Netflix Rents Blockbuster "Exclusives"
Eric writes, "Netflix sent me 'The Protector' and at the beginning of the movie was a 5 second "ad" - This movie is only for sale, not for rental - something along those lines. Netflix is breaking the law?"
Netflix's rights to rent the movie are protected by the First Sale Doctrine, and the warning message is being contested in Massachusetts superior court.
So it looks like Netflix won't have any trouble getting around the exclusive Weinstein - Blockbuster exclusive rental agreement.
Actually, the trouble in getting around the exclusive rental agreement is finding copies of the films. I think The Protector was already up for pre-book when the agreement was announced, but future Weinstein DVD releases they will not be able to get from the distributor - the same problem that independent video stores will face, only for Netflix it will be on a much bigger scale.
Posted by: streeter | January 23, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Frankly I'd like to see NF bring suit against Weinstein for this practice.
Posted by: Hunter McDaniel | January 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I agree Hunter, although I'd prefer it if the government got involved (although I supposed we'll have to wait for the next administration to get someone in the oval office who isn't sitting on the lap of big business, whispering sweet nothings into their collective ear).
I don't know why Netflix doesn't put a sticker on the disc sleeve mentioning the suit and pointing out that they have done nothing wrong.
Posted by: hawk5391 | January 23, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Absolutely! We need bigger government, more government regulations and tons of lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. What a beautiful world that would be.
Posted by: Edward R Murrow | January 23, 2007 at 01:19 PM
Weinstein are asserting rights which, under copyright law, they do not have. And they are doing so in a manner designed to confuse the public and inhibit competition. I don't consider those issues frivolous at all.
Posted by: Hunter McDaniel | January 23, 2007 at 01:50 PM
"Weinstein are asserting rights which, under copyright law, they do not have."
Are you on crack? Of course they do. The movies are the sole property of TWC and they have the right to distribute them ANY way they so desire.
Posted by: vio | January 23, 2007 at 10:28 PM
"The movies are the sole property of TWC and they have the right to distribute them ANY way they so desire."
They don't have the right to restrict trade, or the first sale doctrine. Their exclusive deals should be prosecuted by the government under anti-trust laws. It's collusion. They have no right to stop Netflix or anyone from buying or renting them. Putting a warning on discs doesn't make what they're doing right.
Posted by: type-cast | January 24, 2007 at 01:53 AM
right now Blockbuster is renting out Sherrybaby (with Maggie Gyllenhaal) which is being put out by Red Envelope Entertainment - Netflix's DVD company.
Posted by: corey3rd | January 24, 2007 at 08:44 AM
A little off subject maybe - however, if you do rent The Protector from Netflix, skip the movie disk and only rent the Bonus disk. Why? the bonus disk has the original, uncut international version of the movie which is 27 minutes longer (110 minutes) than the radically gutted and choppy U.S. version (83 minutes) with only the fight scenes. You also get a 55 minute "making of feature." narrated by the director.
Posted by: CJ | January 24, 2007 at 11:02 AM
TWC does not want anyone else renting the movies to justify the HUGE cash guarentees that blockbuster is paying them for "exclusivity". If TWC does not want to distrubute their titles to video stores they may be fine to do that, if netflix wants to run down to Target and buy a ton of copies of "Bobby" or something and rent those out they are obviously able to do that under "first sale" but that may prove to be cost prohibitive.
Posted by: claming | January 25, 2007 at 01:22 AM