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rabbit80, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:53am

      Re:

      This raises an interesting point..

      When you "buy" the box set, are you simply buying a license to watch the film in the included formats? If you are simply buying a license as Hollywood would like to believe then by selling the UV codes, you are selling a copy of that license whilst retaining a copy for yourself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ashley sheridan, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:27am

    Game discs, being software, are very different from a film. Typically, yes, one key would be used to unlock the game as it would be tied to an account. The disc and the download would just be the binaries used to play the game and connect to that account.

    A film though, is different, and trying to suggest they should be treated the same as a completely different medium is the wrong way to think about this. It is different and needs to be treated as such.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    A Guy (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:34am

    I find it hard to care about people selling inferior products to other people willing to buy inferior products like ultraviolet.

    Which option kills this thing faster?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:51am

      Re:

      Option A: Ultraviolet acknowledges that the Ultraviolet download is a separate product and the first-sale doctrine does apply. Movie studios immediately stop bundling codes with discs, offering codes as stand-alone purchases only for the same price as DVD and Blueray. No one buys them because that's preposterous. They blame the lack of sales on piracy.

      Option B: Ultraviolet clarifies that the code is part of the disc license, for the sole use of the disc owner. Everyone goes back to either buying discs and ignoring the Ultraviolet "bonus" or buying a digital copy somewhere else. They blame the lack of increase in sales on piracy.

      Option C: Ultraviolet decrees that the code is a license granted to the original disc's owner and is non-transferable. Since the code and stream-able version are immutably licensed to the disc owner, and the disc owner has only paid for a single license to the content, the owner somehow loses his first-sale rights to the physical disc being unable to discontinue use of the streaming license. With no resale rights, the value of discs drops and people who would otherwise have bought physical media switch to streaming content. They blame the decrease in sales on piracy.

      I'm putting my money on "B".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        BeeAitch (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:35pm

        Re: Re:

        The "sad but true" part of your comment is that all three options give the same result: blamed on piracy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well of course, it's never their fault when something bad happens, they always have someone else to blame, and 'piracy' is their standard go-to target.

          Or to put it simply, they're the kind of people who would kick a wall, and then blame the wall for their foot hurting after.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:34am

    Ultraviolet wha?

    I've never heard of this until today. Why haven't I? Because buying a dvd with an electronic version of the movie is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How, why, Hollywood?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:41am

      Re: Ultraviolet wha?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraViolet_(system)

      UltraViolet is not a digital file is a authentication scheme, the files are offered by others and authenticated by UltraViolet meaning you buy the DVD and you need to be able to connect to the internet if you want to watch it LoL

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:03am

      Re: Ultraviolet wha?

      Because they made our Fair-Use right to make copy of something we own (for personal use, formats for other devices or backup) illegal to exercise. This offering is an attempt to dissuade the Library of Congress from enacting an exemption that would allow us to use our rights.

      "See? We generously loaned you a (drm crippled) copy of it already! There's no need to be able to make one yourself, just jump through our hoops."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:36am

    DRM used to be fun....

    Am I the only one that used to have fun w/the way DRM used to work? I remember firing up my 3.5" disks for Hardball 3 on my Packard Bell POS machine. Once you ran the software, you had to enter in a number code or something. And to get that code, you had to pull out this awesome mini-cardboard three-wheel cypher decoder thing and match up all the baseball related symbols to get the right numbers.

    Hell, DRM used to be part of the game! Granted, when my childhood dog decided that the decoder ring looked like a tasty treat it was impossible to play the game anymore, but that seemed like just punishment for leaving my toys out in the computer room....plus then I went to play outside. OUTSIDE!!!

    Oh, those were the days....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:07am

      Re: DRM used to be fun....

      Or SimCity that came with patterns in red text on a red sheet of paper that wouldn't photocopy currently and red "decoder" glasses so you could read it. Take note entertainment companies: ENTERTAIN ME. Make the advertising the content, make the DRM part of the game!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        ashley sheridan, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:20am

        Re: Re: DRM used to be fun....

        Prince of Persia the original DOS game was good for this. The manual had a small story written into the footer of each page of the manual, and the game would randomly ask you for word x on page y. Of course, when game publishers did away with printed manuals to lower production costs (yet kept the consumer price the same, funny that eh?) they effectively did away with an insteresting copy-prevention method.

        It also calls to light a comment from one of the Johnny books by Terry Pratchett, about how the game publishers had "obviously never heard of Wobbler's dad's office's photocopier"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 6:49am

    One thing that nobody noticed with UltraViolet.

    It records everything, when you play that video it calls home to get an authorization, it knows which devices you are using because you have to register them to work and so it collects data usage about all the transactions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:01am

    Quote:
    What are UltraViolet Rights? UltraViolet Rights are the guaranteed minimum benefits that you, as a consumer, get with every UltraViolet movie or TV show at-no-charge above the original purchase price. UltraViolet Retailers and UltraViolet Streaming Services may, over time, charge additional fees for additional benefits (such as additional downloads or more streaming). For more information,

    Source: http://www.uvvu.com/faqs.php#question-3

    I see what UltraViolet is for, is to collect data usage and start charging for usage slowly and then call everyone who disagrees a freetard infringing scum LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:02am

    Same ol' rant

    This all gets so complex. For digital goods, I have to assume that the right of first sale does not apply to the digital world and that makes perfect sense, otherwise someone could simply buy a digital copy and then distribute it to the world legally. That just means that not for resale should be clearly marked for the consumer to see.

    And this is where it gets complex. The ability to share a physical item is limited, but with a digital version, the desire to share is enhanced. If your friend wants to borrow a book and you say yes, then you no longer have that book until (if) it's returned to you. If a friend wants to borrow your ebook (pdf), not only is there no fear of loss, but there is the desire to share with more friends (assuming you like the book) because it's convenient. Why shouldn't we the consumers use the technology that we paid for to do what it allows us to do? (at this point I ask the trolls not to start whining and saying we can use a telephone to make bomb threats, is that ok too... oops the NSA picked that up... its just a post on a blog guys)

    We as consumers can see where this is a problem for those who sell content for a living, but that really isn't our problem. It never has been. We copied CDs and cassettes before mp3s and TV shows and movies on VHS, but they were just distributed slower.

    Personally I'm tired of the economic insults that the content industry hurls at us repeatedly about their "value" to the economy. The content industry is where disposable income is spent. There is no harm to the economy if the content industry fails completely. All of that money will just be spent on something else. All those lost jobs will just reappear wherever all of that disposable income flows. Why can't the content industry just be good lil capitalists and deal with it. Adapt already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:54pm

      Re: Same ol' rant

      For digital goods, I have to assume that the right of first sale does not apply to the digital world and that makes perfect sense, otherwise someone could simply buy a digital copy and then distribute it to the world legally.


      I disagree. Right of first sale is completely compatible with digital goods just relying on what courts have already ruled when it comes to backup copies: If you resell, you must include all the copies you made of the thing as if they were an indivisible unit. If you do otherwise, you've violated copyright.

      To say that right of right of first sale shouldn't apply to the digital realm is saying that there should be no right of first sale for any good that can be copied, whether digital or not, because you could conceivably simply sell copies forever.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:06am

      I'll just get it over with right now.

      We can use a telephone to make bomb threats. Is that OK too?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bengie, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:05am

    A new basic check

    It should be illegal to give an aggressive legal threat.

    If an injunction(closing one's account in this case) is placed against someone and it is later found that the injunction was later found to be invalid, then the party who created the injunction should be responsible for any lost profit and $100/day, whichever is greater.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:33pm

      Re: A new basic check

      Nice idea, but given the legal battlefield these days, that would almost totally eliminate the practicing lawyer population.

      Wait a sec...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    V (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:11am

    Confusion

    The real confusion is the ability of companies to deceive buyers into believing that you are BUYING the movie.

    If instead, it was VERY obvious that you are not buying the movie, but "leasing" or "licensing" it... people would act differently.

    Currently... they suppose (rightfully so), that buying a DVD is like buying a toothbrush or screwdriver. You buy it... it's yours... you can do whatever you want with it.

    The difference is not plain nor evident that this is NOT the case with intellectual "property".

    It's a big scam that the government SHOULD have put a stop to (since it's blatantly consumer fraud), but which the government is being well paid to ignore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 7:36am

    This is why I rarely buy media anymore - I don't really own it.

    Why spend the cash?

    They can 'say' I don't really own it, but guess what? If that money stays in my pocket - I do in fact own the money.

    So I'll stick with what I can really own.

    Kinda makes me regret I just bought a CD from them too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DanZee (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 8:01am

    Buy? No, Lease a movie!

    Just another attempt to make you believe you didn't "buy" a movie, you "leased" it instead. The government codified this for software with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and now the movie studios will probably add this into the next copyright revision to go after the used DVD business!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jesse Townley (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:08am

    ebay & "free" downloads

    Two things.

    1. This story is really about eBay & their unclear reasons for yanking the listing. They work in mysterious ways so I think until there's more information about WHY, a lot of this discussion is just wasted bandwidth.

    2. We offer a free download as part of every new LP we sell because we want to entice The Kids (tm) to buy the physical product. It's not a digital sale (they can go to iTunes, eMusic, wherever for that)- it's a free add-on to the package. The price of the LP isn't higher because of the download card.

    If someone pulls a jerk move and sells the code, well, that sucks but it's only 1 download. It's unknown if the buyer would've bought the full-priced record anyway. Maybe they will after they hear the music.

    But I agree completely with the philosophy of "if someone buys something, it's theirs." I buy used physical content all the time.

    There shouldn't be a difference between selling 2nd hand physical media and 2nd hand digital media.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jesse Townley (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:09am

      Re: ebay & "free" downloads

      (Just so it's clear, it's a "jerk" move because it's selling something that they got for free, not because it's a digital version)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 11:30am

        Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads

        I'm pretty sure that selling something for more than it cost you is a frequent occurrence in this country. We can decide as a community what kind of mark-up qualifies a re-seller as a jerk.

        Additionally I'm a little perplexed by your free download with physical purchase offer. (I think it's cool you're working with free and digital promotions) If the download is for a copy of something they already purchased on disc, then it seems specifically designed to be passed along by the customer. After all, they just bought the CD and if they want an MP3 of the entire disc it can easily (and legally without the inclusion of DRM) be converted to that format.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:57pm

        Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads

        it's a "jerk" move because it's selling something that they got for free


        Wait, why is that a jerk move? If I win a drawing and have no use for the prize, is it a jerk move to sell the prize?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        AzureSky (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads

        the sad thing is, they didnt get it free, the cost was included in the price, nothing bundled is really free, the cost is ALWAYS included in the price.

        I say this having worked in jobs setting up bundle deals, the industry standard is to make NOTHING free, they are charging you for the UV copy, its included in the price you pay for the disk.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:17am

      Re: ebay & "free" downloads

      Even in this case and the one you describe, the customer is not selling a "second hand" digital good as it has not been redeemed and is still technically first hand. I honestly don't see how it is really a "jerk" move. It is someone unloading something they don't want and that someone else values enough to pay money for. If you don't like that kind of market, then you should get out of the business of giving away free download codes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jesse Townley (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:26am

        Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads

        Second hand as in it was already purchased once. Obviously it's still valid, otherwise it'd be a REAL jerk move to sell it, ha ha ha...

        And no, just because I think it's a jerk move to resell something that one got for free doesn't mean that offering a free d/l isn't a really positive thing for our company to do. It is, & the rare occurrence of this selling pieces of a d/l code isn't a worry for us.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Rich, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:39am

          Re: Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads

          First off, why it is a "jerk move" to sell something you got for free? If I sell a toy I got out a cereal box, is that a "jerk move"? Secondly, it wasn't really obtained for free. They weren't handing out the codes. You had to purchase something to get it (just like the toy). If I buy a group of items in a set, and then sell them off piecemeal, that is not illegal. Hell, it is done for much profit with cars, and even companies.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            AzureSky (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads

            bundle deals are never truly free, this is especially true for deals with groups like the riaa/mpaa, where they would charge you per view/listen if they could, the cost in included with what you paid for the disks.

            the fact is you didnt get the code for the UV version free, because the studios didnt get it free.

            do you really think the people who insist every download is a lost sale would give anything away?

            do you really think those same people would take a loss to include a digital copy free with a dvd/bd?

            if you do....i got a bridge to sell you....

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:44am

    " Even if Paramount's end goal is to promote retail sales of the movie, flagging these sales as copyright infringement is tantamount to copyfraud."

    Another horrible Techdirt misrepresentation.

    The Ultaviolet codes are a license, not a "product". They are a non-transferable license, so selling them off is a violation of copyright. The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years. But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit.

    Do you understand why the movie industry isn't in a rush to do it your way? Give you an inch, and more than a few tard try to take a mile.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:53am

      Re:

      And the movie industry, or the movie recording industry, or Hollywood, will continue to be mocked and maligned for their inability to understand the future.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:05am

      Re:

      They are a non-transferable license, so selling them off is a violation of copyright.

      I think you are a bit confused here. Violating a Terms of Service is not copyright infringement. Secondly, the person selling the code has not redeemed the code, has never agreed to the terms of the "license" and is thus not liable for violating it. However, even if they did, that is not Copyright infringement.

      The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years.

      Nothing wrong with the idea of UV. The problem lies in the implementation. They claim you are getting a digital copy, but all the limitations and blockades to using it in a convenient way makes the service useless for the informed consumer.

      But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit.

      What profit? The guy bought a $30 Bluray/DVD/UV combo pack and sold the UV code for $5. There is no profit gained. He is still out $25.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:35pm

        Re: Re:

        I think you are a bit confused here. Violating a Terms of Service is not copyright infringement. Secondly, the person selling the code has not redeemed the code, has never agreed to the terms of the "license" and is thus not liable for violating it. However, even if they did, that is not Copyright infringement.

        You truly aren't qualified to discuss these matters, Zach. Does it just not even occur to you to research these things before making grand pronouncements like this? Do you really just sit there and think that you know enough about copyright law that you should write articles about it? I just don't get it.

        Transferring a nontransferable copyright license can be copyright infringement, Zach. I don't have all the facts here, so I can't run you through the analysis. Suffice it to say there's a lot more going on that your uneducated, non-nuanced broadbrushing recognizes. If someone bought a DVD that came with a code, then that person is bound by a license. First sale doctrine is not in issue here.

        You might want to try and actually research these things so you don't come across as a backwards-working moron. I know Pirate Mike doesn't mind what dopey things you say as long as you're repeating the "IP sucks" mantra. But you want to be better than that, no?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          AzureSky (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          wrong, till you sign up for UV service you havent agreed to the license, so your not breaking the license.

          Would love to see them try and enforce an EULA style license term here, because Im sure it would backfire.

          and the UV copy wasnt free, you paid for it, cost included with the orignal disk price, again these people arent gonna take a profit margin hit to give you a free copy of anything....hell you even pay for the trailers they include on the disk....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What non-transferable license? There is no such "non-transferrable" license involved here. He bought a movie. That movie is itself transferable. He decided that instead of transferring the whole pack, he would transfer a part that he was not using. That is well within his first sale rights as a consumer.

          I know you don't understand this, but think of it this way. Let's say you buy a bedding set. You like the comforter, the sheets but not the sham. You have a right to separate out the sham from the rest of the package and sell or give it away. Same here.

          Or let's say you buy a variety pack of potato chips. You don't like one particular flavor so you give or sell the flavor you don't like.

          Or in this case, someone bought a combo pack of a movie and sold off the part they don't like and will never use. It is dead weight to them. It is transferable, both physically and legally.

          Please, cite the case law that states it is not legal to do this. I will wait for you, although I know I will be waiting for quite some time as you will ignore this request for an actual legal citation.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            DandonTRJ (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 2:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That case involves the transfer and sale of software licenses in which the company transferring ownership of actually agreed to terms stating they could not transfer the ownership of the software.

              Better put:

              Company A bought a non-transferable license for Autodesk software.

              Company A then gave away that software when they stopped using it.

              Guy B picked up the software and then sold it.

              While Guy B never agreed to the license, company A did and that superceded guy B's right to sell the software on eBay.

              That does not apply in this case as the movie has not been redeemed and no one has agreed to a non-transferable license. This is nothing more than one person saying "I don't want to use this service I have not signed up for. You can purchase my right to use it for $5".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                That does not apply in this case as the movie has not been redeemed and no one has agreed to a non-transferable license. This is nothing more than one person saying "I don't want to use this service I have not signed up for. You can purchase my right to use it for $5".

                That's the part you aren't understanding. When you buy the DVD, you are agreeing to be subject to the shrinkwrap license that comes with the DVD. Part of that agreement is that you are given an UltraViolet code for your own use. The shrinkwrap license provides that the UltraViolet code is nontransferable. You keep focusing on the fact that the DVD purchaser hasn't signed up for UltraViolet, but that is beside the point. The purchaser of the DVD that comes with an UltraViolet code has no right to sell that code--the shrinkwrap license which they ARE subject to prevents it.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:33pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  And that shrinkwrap license has dubious legal status in the US. It has not been validated by law or the legal system.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:51pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    And that shrinkwrap license has dubious legal status in the US. It has not been validated by law or the legal system.

                    Wow, dude. Just wow. You truly do not have even a thin grasp of the basics. No wonder Mike lets you write for Techdirt.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:51pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Just because you only research one side of an argument, does not mean that I am ignorant. A truly prepared debater will research not only his own position, but also that of their opponent.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:16pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What non-transferable license? There is no such "non-transferrable" license involved here. He bought a movie. That movie is itself transferable. He decided that instead of transferring the whole pack, he would transfer a part that he was not using. That is well within his first sale rights as a consumer.

            Yes, the DVD itself is subject to first sale and is transferable. But the UltraViolet license, which is what was being sold on eBay, was not his to sell. He is merely the holder of a nontransferable, nonexclusive license. Of course there is a license involved here. I don't have the DVD this guy bought in front of me, so I don't have all the facts, but clearly there is some sort of shrinkwrap license that he accepted when he bought the DVD. It's really
            weak that you write about things you lack even a basic understanding of.

            I know you don't understand this, but think of it this way. Let's say you buy a bedding set. You like the comforter, the sheets but not the sham. You have a right to separate out the sham from the rest of the package and sell or give it away. Same here.

            When you buy a bedding set, you're buying the bedding set, not some nontransferable, nonexclusive license to it. The fact that you're trying to compare a license to the sale of tangible goods shows you haven't a clue.

            Or let's say you buy a variety pack of potato chips. You don't like one particular flavor so you give or sell the flavor you don't like.

            Again, you didn't buy a license to the bag of potato chips. The two are not comparable.

            Or in this case, someone bought a combo pack of a movie and sold off the part they don't like and will never use. It is dead weight to them. It is transferable, both physically and legally.

            Nope. They bought a movie and a license, and the license is not transferable. The fact that you don't understand this basic point is proof positive that you are absolutely unqualified to write about these issues.

            Please, cite the case law that states it is not legal to do this. I will wait for you, although I know I will be waiting for quite some time as you will ignore this request for an actual legal citation.

            I can quote case law for you all day long. Exactly what point would you like me to cite? I'm happy to back it up.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I can quote case law for you all day long. Exactly what point would you like me to cite? I'm happy to back it up.

              Please cite the case law that states that an unredeemed code for a service for which the person transferring the code has never signed up for and never plans to sign up for is a non-transferable license.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There won't be any case law saying exactly what you're saying because you aren't framing the issue properly.

                It's just a shrinkwrap license. When you buy the DVD and get the redemption code, your rights in that code are dictated by that license. The fact that the DVD purchaser has no intention to sign up for the UltraViolet service is immaterial. The code is subject to the shrinkwrap license. It'd be helpful if we were looking at the license to see what it says.

                There is a bit of discussion in this article on the point: http://mesalliance.org/blog/2012/04/20/can-consumers-legally-sell-unused-ultraviolet-movie-codes/

                They point out that the code just represents a license to a bundle of rights that is nontransferable and not subject to first sale. The whole thing is governed by a shrinkwrap license. When you buy the DVD, your rights are subject to that license.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:21pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Ah. Shrinkwrap licenses. That is certainly one way to look at it, even though the shrinkwrap license has not been tested in court.

                  It is also interesting that instead of actual legal documentation of whether this practice is illegal, you cite a link to an article on a pro-industry website quoting industry lawyers.

                  I would seriously love to see shrinkwrap licenses tested in court. Unfortunately, no one in the movie or music industry is will to risk it. Until such a time as it is proven in court that shrinkwrap licenses are legally binding, I would like to fault on the side of first sale and fair use.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 4:42pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Huh? Are you suggesting that shrinkwrap licenses haven't been tested in the courts? You really do need to research this stuff if you're going to write about it. Courts have upheld shrinkwrap licenses for years.

                    Here's the Seventh Circuit from 1996: "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1449 (7th Cir. 1996) (Easterbrook, J.).

                    I would seriously love to see shrinkwrap licenses tested in court. Unfortunately, no one in the movie or music industry is will to risk it.

                    What? You really have a conspiracy theory thing going here. With absolutely no basis whatsoever you've cooked up this whole thing that "no one in the movie or music industry" would even risk it. That's just crazy talk, and again, all you're doing is showing how you haven't a clue.

                    I love, love, love how Mike laments the lack of nuance, when he has writers tackling subjects they don't even understand the basics of.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 5:50pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg requires that the person violating the license actually have the opportunity to read and "click through" the license. As a purchaser of a DVD, you are not prompted to attest that you agree to the terms, agreement to whatever license that may or may not be available has no such opportunity to explicatively agree.

                      A better case to apply to this instance would be that of Specht vs. Netscape in which the court found:

                      a reasonably prudent Internet user in circumstances such as these would not have known or learned of the existence of the license terms before responding to defendants’ invitation to download the free software, and that defendants therefore did not provide reasonable notice of the license terms.

                      In this case, a purchaser of a DVD would not have known or learned of the license terms of such a shrink wrap license before being bound by the terms by opening the DVD. There is no reasonable notice to the terms of the license prior to opening the DVD.

                      So the legal status of such terms as applies to this situation and really any situation is still very much in debate at this point. It has not official legal standing other than in some instances they are binding, in the case of someone explicitly agreeing, and they are not, in such cases where there is no reasonable notice or opportunity to reject or agree.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:05am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        That's great that you found the Netscape case and are applying it here. Seriously, that's awesome. If I were arguing your side, I'd use that very case since it has some helpful language. Kudos. The case is pretty distinguishable since it dealt with how conspicuous the terms were on a given website. With these DVDs, you're looking at packaging or inserts. As long as somewhere on the packaging, whether inside or out, it says something like "see terms and conditions," then there is a contract and whatever those terms and conditions say are binding (unless unconscionable or otherwise invalid). The fact is that this is industry standard practice. It's what's in the UCC, Restatement, UCITA, case law, state law, etc. It's kind of silly to think the companies that make DVDs and give out licenses haven't done their homework on how to make them binding. You're jumping to conclusions and not doing your homework on this stuff--that's the point I've been trying to make to you in this thread. It's not some big conspiracy. This stuff tends to make sense if you really learn the theories and think them through.

                        We don't have this guy's DVD box in front of us, but I'm guessing it looks something like this: http://www.mortalkombatonline.com/content/News/mk_digital_copy.jpg It gives you the code, and underneath in small print it says: "For terms of use, go to wbdigitalcopy.com/terms." You cannot use the code, which is merely licensed, without being bound by whatever those terms say (within reason). At least with this image I found, I don't think the argument that the terms were not conspicuous would work. It's standard practice to put the terms (or indicate where the terms can be found) in the fine print. That's what "fine print" means. Surely most, if not all, DVDs have similar fine print. Again, it's industry standard practice.

                        It's great that you're making that argument, but I don't see how it wins the day. Additionally, I'd recommend you not be so fast to jump to conclusions. Do a bit of research before you write the article. And props for keeping your cool while I've been a dick to you. You may not know much about IP law, but I can tell that you're a good person.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      techflaws.org (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:01pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I love, love, love how Mike laments the lack of nuance, when he has writers tackling subjects they don't even understand the basics of.

                      Says the guys who wrote "I don't have all the facts" and who doesn't get shrinkwrap licences (which are not even included in the DVD this post is about). Impressive.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Rikuo (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:59am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      The problem with you spouting about shrinkwrap licences? They're licences the consumer doesn't get to see until AFTER paying for the DVD...and probably not even then. When was the last time I put in a DVD movie and saw a ToS or EULA or a licence screen? I typically only see such things with software, not with movies.
                      Basically, you're arguing that the guy here is bound by licence terms he doesn't see, doesn't know about and has no option of opting out.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:13am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        I'm sure somewhere on the DVD packaging or insert it says "see terms and conditions" and then gives a URL. Something like that. This is standard stuff nowadays. I would be amazed if you could find a DVD box with an UltraViolet redemption code that doesn't have some kind of fine print.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          PaulT (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:47am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I can't seem to find a decent screenshot, but I did think this and had a quick look the other night at Black Swan - the one pack with a pre-UV "digital copy" I own (I've boycotted UV). This is the best shot I can find without taking a shot myself at home: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B004I5C3UI/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_3?ie=UTF8 &index=3

                          Anyway, what you'll notice are the levels of obfuscation there. The big orange box says "this movie plays everywhere*", which is patently untrue. The * refers to further text in the box next to it, which states - in smaller print - that it will play in certain portable devices. So far, no licence or restrictions mentioned, though the tech-savvy might guess that non-Apple/Android portable devices are not supported from the wording.

                          There's another * next to this text, which refers to the tiny white text on the black background below it (too small to read on that screenshot), where system restrictions are mentioned for the first time. I don't have it in front of me, but I don't recall any licencing information being given on there. There was an insert with the code on it, which may have given more information, but at the very least this was not visible on the box. A URL is a little bit of a cop out and doesn't mean that the customer has been informed of the exact licencing conditions, and IIRC correctly with Black Swan didn't appear until trying to redeem the code. Even if it's on the insert, this is normally not visible until after purchase.

                          In other words, there was really very little on the box to show that the file was restricted, and what was there was a hidden as possible in plain view - large text giving misleading impressions, text so small that many wouldn't be able to read it, no way of seeing further details without opening the box after purchase or leaving the store and checking online, etc. On top of that, this particular method had the digital copy stored on a separate disc, so most people would assume they could just give that away/resell it if they didn't want it, as they would normally be able to with any other physical media.

                          Overall, even if Ultraviolet's conditions are better advertised, I have no doubt that the exact restrictions are kept as quiet as possible until the customer runs afoul of them, even if they're technically displayed within the law. This is especially problematic with things like entertainment media, which are routinely bought as gifts and partially resold or obtained by those who literally don't understand tech licencing.

                          Nor should they. Nobody has ever had to check licencing for any non-computer media they owned before now, and it's silly to assume that people will suddenly start because the studios are paranoid. If the anti-piracy screed now depends on getting the average person to both read and understand technical licencing agreements, they may as well give up now. It won't work, not without destroying rights most people take for granted, and there's only a few more of those can be eroded before there's a real mainstream backlash.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws.org (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 9:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't have all the facts here

          You truly aren't qualified to discuss these matters, AC.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I understand the underlying legal issues. It's fairly nuanced, and includes contract, property, and copyright law. These are not simple concepts to the uninitiated. When I say I don't have all the facts, I mean, I don't have this guy's DVD in front of me. I think it's fair to assume though that somewhere on the packaging it says "subject to terms and conditions." Like I said above, it's standard practice in the industry.

            Besides, I think it's weird you aren't saying anything to Zach who wrote an article with a title that asks if selling an UltraViolet code is copyright infringement, but then the article itself doesn't answer the question or explore the actual law (because Zach doesn't grasp it). My head is still shaking on that one.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:09am

      Re:

      "The Ultaviolet codes are a license, not a "product". "

      As a matter of interest, where is this licence printed? Where do I agree to it before purchasing the product?

      "The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years. "

      Oh dear, still not getting it, are you? People can ALREADY do that quite legally with standard DVDs. Even with your moronic attempts to restrict DVDs, I'm quite happily able to use any DVD I wish on any device I own without breaking any laws.

      What you are doing is trying to play the game of removing our rights (stripping fair use rights to play DVDs back on Linux, for example) then trying to sell those rights back to us at an extra cost - restricted by DRM that won't let you play back on all the devices you won of course (if you have "too many" or favour systems that were not pre-approved).

      Sorry, but if being forced to pay extra to have my rights back in a restricted format is what you think is the future of the industry, you're already failed.

      "But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit."

      People believe that the things included in the package THEY PAID FOR are things they own and can resell? Wow, it's almost like this is how things have always been before you assholes tried to corrupt it...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 11:41am

        Re: Re:

        "Oh dear, still not getting it, are you? People can ALREADY do that quite legally with standard DVDs. Even with your moronic attempts to restrict DVDs, I'm quite happily able to use any DVD I wish on any device I own without breaking any laws."

        First off, Paul, you are an idiot, and you continue to prove it daily. I am not making any attempts at anything. I don't work in the movie or music business. These aren't my rules, my laws, or my business. I am a consumer, I would say "just like you" except I don't feel the need to pirate everything.

        "As a matter of interest, where is this licence printed? Where do I agree to it before purchasing the product?"

        It's one of the miracles of standard licensing, applied across an entire business - you know what you are getting up front. You are buying a license to a copyright product, and copyright laws apply. You don't have to do into a long winded recital of the T&C of copyright each time you sell the product, because it's meaningless to do so.

        "People believe that the things included in the package THEY PAID FOR are things they own and can resell? Wow, it's almost like this is how things have always been before you assholes tried to corrupt it..."

        Speaking of assholes, do you have anything else meaningless to add, asshole?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          JEDIDIAH, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:00pm

          The supremes dispatched this over 100 years ago.

          > You are buying a license to a copyright product, and copyright laws apply.

          No. You are buying a copy of something and copyright laws apply.

          Your attempts to grossly misrepresent the state of copyright doesn't alter this. You are trying to conflate a couple of really distinct situations in hopes we won't notice.

          Or perhaps you never managed to notice the relevant differences yourself.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "First off, Paul, you are an idiot, and you continue to prove it daily."

          Well, you certainly won't prove any of your claims, so I'm glad something's working! Straight into the personal attacks, I see, so kindergarten's out for the day again...

          "I don't work in the movie or music business."

          Well, you have the same obnoxious childish attitude, lack of reading comprehension and handle as someone else who was claiming to be in another thread. Maybe you should consider differentiating yourself from the failed corporate whores around here if you take objection to being mistaken for them?

          "I am a consumer, I would say "just like you" except I don't feel the need to pirate everything."

          Neither do I, unless your fantasy world has managed to finally conjure up some proof that I don't. I certainly have provided proof that I do pay (which you and those like you conveniently ignore every time it's presented).

          Maybe you should stop assuming that everybody who disagrees with you is a pirate, then maybe you can take part in adult debate?

          "It's one of the miracles of standard licensing"

          Where do I read this "standard licence" for something that didn't exist until very recently and is not printed somewhere I can read it in-store before I purchase a product?

          "You don't have to do into a long winded recital of the T&C of copyright each time you sell the product, because it's meaningless to do so."'

          Not if I wish to make an educated decision as to whether or not to buy a product, as the guy in the article found out to his detriment. Sorry, I'll just buy something else that doesn't have this crap attached to it - I just want people like you to know that "piracy" has nothing to do with my decision not to buy. If you are indeed a consumer, why do you welcome the stripping away of your rights in ways that do nothing to stop piracy?

          "Speaking of assholes, do you have anything else meaningless to add, asshole?"

          Yeah, *your* comments are meaningful, aren't they?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JEDIDIAH, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 11:58am

      Contracts are very transferrable.

      > The Ultaviolet codes are a license, not a "product". They are a non-transferable license

      Doesn't matter. The license comes with a token of ownership. It is that token of ownership that is being resold. It just so happens that the token in question is a number written on a piece of paper.

      Contracts are very transferable.

      Trying to pretend that creative works are something that they are not is a dangerous game. Things like contracts and property have very well established precedents. They are foundational elements of our economy and society. There are very rich and powerful people that will resist attempts to pervert them.

      Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:03pm

      Re:

      The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years


      Except that it's what we've been "whining about". Yes, the ability to move legal content form device to device is a critically important thing. The thing is that UV doesn't actually allow that. It lets you kinda move content form some devices to some devices.

      But even if it were actually universal, it would still fail in that it requires you to phone home to a central controlling authority. No moving to devices that can't contact the internet or if you're in a place where the internet is unavailable. You also lose more than a little privacy. Also, it's very intrusive and by all reports it barely works.

      UV is a step in the direction of good policy, but is falls far short of being anything like good policy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        AzureSky (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re:

        UV is the first step in "pay per view" business model, the content industry has been salivating over for decades.

        if they can eventually charge you for each time you or anybody else views content on your device they will.

        I have actually listened to some of these people talk about that as one of their dreams for the future.

        its not just the movie industry the music industry has wanted this for a long time as well, they think it will be a giant cash cow allowing them to make even more obscene amounts of money each year.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, I understand this.

          they think it will be a giant cash cow allowing them to make even more obscene amounts of money each year


          And they are wrong. UV is awful, and consumers will react with massive indifference.

          They could make such a scheme work in theory, but they'd have to come up with something that brings real value to the consumer. UV does not.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws.org (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:05pm

        Re: Re:

        UV is a step in the direction of good policy

        I still think it's a ploy to eradicate personal copies under fair use rights.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 3:18pm

      Re:

      They are a non-transferable license


      If so, that makes the case even weaker. Unless the licensing agreement is on the package with a "you agree if you've opened the box" kind of deal, then I've not agreed to any license at all. The only way the UV "license" could kick in is if I actually used it. Until that moment, it simply doesn't apply to me.

      I contract (which is what a license agreement is) cannot by applied unilaterally. All parties bound by it must agree to be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    The item in question here is an unused code for an ultraviolet movie. Now, I can understand, from a licensing perspective that I disagree with, that ultraviolet wouldn't want people selling their accounts for a single movie. This would be a violation of the TOS. However, an unused code could potentially get applied to anyone's account. If this is my first experience with ultraviolet, and my research indicates that I don't want to deal with it, what would stop me from selling this unused code, so that someone else can get that title added to their account's library? I still have no ultraviolet account, you can't claim that I commited copyright infringement, as I only gave away the series of letters and numbers that would grant access to a copyrighted work uner a limited set of circumstances. I can buy a movie, and sell it, if it's the physical media, as once I've sold it, I no longer have access to it. With the code, since it's one time use only, once it's sold, assuming I didn't use it first, and the person who buys it uses is, I still have no further access to it, as it is now worthless. Ebay is in the wrong on this. If they want, they can ban selling ultraviolet accounts themselves, and act as a police force for the studios, but this was just plain ignorance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 2:31pm

    Is “Intellectual Property” Property, Or Isn’t It?

    On the one hand they argue that copyrights and patents are just like property, and should be treated exactly like property.

    On the other hand, when I buy a piece of “intellectual property”, it turns out it’s not my “property” at all, to do with as I would any other piece of my property, like resell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws.org (profile), Apr 23rd, 2012 @ 10:14pm

      Re: Is “Intellectual Property” Property, Or Isn’t It?

      Didn't you know, the rightsholders simply want to have their cake and eat it too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    indieThing, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Just thinking, the license T&Cs are probably only viewed if you try and install the UV software. If you agree to this, then the license is valid, up to that point you can do what the hell you like with the UV code.

    That's how I'd view it, as being in the UK, we had a precedent setting case in the courts where just opening a box is not committing you to any license unless you've read and agreed to the terms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Edward Elsner, Jun 2nd, 2012 @ 5:32am

    others are selling codes fine

    Family Video is selling the codes for $1.50 to $3.00 at
    http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/browse_genre.php?browse_id=255

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Doug, Oct 27th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    I am going to flip this around and see what you all think. I actually enjoy flickster works great on my Asus tranformer. So I took a stack of DVDs to Walmart and purchased UV copy for DVDs that didn't even come with a UV code. Once they add the movie to my UV account they stamp the DVD so it can't be used for someone elses UV account. Keep in mind I can have unlimited devices and 5 users on my UV account.

    So now that I have my UV DVD copy is it legal for me to sell the used DVD it's stamped so they can get UV version anymore. There is nothing in the copy write agreement that says I can't sell my original copy used DVD's.

    Keep in mind with UV copy I can stream the movie and I can download it to my devices such as my 3Tb network storage which is connected to my TV.

    Most of the DVD's in my collection were purchased used for a few bucks from the family video store before it closed.

    How stupid are these people that offer things like UV copy? I think they become blinded at the idea of making an couple more bucks off a movie they have already sold.

    Whats the old saying cut your nose off to spite your face.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    LostOnTheLine, Oct 27th, 2012 @ 5:05pm

    Well, "technically" you are not allowed to sell a DVD or VHS or BluRay or whatever that you've already watched. That isn't enforced however, & isn't likely to ever successfully be so. The movies are ones that you own, they're getting a few extra $$$ for it &, mor importantly, supporting the UV format. If you have your old movies in UV, you're more likely to buy new ones in UV or pay more for the Disk that has UV included.
    As far as selling the disk; no, it would be illegal to do so, but would never be an issue unless you were investigated for something else. Then they would see that the license for that UV was a copy from disk & would ask you to produce the disk. If you were unable to they could add it to your list of offenses. Alone it would never stand, but with others it would. Just like how I have to delete any DVD Rips I made if I get rid of the DVD or, when I rip an Audiobook & then trade it on Paperbackswap.com, I will put it on a CD (It takes me time to make) & include it with the disk I send. Removing it from my computer. I don't really have to worry about it since I don't download movies or rip rented disks so I would never be investigated, but I like having my Ts crossed. Sounds like you have more to worry about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Doug, Oct 28th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    No, it is legal. Under the "first sale doctrine" of copyright law (US Code 17 USC 109), you can publicly display and sell your copy of a copyrighted work that you legally obtained. If the copy was bootleg when you got it, you cannot display or sell it. You can buy and sell used CDs, LPs, 45s, 78s, 8-track, cassettes, DAT, video tapes, home movies, DVDs, floppies, memory sticks, zip disks, memory cards, etc, at flea markets or in a retail shop, unless you have reason to know they are stolen or contain forged or bootleg copies of unauthorized origins.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dexter, Apr 9th, 2014 @ 4:31pm

    Copyright law is legalized theft by the corrupt entertainment industry

    So i can buy the blu ray single disc version or i can pay EXTRA for the blu ray plus uv code version AND i can sell the blu ray AND uv copy as a bundle BUT not separately????? This is madness- why does the corrupt entertainment industry think it can tell people what to do with things they have already bought and already own? If i bought a car nobody is telling me its copyright infringement if i lend it somebody or if i sell the cd player out of it!!!!!
    The whole copyright thing is a corrupt way of big companies trying to rip people off of for as much money as they can. They will throw money at corrupt governments to get what they want in legislation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This