You'd think that movie companies would like it when people want to rent and watch their movies -- but surprise, surprise, only if it's on their terms. Universal has been fighting, for some time, with Redbox, the company whose kiosks rent DVDs for $1 per night, trying to get the company to sign a contract that would hamper its business model, while working on rental kiosks of its own. The WSJ is reporting that Universal asked a court to toss out Redbox's lawsuit over the contract last week, and that Redbox had to resort to "new acquisition strategies" in order to get a hold of the recent Universal release Wanted. Redbox wouldn't elaborate on those strategies, but it sounds as if Universal and its distributors cut the company off, as the studio had threatened. So once again, we're left with a company that's innovated in the movie space and delivered a product to consumers in a way they like, at a price they love. But since it didn't come from a movie studio, Universal wants to cut the company off. Once again, it's puzzling exactly how Universal can think that keeping people from seeing its movies can be good for its business.

A few years ago, after realizing that blaming consumers wasn't a particularly effective strategy in covering up for the entertainment industry's own inability to adapt to a changing market, industry insiders chose a new strategy: blame ISPs. That sent them down a path of trying to force ISPs to do a variety of things, such as installing filters, policing their networks for copyright-infringing material and, of course, kicking users off their networks. In the mind of entertainment industry execs, a failure to do any of these things should be a crime. Note how the industry totally shifts responsibility here. Rather than admitting that they should change with the market, it's always someone else who needs to change to protect the entertainment industry's obsolete business model.

While the industry has been able to get some politicians and ISPs to agree (amazingly, often against their own best interests), it's now gone a step further. A bunch of the biggest movie studios (Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, and the Seven Network) have teamed up to sue Australia's largest ISP, iiNet, for failing to stop copyright infringement. iiNet, you may recall, is the same ISP that has been mocking the Australian government for requiring filters. So, naturally, it's response to this lawsuit is rather direct. While the studios complain that iiNet isn't doing anything, iiNet responds that this is not true at all. They pass each complaint on to the police, because if there's a crime, then the police should deal with it:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

We are not traffic cops. We can't stand in the middle of it and stop the individual items that might be against the law. These guys are asking us to be judge, jury and executioner.

Even better, iiNet's CEO Michael Malone gets to the heart of the matter:

I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it. And it doesn't exist.

Indeed, but that might mean that the entertainment industry has to actually take responsibility for their own business model failings, and they can't do that. So they have to blame others.

I have to admit that when I first heard about the whole Redbox concept of renting DVDs from a kiosk I was skeptical, but that was mainly because previous experiments had all been quite expensive with very limited selection. However, in actually offering super cheap prices ($1 rentals), I've been hearing from many Techdirt readers who swear that Redbox is fantastic and, at such a cheap price, often easier than downloading the movie.

So, wouldn't you know it? Hollywood is trying to block Redbox from doing business.

The company has filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios for trying to coerce the company into signing a ridiculous, business-destroying agreement -- and threatening to try to stop others from supplying Redbox movies if the company didn't agree. Specifically, Universal wanted Redbox to agree to:

• wait 45 days after a DVD's release date before renting it;
• pay a royalty of 40% of gross rental revenues;
• promise that prices never dip below $0.99 per night; and
• destroy all previously rented DVDs rather than offering them for purchase for $7, as Redbox currently does.

In other words, Universal Studios is basically trying to kill off Redbox, a company that has innovated in its business model, and, in doing so, effectively trying to circumvent the first sale doctrine by controlling how a copyrighted product can be resold. Universal threatened that if Redbox did not agree to these business-destroying clauses, it would stop supplying movies to any distributor who supplies Redbox. Effectively, that would mean that those distributors would stop supplying Redbox, rather than lose Universal as a supplier. This is, quite clearly, a case of corporate bullying. It's also yet another example of how the movie studios want to stop any innovation in the industry that doesn't come directly from the studios.

Imeem, a social networking site that was in the recording industry's crosshairs earlier this year for allowing file-sharing on its network, has pulled off an impressive feat. This summer it settled its lawsuit with Warner Music by promising to give Warner a cut of advertising revenues from the site. Now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that it's signed similar deals with all four major labels, meaning that Imeem is now the first website whose users have the music industry's blessing to share music for free. What's especially striking about this is that for the last decade, the fundamental principle of the labels' business strategy is that sharing music without paying for it is stealing. They drove Napster, AudioGalaxy, Grokster, Kazaa, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing services out of business on that basis. As we pointed out way back in 2000, all this accomplished was to drive file-sharing underground where the recording industry couldn't get a cut of the profits. Had they approached Napster in 2000 the way they approached Imeem this year, they could have been collecting ad revenue from every file-sharing transaction over the last seven years. Instead, they wasted a lot of money on lawsuits, angered a lot of their customers, and ultimately still had to concede that music sharing might be OK as long as they get a cut. The only significant difference between Napster and Imeem is that Imeem only allows you to play music on its website, whereas Napster allowed you to download songs to your hard drive. But this isn't as big of a difference as it might appear at first glance. The Imeem website doesn't provide a "download" button, but there's no DRM involved, and it's quite easy to download music files from Imeem using third-party tools. And because Imeem's site doesn't use DRM, Imeem downloading tools are probably legal under the DMCA. So what we have here is the de facto legalization of Napster-like sites, as long as the record labels get a cut of the advertising revenue. It's an exciting development, albeit one that should have happened seven years ago.

Well, this could get interesting. Following the leak of MediaDefender's emails, the folks behind The Pirate Bay now believe they have enough evidence to sue many major entertainment firms for "infrastructural sabotage, denial of service attacks, hacking and spamming." Basically, there's evidence in the emails that a bunch of firms, including Universal, EMI, Sony, Paramount and others were using MediaDefender to try to mess with The Pirate Bay's system. Whether or not the lawsuit actually goes anywhere may depend on a lot of factors (including Swedish laws, which I am totally unfamiliar with). There may be some questions about how the emails in question were obtained. And, of course, the entertainment companies will likely counter that they were just trying to protect their own materials -- which could find a sympathetic ear in a courtroom. Either way it would be quite a lawsuit.

It never made sense that the various record labels and music publishers sued record label Bertelsmann for the Napster affair. Yes, it's true that Bertelsmann was the only major record label to view Napster as an opportunity rather than a threat. And it's true that Bertelsmann invested quite a bit of money into Napster. But, the other record labels' misguided complaint was with Napster -- not with Bertelsmann. The problem was that after winning the original Napster lawsuit, the other record labels realized that Napster had no money. So they sued Bertelsmann instead, for being the only record label with forward-thinking management to invest in Napster. However, it makes no sense to put any kind of liability on investors in a company. Otherwise, it would make life quite difficult for any investor today -- who could then be sued for the actions of the company he or she invested in. It would greatly increase the liability for retail investors as well as institutional investors. It's for that reason that it would have been nice to see Bertelsmann fight this case and win it.

Unfortunately, before the case had a chance to get anywhere, Universal Music (who was the first to sue Bertelsmann) bought Bertelsmann. Then, rather than sue itself, the company quickly settled that portion of the lawsuit and proceeded to settle the other portions as well, with the final part of the case finally settling late last week. Bertelsmann eventually had to pay out approximately $300 million in all of these "settlements," which is a real shame since all the company did was invest in a service that its executives (who were soon fired) realized could have revolutionized the music business. While these are all settlements, meaning that there's no court precedent, this could still encourage companies to sue investors in companies rather than the companies themselves. Venture capitalists and private equity firms might want to take note.

Universal Music announced a couple weeks back that it would begin selling DRM-free music -- but not through the iTunes Music Store, in a bid to undermine Apple's dominance in online music sales. As we pointed out, this wasn't likely to happen, since few people shop for music according to what label it's on, particularly when it's a huge one like Universal. The label now says that its unprotected tracks will be available from a few different sources: a new service called Gbox, and through Wal-Mart's online music store. Both will undercut Apple's price for DRM-free tracks by selling them for 99 and 94 cents respectively, but that's hardly likely to make a difference, particularly in attracting iPod users, nor will it help their businesses since the margins on digital music are already pretty thin. The problem remains that most people don't pay attention to what label their favorite performers are on. Saying "we sell DRM-free songs from Universal/EMI artists" isn't going to have much of an impact in getting people to switch from iTunes, but it does seem to illustrate that labels and other retailers are looking to compete with iTunes on this front, which should be good news for consumers. Still, the iTunes Music Store's dominance will remain until another retailer can somehow convince all the major labels and a wide array of indies to let it sell DRM-free music. As long as Apple's rivals can only use a piecemeal approach to get music they sell onto iPods, it's going to be a long, fruitless, uphill battle. Competing with iTunes on price is only part of the equation. Rivals have to also match its selection; then they have to worry about matching its ease of use as well.

We've had plenty of folks submitting to us the story that Eminem's publisher is suing Apple over Eminem songs available on iTunes. It's getting some play around the tech news and tech blog world, but everyone seems to be missing the key point. Eminem's publisher is suing the wrong party. No one denies that Universal Music Group, who distributes Eminem's music, gave Apple permission to sell his songs on iTunes. What's in dispute is if Universal had that right in the first place. In other words, it's a contractual issue between Eminem's publisher, Eight Mile Style, and Universal. Suing Apple seems to just be for the publicity of it. However, what this does demonstrate is how ridiculous it is whenever anyone presents the RIAA's views as "the music industry's views." The RIAA represents the labels, and not the musicians and not the music publishers in many cases -- all of whom have different goals. And, clearly, the label often does things that the other components of the music industry just don't like. However, it's a bit sad that Eminem's publisher has decided to sue Apple rather than the publisher with whom it has a distribution contract. In fact, the complaint is nearly identical to one that a bunch of bands filed last year. It's just that those bands (such as the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick) had their lawyers actually sue the record label (in that case, Sony Music), rather than Apple.