Federal Judge Slaps Down DVD Streaming Service Zediva With Injunction

Federal Judge Slaps Down DVD Streaming Service Zediva With Injunction

I KNEW I should have used my lingering Zediva credits! Apparently, a federal judge by the name of John F. Walter has slapped down Zediva (remember, the Netflix competitor that lets you rent a DVD and player and stream movies from that player via Internet) with an injunction citing that they "threaten the development of a successful and lawful video-on-demand market."

Federal Injunction Against Zediva

Say judge, you haven't seen that successful VOD market have you? It's a rockin place, you should visit sometime. But, as usual, I digress. While Zediva maintains that they lawfully buy and rent DVDs but just stream the content instead of sending the discs to people, the MPAA-approved press release calls them 'unlicensed.'

The following is a statement by Dan Robbins, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for the MPAA, in response to the ruling in Los Angeles:

Judge Walter's decision is a great victory for the more than two million American men and women whose livelihoods depend on a thriving film and television industry.  Judge Walter rejected Zediva's argument that it was 'renting' movies to its users, and ruled, by contrast, that Zediva violated the studios' exclusive rights to publicly perform their movies, such as through authorized video-on-demand services.

Wait, what? How is it really any different from actually sending the consumer a DVD? Either way, the digital content of the disc is only being displayed as per the user's request.

But it was this follow up comment that made me laugh aloud. Because it's total spin:

Movie fans today have more on-demand options than ever for watching films at home, from iTunes to Netflix to Amazon to Vudu to Hulu to the VOD offerings from cable and satellite operators. All these legitimate companies have obtained licenses from the copyright owners. The court found Zediva's service threatened the development of these lawful VOD and Internet-based services.

Of course, it's also entirely wrong. We now have one less option because of your narrow-mindedness and feelings of being threatened. Well done MPAA, see why most consumers still hate you?

Zediva plans to appeal the decision, and their website still appears to show that it's business as usual:

Federal Judge Slaps Down DVD Streaming Service Zediva With Injunction

Was Zediva Breaking The Law?

What I'm really curious about is the difference in what Zediva is doing, and what, say, Blockbuster is doing. Perhaps it's just a simple change of wording.

Actually from what I can see, no special licenses or copyright requirements exist in regards to renting videos for general home use. Since that is, in essence, what Zediva is doing (in a digital version of the lame, old by-mail physical format) how can they be wrong? I mean, Blockbuster didn't get shot down (they shot themselves in the foot), Hollywood video and every mom and pop shop in the country is doing exactly the same thing, right? They're buying DVDs and then renting them out for performance in the home.

So Zediva is buying DVDs, putting them into DVD player and sending the digital stream to a person's TV or computer. The only difference is the physical location of the DVD and the player...it's really just like a massively long HDMI cable, is it not?

This is certainly an interesting predicament. Zediva is not actually changing the format of the product so they're not violating the copyright law in that respect. They're simply changing the delivery of that information, so, again I ask you, how can that be illegal?

Don't Miss Out - Join Our VIP Video Marketing Community!
Get daily online video tips and trends via email!
About the Author -
Christophor Rick is a freelance writer specializing in technology, new media, video games, IPTV, online video advertising and consumer electronics. His past work has included press releases, copy-writing, travel writing and journalism. He also writes novel-length and short fiction as part of Three-Faced Media . View All Posts By -

What do you think? ▼
  • http://www.SEOLinkTagstic.com Steven W.

    Very interesting. Two thoughts come to mind. In the landmark Veoh litigation (which brought Veoh to bankruptcy) the courts found that it was not defacto copyright infringement alone to transcoding +/- distribute. However, in this case, individual DVDs are being licensed and it's not likely that the site is buying + burning + transcoding + distributing the content in a 1:1 relationship to actual physical DVDs purchased. Thus, IMO, even if they were to pay the purported licensing costs, there is an apparent or potential disparity there from the perspective of the copyright holder.

  • Christophor Rick

    Actually, the whole point of Zediva is that you can only rent the DVD when it is not physically being used. They have DVD players and DVDs and one of each is needed to rent the DVD. Therefore it is no different than going to Blockbuster, getting a DVD player and a DVD and going home. Well, the difference is that the disc and player are in the Zediva data center and the video signal is streamed to you. So it's like a 2000 mile HDMI cable :)

  • jonny

    so sad!! i am a zediva customer, and actually just finished watching a movie on zediva! greedy hollywood is just mad because of the price. They want to keep rentals at $6 a pop. I hope a higher court overthrows this decision as the judges comments seem to have no legal arguments, just huge bias. I will in the mean time go back to illegally downloading movies that makes hollywood ZERO profit.

  • yousuck

    i will also keep watching crackle.com and no longer rent movies from the redbox till this nonsence stops, greedy hollywood , you suck