The MPAA filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles today against operators of the movie-streaming service Zediva, which the movie studio organization says illegally streams movies to its customers without obtaining required
licenses, a violation of the studios’ right to “publicly perform” their works. Zediva claims it is like a brick-and-mortar DVD “rental” store and therefore not obligated to pay licensing fees to copyright holders. But the MPAA says Zediva is a video-on-demand service that transmits movies over the Internet using streaming technologies in violation of the studios’ copyrights. “Zediva’s mischaracterization of itself is a gimmick it hopes will enable it to evade the law and stream movies in violation of the studios’ exclusive rights,” said Dan Robbins, SVP and Associate General Counsel for the MPAA. “Courts have repeatedly seen through the façade of this type of copyright-avoidance scheme, and we are confident they will in this case too.”


If they like a traditional brick and mortar rental operation, do they charge/collect taxes and submit them to the state government?
Or, in that argument, are they more of the modern on-line streaming service?
Anybody else get the distinct feeling that the more the MPAA shouts and stamps its feet, the less legal support they actually have for their case?
For instance, what happens if/when there is a one-to-one correlation of owned-DVD to streamed-DVD?
Granted, such an arrangement wouldn’t scale well but it would still make a potentially huge library available to stream-receivers (a la Netflix without the licensing fees).
At that point, I wonder if the MPAA has a non-BS legal leg to stand on.
I get the distinct feeling the MPAA is trying awfully hard to BS its way around the actual, you know, law…
Why does the MPAA deserve licensing fees? They already got paid when they showed the movie in the theaters?
I am glad they are busted. Netflix is having a tough enough time that it does not need UNLICENSED competition.
Zediva seems to be in the clear since the physical media is being used and being taken out of circulation during the time of the rental. Maybe the MPAA should focus on figuring out a way to make it not cost $50 for two people to spend a night at the movies before they fight this shit.
I have season tickets to the LA Kings and it costs me LESS money to go to a hockey game or Dodger game than go to a movie. As usual the MPAA is mentally handicapped when it comes to these things. When dinner and a movie went from being a cheap date to an expensive night out the industry jumped the shark.
Maybe it’s time for the theater chains to sell season passes – allowing the holder to see one movie a week for 52 weeks at a reduced discount!
They don’t own the ‘work’; it’s private property. Go steal your neighbors cars. Morons.
You don’t own the right to distribute a film simply because you bought a copy of the DVD at WalMart.
Sure you do. The studios were very clear that only one payment needs to be made and then a movie/TV show can be replayed forever with no additional payments. That’s the new business model. Pay once, play forever for free. Zediva is in the clear.
Actually, you do. It’s called First-Sale doctrine.
The problem is that they’ve created the same end-user experience of streaming, while still technically following the legality of brick-and-mortar rental operations.
I’ll be watching this case with great interest.
But the “First Sale Doctrine” applies to a physical item being rented,exchanged or sold.
The “peep show” system Zediva is using is not the same thing. They are transmitting the content over the internet by streaming.
The “First Sale Doctrine” didn’t help those outfits doing the “clean” versions of Films by selling an “official” DVD with the clean edit.