Inside Redbox is the #1 "Unofficial" Redbox Online Community for Redbox Codes, News and more. Inside Redbox is not affiliated with Redbox Automated Retail, LLC.

passinterferenceJust when you thought the bad blood and acrimony between Redbox and “The Hollywood Three” couldn’t get any worse, the kiosk vendor is now claiming that Fox and Warner are stifling its only remaining method of of obtaining the studios’ new release titles.

According to Home Media Magazine, Redbox has amended its court filings in its lawsuits against Fox and Warner with complaints that the two studios are ordering major retailers such as Walmart, Best Buy and Target to only allow Redbox representatives to purchase three copies of new release titles.

In the amended complaints filed on November 30, Redbox makes the following accusations against Warner, which are essentially similar to its complaints against Fox:

“Warner representatives contacted not only VPD and Ingram, but also numerous other distributors and retailers of DVDs, seeking confirmation that they would agree not to sell new-release DVDs to Redbox during the 28-day blackout period … Warner continues to seek agreement with, and cooperation from, major wholesalers and retailers to prevent sales of new-release DVDs to Redbox.”

These accusations raise several questions, not all of which are answered in the filings. What, exactly, is Redbox’s proof that such interference is being perpetrated by the studios? Are the studios violating First-Sale Doctrine by trying to dictate to retailers what they can do with their purchased DVDs, or are these limits already part of existing policy at some retailers? Are the Redbox employees identifying themselves in some manner (i.e., a corporate credit card) when they purchase titles?
buy amitriptyline online no prescription

Perhaps the discovery process will reveal more facts. In the meantime, give us your take on this new development in the comments.
buy lasix online no prescription

[via Home Media Magazine]

75 Responses to “Redbox Claims DVD Retail Interference from Fox and Warner”

  1. Visitor [Join Now]
    FooBar [visitor]

    This is truly a fight between Hollywood and the Consumer..not Redbox.
    Consumer loves cheap DVD rentals, Hollywood cannot sell their movies for $ attack the messenger.

  2. Visitor [Join Now]
    FooBar [visitor] that Blockbuster-NCR in the $1 kiosk business, Hollywood has to start raising its white flag

    • Visitor [Join Now]
      John Small [visitor]

      Blockbuster has already said they would comply with a delay to their new releases if requested to do so in their kiosks. Looks like Redbox is the one who will have to raise the white flag here.

      • Visitor [Join Now]
        Ted Nuggent [visitor]

        Actually, Redbox said they would comply with a delay as long as it was imposed on every rental company.

        Seems they are being fair to me.

        • Visitor [Join Now]
          John Small [visitor]

          But Redbox wants special deals so that they do not have to pay the same price as other rentailers. Most rentailers are happy paying the studios what they want for their titles. Redbox wants them much cheaper because they want to charge $1.00 for a rental.

          Redbox wants their cake and to eat it too.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            acdahl [visitor]

            Of course they want to have their cake and eat it, too. So do the studios, so does BB, so does everybody. That is irrelevant.

            Somebody, somewhere decided to sell Redbox movies at a certain price that made the distribution model succesful for Redbox. Along the way, Redbox got big. Somebody, somewhere else decided that they goofed and gave Redbox too good of a deal and wanted some of the revenue that was missed out on. So, they changed the rules and tried to impose restrictions specific to Redbox.

            Who is right and who is wrong? Redbox for wanting to keep the same deal they had? The studios for wanting to maximize their profit?

            As a consumer, I want a deal. I don’t really care who it is from. BB just put a kiosk down the street from me, closer than any Redbox. If I want a movie, I will go there first because the price is the same ($1) and the convenience is evident. However, as an objective observer, it does seem rather lopsided that BB is now doing the same thing that they argued so heavily against. Aren’t they now devalue-ing by offering the same price point? And they are able to get around the embargo on certain studios.

            While this is not concrete evidence, one can infer that BB is in cahoots with these movie studios to purposefully hurt Redboxes business.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Redbox is in the wrong with their old deal since it nearly drove a major distributorship out of business which would of cost the studios 100s of millions of dollar in lost revenue.

            You can’t expect the studios to finance Redbox just because you want cheap movies.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            FesteAinoriba [visitor]

            You are full of it. Which studio do you work for?

            Redbox is NOT asking for “special deals so that they don’t have to pay the same price as other rentailers.” They are simply asking to be treated like any other independent “rentailer”. The reason that Redbox can rent for $1 a night a make money while still paying the SAME price (or even paying retail prices) that, say, Blockbuster pays is because they have used technology to establish a product delivery method that has extremely low overhead (no brick/mortar/utilities/store staff).

            No John, the studios want to impose stifling rules on kiosk rentailers (like waiting periods) that they don’t impose on bigbox rentailers. That is anti-competitive, amounts to price-fixing in order to sustain a less competitive business model.

            Why, you should ask, do the studios care who buys their videos? Why are they trying to tilt the playing field to give Blockbuster and Hollywood an unfair advantage? What is in it for the studios?
            Their explicit argument is: availability of $1/night rentals will induce people who would have otherwise bought the dvd to just rent it. This is a red herring. It is the same argument that they used to try to prevent the rental business in the first place (and lost under antitrust statutes). If I’m unlikely to pay $20 for a movie that I can rent for $1/night, I’m also unlikely to pay $20 for a movie that I can rent for $4 for 5 nights (hell, I only really need it one night anyway).

            No, the real reason that the studios are resisting redbox is the same reason that they attempted to stifle the independent rentailers in the early 2000’s (and lost). It is because they get profit sharing from blockbuster, but they get none from the independents.

            By the way, If you were paying attention, you would notice that Redbox is charging more than Blockbuster or Hollywood video on a per night basis. The problem is that Blockbuster won’t let me do online rentals and that they make me rent the movie for 5 days.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            acdahl [visitor]

            Wow, John. You are embarassingly biased. Redbox did not force the deal it has now. When they started, they had no leverage.

            Any distributorship that went or almost went out of business can really only blame themselves. They either had a bad business model, made bad deals or had bad leadership. Blaming outside businesses is petty and shows a lack of responsibility.

            As far as the studios potentially losing millions, maybe they shouldn’t have their eggs in one basket or they could show some fiscal responsibility and restraint, instead of giving every Tom, Dick and Uwe Boll millions to produce a crapfest that no one wants to see.

            The studios financing Redbox? Hardly. Redbox is financing the studios. They buy the product. Who they buy the product from is their issue.

            And let’s not forget that Blockbuster is now offering $1 a night movies in their kiosks. Are the studios now financing BB? And if they are, why can’t they also finance Redbox or Joe’s Movie Kiosk?

            Your logic is circular and you only use it when it suits you. Do you work for the IRS, too?

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Consumer [visitor]

            Regardless which side you are on in this, Redbox is and has asked for special pricing. But all retailers ask for special pricing. We all know that Wal-Mart pays a different price to the owner of whatever the product is than the little mom and pop store does down the street for the same item whether it is a gallon of milk from a dairy or a DVD from a studio. Redbox is doing the same. They are asking for special pricing to fit their model from each studio. And like any business, some studios agree to it, and some don’t. That’s not illegal. Does it seem fair, not really but then again capitalism is hardly a fair game.

            Ongoing I do believe that you will see Redbox struggle with getting product, meeting customer demand and trying to keep the price low. I don’t see this being resolved anytime soon. Redbox will try different avenues from buying DVD’s from retailers, raising prices, and other ways to keep customers happy.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Guys, I’m not biased. It is just that I have the proper info.

            You want to be a Redbox fanboy, fine. But the facts are that Redbox was getting a sweetheart deal from a distributor that nearly put that distributor into bankruptcy. The studios had to step in to stop that deal since it would have cost them money and a distribution source.

            Redbox is on record as having said they were getting special pricing that allowed them to rent movies at $1.00 a night.

            But that price is not viable for the industry. So Redbox is the one that has to change.

            Their $2.00 for the first night model has seen reduced rental levels but an overall increase in income. It is good for the company, good for the industry and good for consumers.

            I hope they roll out the new price early in the new year before Redbox has to declare bankruptcy.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Susie [visitor]

            This is not true, redbox has not tried to get the dvds from the hollywood three at lower prices, they pay the same as everyone else. They just rent them for less. Renting for less equals more. More people are willing to pay $1 than $4, so more people renting at a lesser price means more business and more money for redbox.

            its a good business model, the big three just don’t like that they didn’t come up with the idea and want to squash big business!!

            The big three suck and should be boycotted!!

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Again, your facts are incorrect. Redbox had a deal in place that had them paying substantially less per copy than any other rentailer in the industry.

            Redbox is currently balking at paying full price for their titles which is why the big 3 will not sell to them.

            If Redbox was willing to pay full cost then the studios would sell to them. The only problem is that Redbox cannot make any money if they pay full cost.

            That is why they need to raise their price to $2.00 for the first day and settle with the studios who have rightfully prevented Redbox from destroying their industry.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            confused [visitor]

            I am confused with John Small comment saying that redbox wants a special deal (and not paying the “full” price). So, by not dealing with the studios, Redbox has to go to Walmart, etc. How does this make sense? Are you implying that the price the studios want is actually more than Walmart’s price?

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]

            John is wrong. Redbox is suing for the same terms that the studios sell to blockbuster video. In fact, they are offering better terms to partner studios than blockbuster because they agree to destroy rather than sell their surplus product at diminished prices (something that the studios should appreciate).
            See the following article in Forbes for what RB wants:

            The reality is that Blockbuster gets special per dvd pricing because they buy in volume. All Redbox wants is access to the same terms.

            The reality is that Blockbuster has much higher overhead than Redbox. Redbox franchises are independently owned and operated and do not require them to be continuously manned during business hours. Nor does redbox have real estate costs, nor do they have utility cost for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer and lighting. Technology creates opportunities for new market approaches and Redbox simple innovated. Blockbuster and other Brick ‘n’ Mortar stores are carriages in the new day of automobiles.

            Cutting through all of the smokescreen: the core of this dispute is that Blockbuster is 10’s of millions in debt to the studios and rapidly approaching bankruptcy. If they go bankrupt, the studios will lose those 10s of millions of dollars. PERIOD. Redbox has changed the market by creating a tough competitive standard and Blockbuster is a dinosaur threatened with extinction that the studios are trying to prop up through anti-competitive pricing structures: by refusing to sell to redbox at the same wholesale volume discount that they give to Blockbuster.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Mitch Lowe, as usual, is being disingenuous when he claims they pay the same price as Blockbuster.

            Redbox had an upfront cost that was similar but where their deal varied was that they had a guaranteed buyback from one of the distributors which substantially lowered the final price of their product.

            Sadly for Redbox, this created a massive glut of used DVDs that the distributor ended up losing money on because they were unable to sell them at a price to recoup their costs. This resulted in a near bankruptcy for the distributor. That would have cost the studios 100s of millions of dollars.

            This have nothing to do with saving Blockbuster. It has everything to do with perserving a reasonable marketplace in the rental arena so that the studios can sell their product.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            FesteAinoriba [visitor]

            Redbox is not suing to uphold the original terms of the Ingram deal. You know that. It is you and not redbox that is being disingenuous.

            They are specifically suing to be treated on equal footing with any other video rental buyer that buys in the same volume as redbox. You also know this is true, so why do you continue to lie about it? Are you affiliated with the studios or with Redbox’s competitors?

            The studios are intent on setting the rental price point, and are refusing to sell to redbox at the same volume rates and terms that they sell to Blockbuster. You also know this is true. The studios are offended by redbox’s $1/night rental fee (even though, ironically, Blockbuster’s nightly rate is even less).

            Your continued insinuation that Redbox is suing for better terms than is offered to Blockbuster is a transparent lie: Your assertion that anybody would file an antitrust case to get the courts to force the studios to give them a better deal than the studios give to any other rental company is absolutely absurd. If that had been the claim, the judge would have thrown out the antitrust suit.

            The fact that Ingram made a buyback agreement that stressed Ingram’s financial health is also totally irrelevant. Redbox has demonstrated flexibility on buyback terms by agreeing to destroy ALL Sony titles in their contract with Sony. You also know this, and you know that RB is willing to make similar agreements with all studios that will sell them wholesale product on the same terms as they sell to Redbox’s competitors.

            Your continued assertion that Redbox’s rental pricepoint is too low for them to profit is flatout wrong. They actually charge more per night than either Hollywood or Blockbuster, but the key to their high return/capital employed ratio is that they have such low operating expenses. Unlike the brick ‘n’ mortar stores, they don’t have the real estate fees, utility fees, store staff salaries/benefits that blockbuster has.

            That is why redbox’ profits continue to climb. Their revenue has increased 800% from 2007 to 2009. Their stock in 1998 was at around $5/share and is now floating in the mid/high $30/share. In the same timeframe, Blockbuster’s stock has dropped from the mid $30 range to just over a dollar per share and analysts predict Blockbuster may be bankrupt in a matter of a few months (some analysts predict their stock will get dumped to $0 by the end of the month.

            It is clearly Blockbuster that is up against the ropes, not Redbox whose 2009 return on capital employed (best measure of “profit”) is expected to nearly double its 2008 values. They would be even more profitable if the studios would stop tilting the wholesale playing field against them (forcing them to buy their product at retail prices).

            You did convince me of one thing though: that you are not what you pretend to be. I ask you again, “are you affiliated in any way with the studios or with any of Redbox’s competitors?’

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            I am not affiliated with the studios or any of Redboxes competitors.

            I do not hold investments in any of the studios, Redboxes competitors or Coinstar.

            You know full well why these lawsuits came about given the length of your posts.

            Redbox could have negotiated to buy their product at full wholesale cost if it wanted to do so.

            It refused to do so, demanding a much lower than wholesale cost instead.

            So the studios stepped in and cut them off at the wholesale level. Which they have the right to do.

            Redbox still has the ability to access all of the movies out there by paying retail for the titles.

            The retail cost at Wal-Mart is BELOW the wholesale cost that Redbox could have fairly expected to receive.

            Redbox seems to think they can dictate wholesale pricing to the studios. They made a big mistake in doing so. Now the big 3 won’t deal with them at all. Which is their right.

            Redbox is not being constrained in any way by the current market.

            There is no anti-trust. There is no conspiracy.

            You know this, yet you continue to obfuscate the facts in regards to Redbox and the Studios.

            This has nothing to do with Blockbuster. Blockbuster was sinking well before Redbox came around. The studios have been very careful in how they have dealt with Blockbuster. BB has to pay cash up front in many cases in order to get their movies.

            The simple facts are that Redbox does not want to pay what the studios want to charge. If they would play on a level playing field, then they would be able to get their movies. However they would go out of business if they tried to do that so they refuse to negotiate in good faith.

            The $1.00 model is broken at current wholesale/rev share levels. Redbox knows this. That is why they are trying to get a better deal. They have a right to do that but the studios also have the right to say no.

            Redbox loses on this one. Time for a new business model.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]

            From a Reuters article in March: “Edward Woo, Wedbush Morgan Securities, estimated that Blockbuster had spent $2.7 billion on product and inventory costs, which was mostly video games and DVDs, in 2007.

            As of the end of the third quarter, Woo said the company had about $900 million in accounts payable, including an undisclosed portion due to studios.

            It is unclear how much of that is owed directly to studios, but Woo estimated less than half.” ENDQUOTE

            Contrary to your assertion: Blockbuster is hundreds of millions in debt to the Studios in revenue sharing fees. The studios ARE competing with redbox via this entanglement with Blockbuster. And they ARE selling inventory to Blockbuster at lower costs than they sell to Walmart.

            The only fair market arrangement is to extricate themselves from the revenue sharing arrangement (so that they are not competing with the retail rental industry) and set the wholesale volume pricing consistent for all rentailers. Or, they can keep the revenue sharing, effectively buying into the rental industry; but to avoid monopolizing the rental market via unfair pricing for “their affiliates”, they have to then provide product to all at the reduced price structure that they allow their affiliates to buy.

            The studios tried to force rentailers (redbox in particular) to enter revenue sharing agreements in order to have access to the wholesale price structures that they give to their rental partners. That is anticompetitive and should not hold up under legal scrutiny.

            The legal argument against monopoly is the same whether we talk rental business or retail video. The studios cannot monopolize the retail market for its products by establishing a subsidiary retail business and then forcing aspiring competitors to pay higher acquisition costs than it provides to its own subsidiary retail units. It is not allowed to argue that the net “real” cost includes both the capitalization cost AND the profits. But that is exactly what they are trying to get away with on the rental side of the business.

            By setting an artificially low volume-wholesale pricepoint for companies that agree to make the studios a revenue sharing partner, they are stifling competition and attempting to monopolize the rental industry.

            If I do not agree to share my revenue with the mob, they send their goons to break my legs. If I do not agree to share revenue with the studios, they try to strangle my business by forcing me to buy inventory at higher prices than they give to their revenue-sharing partners.

            Again, my friend John Small, the studios are free to set the volume-based wholesale price scale. Nobody is trying to force them to sell a given volume at a lower price. But once they set the wholesale price structure, they CANNOT make revenue sharing a condition of entry without violating antitrust principles.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Redbox can have the wholesale price. It is higher than the price that Wal-Mart charges on the day of release.

            Redbox does not want the wholesale price. They want a price lower than wholesale. The only way you get that is if you agree to revenue share.

            That is why Blockbuster can get a lower overall price. Because they are willing to revenue share with the studios. If Redbox wants to revenue share then they can get a lower price.

            Studios do not have to agree to a revenue sharing price that is below what they want. If Redbox would agree to the same revenue sharing terms as Blockbuster then there would be no problem.

            But you know that they cannot because Blockbuster pays out over $1.00 per transaction in revenue share.

            That is the problem. Redbox wants to charge too little to be able to revenue share and then they complain that other people get a better price than they do.

            If they would raise their price to $2.00 for the first night, they would be able to keep the late fees (extra day fees) and just have to pay out a chunk of the first day (likely in the $1.20 to $1.40 range).

            The market simply does not support your assertion of unfairness towards Redbox.

            It is simply that Redbox wants to change the terms and the big 3 refuse to do so.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]


            You finally admit that the studios are charging a meaningfully lower price for their product to the retailers that partner with them. Those who refuse to give them a part of their rental income are blacklisted and forced to pay a higher price.

            That condition is the very reason that the court allowed the antitrust charge to stand.

            Redbox doesn’t have to prove collusion between the studios, only that the studios, via revenue sharing arrangements are effectively in the rental business via agent “rentailers”, are thus competing with Redbox while simultaneously giving subsidized market access to their partners to the detriment of their independent competition.

            The courts will eventually find that the studios’ attempt to mix rental revenue as an offset to wholesale pricing IS indeed an unfair monopolization practice in the rental industry.

            Forget the “rental” aspect for a moment and simply consider the studios as a wholesaler to retail sellers.

            What do you think would happen if the studios made a revenue sharing agreement with a (fictitious) business, “DVD Monster”, and sold DVDs to them at 75% of price they sell them to any other vendor. In return, the studios impose a revenue sharing agreement on DVD Monster for 1/4th of the revenue from their DVD sales.

            So if they sell a DVD for $10 to any retailer, DVD Monster gets it for $7.50. Suppose DVD Monster turns around and sells it for $12…giving the studio 1/4 of their sales revenue or $3.00. Thus the Studio makes $10.50 on the total transaction, and DVD Monster makes $2.50.

            But an independent retailer is forced to pay $10. If they set the same retail price that the studio/DVD Monster partnership charges to the consumer( $12.00), the independent only makes $2.00 on the transaction.

            Revenue sharing is thus demonstrated to bring the wholesaler into the retail business and to bias the retail market against independent retailers. Via revenue sharing, the studio creates what is known as a bias condition in the retail break-even price-point: their “partners” have a lower retail break-even price point than those who are independent retailers.

            The studios’ smoke and mirror approach at competing unfairly against independent retailers by pulling this revenue-sharing rabbit out of their hat and pretending that it isn’t anti-competitive will eventually catch up to them.

            The practice of giving a lower wholesale cost to any retailer that partners with the wholesaler results in monopolization of the market. Redbox, contrary to all the BS that you’ve been spouting is merely suing to have the same access to the wholesale prices that the studios give to their tacit partners, but without having to make the studio partners. If the courts do not find in Redbox’s favor on this, then the studios have an essential monopoly on their market and can adjust the variance between partner and independent wholesale prices to control the final retail market price. THAT is what is wrong with allowing the studios to get away with setting different wholesale prices for their partners vs. for independents.


          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]

            Yes I know that I screwed up the calculation. There is a difference in the anticompetitive effects for retail vs. rental. The fact remains that when a wholesale business competes in the retail sales with independent distributers, it can use a practice called predatory pricing to drive other competitors out of the market.

            In the rental business, what the studios are effectively doing is trying to punish any independent that refuses to bring them in as a partner – making it more difficult for anybody who refuses to payolla to the studio mob.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            The problem Redbox has proving that this stance in anti-competitve and restrictive is that there are 1000s of small video stores buying DVDs at retail outlets (Wal-Mart, Best Buy) and making a living doing it.

            Just because Redbox can`t make a profit doing that does not make it anti-competitve.

            This is getting thrown out of court and Redbox will have to cover the legal costs. That will be 10s of millions of dollars.

            They would do better to settle quickly with the studios, raise their prices and make nice.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]

            Come on John, Redbox doesn’t need to prove they can’t survive on a tilted playing field, only that it is tilted in favor of those who bring the studios in as rental business partner via revenue sharing deals. Can you spell “predatory” pricing? Of course independents can survive – they just have to rent the video’s at a higher price to cover their increased costs. This is how the studio protects its inefficient partners: by forcing non-partners to have to sell at a higher price to survive.

            Essentially, this revenue sharing entanglement is the means by which the studios seek control over the DVD rental price point and thus clearly are attempting to short circuit the first sale doctrine restrictions that were designed to prevent the studios from controlling after-sale uses, revenues and price points.

            The supreme court found that the studios have no right to control how the product is used after first sale – this includes rental price structures. Revenue sharing mandates to access special wholesale rates are a direct attempt at asserting the very kind of control that the supreme court found unacceptable.

            You refuse to acknowledge that revenue sharing deals puts the studios in direct competition with independent renters, and in effect is yielding, to itself and its agents, a subsidized wholesale price that chills competition. Hopefully the courts won’t be so blind.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            So is your argument actually that because revenue sharing exists the studios are in an anti-trust situation?

            That is the most preposterous thing I have heard on this board.

            You should be in charge of the Redbox defence!

            Here are the simple facts. When renting DVDs you can either:

            1) Buy the DVD outright


            2) enter into a revenue sharing agreement

            No one forces you to do either. It is called capitalism.

            Both can exist without conflict. It’s like leasing a car or buying it outright.

            The most amazing thing is that Redbox has already entered into revenue sharing agreements with several studios. Those studios, in return, got to provide Redbox with a disproportionate number of DVDs in relation to the actual market share of those companies.

            Likely a good deal for the smaller studios but it does mean that Redbox does not have the space to provide proper coverage for the Big 3’s titles. That also means that they have no negotiation room left. Shot themselves in the foot for a short term gain. Another reason Lowe needs to go.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]

            No John,
            I never said that revenue sharing BY ITSELF constitutes antitrust. But, if the studios are going to enter into revenue sharing arrangements with some retailers, that makes them tacit partners with, say, Blockbuster.

            It is antitrust when they provide access to the wholesale product at at a discounted price (subsidized) to Blockbuster (making them agents for the studios in the rental market) but refuse to give the same volume-based price access to independent retailers. I know that you insist that Redbox can access the same discounted wholesale prices by signing revenue sharing; but this would change them from being independent retailers. The whole point of antitrust laws is to preserve independent competition in the retail market. Via subsidized wholesale discounting, The studios compete in the rental market via their agents with an advantage over mom and pop rental stores and redbox and netflix, etc…

            The supreme court, in the famous betamax case, has told the studios that they cannot control the retail video rental market: the fact of rental, rental prices, sales prices, etc…

            They are trying to backdoor this restraint via being in the rental business through agents (using revenue sharing) AND giving worse terms to those who refuse to share profits with them. It is the COMBINATION of revenue sharing arrangements AND different (more favorable )wholesale pricepoints to their rental agents that constitutes anticompetitive behavior.

            To perhaps make it easier for you to see: Suppose the studios would provide wholesale access to Blockbuster for a new release at $2.00 per DVD, but would only sell to an independent retailer (like Redbox) for $85.00 per DVD. Do you see any kind of predatory pricing/monopolization/antitrust issue with that? What about at $3.00 for Blockbuster but $50 for independent retailers? It might be easier to see that under such extremes, “sure” that would be predatory and gives an unfair retail market advantage to the Studios’ partners. Ok, let me ask you, “at what price difference does the practice NOT entail tilting the playing field in favor if its rental business agents? “

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            I’m sure you know that independant rentailers do have access to revenue sharing with the studios at levels quite similar to what Blockbuster gets.

            Redbox could get access to this as well, they only have to raise their price for the first day.

            So once again, no anti-trust.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Feste Ainoriba [visitor]

            John, John, John,
            Saying that independents have access to the same revenue sharing arrangements that those who’ve signed revenue sharing agreements have is a contradiction of terms.

            Any ‘independent’ retailer that signs a revenue sharing agreement is no longer an independent retailer.

            There is strong precedent in case law regarding the wholesale provider of a commodity who is deemed to have a retail presence in the market for that service or commodity.
            The antitrust precedence for such cases is enforced by proscribing the wholesale provider from subsidizing the wholesale access to the product or service to its agents or subsidiary units (which is EXACTLY what the studios are doing). The wholesale side of the business MUST provide access to the wholesale commodity at the same price structure offered to its revenue generating retail agents.

            The most ubiquitous example is that of AT&T. To prevent AT&T from a monopoly position, the courts forced AT&T to sell access to its product to INDEPENDENT telecommunication companies(MCI, SPRINT, etc…) at the same wholesale rate that it gives to its revenue generating retail subsidiaries. AT&T is most definitely NOT allowed to sell wholesale access at a different rate to revenue sharing partners, nor should it be. This limitation is what keeps the retail telecom market a level playing field and allows competition to flourish.

            It is obvious from your posts that your conclusions are fueled by your perception (aligned with the studios’ I might add) that $1.00 is just too low for a new release rental fee. The studio’s legitimate option, if they believe that the case, is not to interfere with the retail market by artificial constraints on who can buy when, but to simply to raise the wholesale rate ON EVERY RETAILER (their revenue generating partners and others). But refusing to sell to independents on the same terms they provide wholesale product to their revenue-generating agents IS anti-competitive.

            If you still can’t see, it is because you are willfully blind and refuse to see.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            I’m quite sure many independent store owners out there would disagree with you. Revenue sharing does not mean you give up all control of everything.

            You are the one being willfully ignorant of the current market choices. Everyone else is able to compete using the system in place except for Redbox.

            If Redbox is the exception then they don’t get to make the rules.

            Redbox can either pay wholesale cost or revenue share. They don’t want to do either. Too bad for them.

          • Member [Join Now]
            DocHemi [dochemi]

            Man John your facts are really ascew….you said..”Redbox is in the wrong with their old deal since it nearly drove a major distributorship out of business which would of cost the studios 100s of millions of dollar in lost revenue.”

            Have you ever heard of capitolism and a free market…it’s all about competition…the strong survive the weak fall by the way side….how is redbox wrong if they had a deal with someone? They had a deal that was agreed by the other party…..right?

            Business deals are made all the time…..heres another example for you….A phone manufacturer comes out with a new phone, and distributes it through only one carrier (cell phone co.), are they wrong for making this deal….

            With your stated logic, then the phone maker is wrong because they are hurting competition….competition that our whole economy is founded and based on.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Oh I fully agree the distributor and Redbox had the right to make that deal and it was a deal that worked over the short term and on a smaller scale.

            The problem was that as Redbox got bigger, there was no market for the distributor to get rid of the product. They needed to get out of the deal with Redbox or go bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, the studios lose 100s of millions of dollars. The studios needed to make sure that would not happen so they had to drop the hammer on the Redbox deal. They would rather have the distributor survive since it serves many more customers than Redbox.

            Now Redbox is whining that they cannot still have the deal that nearly destroyed the distributor. The studios have said, “no way, we want to get paid for our product.”

            Should Redbox be able to get a better deal than anyone else in the industry? Should they be able to force a distributor to go out of business? Should they be able to force the studios to sell their product to them for less than the studios sell to anyone else in the USA?

            The answer is, of course, no. Redbox is more than welcome to play on a level playing field with all the rest of the rentailers in the USA. In fact, I welcome them to the mix. I think they provide a valuable business.

            But that business does not work at $1.00 for the first night. They need to change that single aspect of their business and all of their problems would go away.

            They have the data that proves that $2.00 for the first night and $1.00 for each additional night makes them more money. They also have a CEO who refuses to admit that he is wrong and has picked a fight with the very people whom he relies on to make his living. He is a bad businessman and a bad CEO and needs to go.

            Having said that, if he can make nice with the studios, raise the first night price and move forward, then I will applaud him and be in full support of Redbox and their business model.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            FesteAinoriba [visitor]

            Our “little” discussion successfully decomposed your logic tree down to the fatally flawed premises on which you built it. The first: your absurd assertion that a retailer can retain “independent” status while in a revenue sharing partnership with the studios.

            It requires only a minimum business IQ to understand that if you are obliged to share your revenues with somebody, that you are not “independent” of them – they are your tacit retail partner and you are their tacit retail agent.

            Your second flawed premise is trying to define “Wholesale Price” as that offered to independent retailer while reserving a different term, “Revenue sharing price” for retailers who take on the studios as tacit partners.

            Your “revenue sharing cost” terminology is a transparent euphemism designed to obfuscate the nature of what constitutes a wholesale transaction, but case law is very clear on the matter. Any product developer who dominates a commodity source cannot give a lower commodity access price (regardless of any euphemism you invent for the practice) to its retail agents/partners (those from whom they derive retail revenue sharing) than to other retailers who operate outside of a retail partnership (independent retailers).

            Your entire argument is based on flawed and unprecedented definitions of “independent”, and “wholesale.”

            Of course, you are always welcome to reply with your typically lame “no it’s not” and repeat your same old logically absurd assertions that “a retailer can be independent of a studio while paying a revenue sharing tax” and that “the term wholesale doesn’t apply to the price given to the studios’ retail revenue sharing agents,” that “redbox’s retail model is unprofitable unless they charge $2.00 for the first night” (funny – auditors report that RB’s revenues exceed their outlays – which is the traditional definition of “profitable” in every business school in the world – except John Small’s).

            Finally John, I’m calling you on your BIGGEST BALD FACED LIE. You keep saying that Redbox is suing for access to better wholesale prices than given to any other retailer. Your lie is hereby revealed to be based on your bastardized and illogical definitions of “wholesale” and who you conveniently include as “other retailers”.

            John’s logic may be carefully woven, but is fabricated on dishonest definitions that inform false premises.

            Thus John’s argument that redbox could have access to the same wholesale prices that are yielded to Blockbuster if they would agree to share revenue with the studios is LITERALLY NOTHING MORE THAN a diversionary red herring. RB is merely demanding that they be allowed to retain their independence and still have access to the same wholesale pricepoint that the studios give to their retail market revenue sharing partners.

            Redbox’s antitrust case will rise or fall based on their ability to remind the court that the Betamax case dispositioned by the Supreme Court (and resulting in the First Sale Doctrine) ALREADY determined that the big studios, like AT&T dominated the telecom infrastructure, dominate the fundamental supply of a marketable commodity/service dominate the supply chain for entertainment DVD’s.

            Since studio market dominance has already been determined by SCOTUS, it is clear by legal precedent that trade constraints in the form of wholesale price leveling should be imposed to prevent the studios from providing lower price access to product for its revenue generating agents in the retail sector.

            The initial question posed by Michael was whether or not the studio’s treatment of redbox is a violation of the First Sale Doctrine’s prior restraint. I answer in the affirmative that it is (and I have present flawless logic built on sound premise to explain why it is).

            Bottom line: via the studio’s action of giving discounted wholesale access to its revenue sharing agents in the retail sector, it is competing against independent retailers in a retail market it has tipped in its favor. It is as if AT&T were allowed to sell line access to AT&T affiliates at half the cost that it sells it to MCI. If that were to happen, MCI would have to be MMMUUUUCCCCHHHHHH more efficient than AT&T in order to compete.

            Likewise, by giving wholesale access to its retail affiliates at a reduced cost (as compared to, say, Redbox), then Redbox has to be that much more efficient than the Studio’s affiliates to compete. In spite of the Studios’ imposition of just such market inequities, Redbox is still turning a profit while charging less than the studios’ retail affiliates – which is compelling evidence that they are EXTREMELY efficient (low overhead) in getting the product to the consumer.

            The studios hate Redbox’s technology-enabled retail model because the efficiencies in the model allow redbox to radically undercut the retail price point in the retail market and their revenue-sharing affiliates (and, thereby, the studios) are losing retail market share.

            THAT is what is going on. Don’t be deceived by John’s subtle lies based on twisted definitions.

            BTW, the other subtle lie that John and the studios are proliferating is the idea that there is a material difference between those who buy DVD’s to rent vs sell. One of the other clear implications of the First Sale Doctrine is that the Studios are barred from considering what the wholesale purchaser does with the DVD once he owns it. Their only legitimate control on market price is a volume variant Wholesale price point (none of this price subsidies for their revenue sharing partners is allowed) and the rental pricepoint for those whom they partner with the retail sector. Like I said, the rub here is that their retail delivery system is sooooo inefficient that the studio’s retail agents CANNOT compete with redbox on a level playing field – hence their deceptive efforts at tilting the playing field.

            It will be interesting to see the tactics employed by the studios to circumvent First Sale Doctrine as more and more people start streaming video directly over the net – and it is clear that they will try to tilt the field in their favor, just like they are doing in order to compete unfairly with Kiosk rentals.

            Q.E.D. (John, you are dismissed – or you can hang around and continue playing the fool if you’d like)

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Right, um, I’ve already proven that your statements are incorrect and that you are attempting to use semantics to prove your unprovable point.

            Feel free to dismiss me. The reality is what it is and you apparently have no grasp of it whatsoever.

      • Visitor [Join Now]
        rb [visitor]

        LOL…What Blockbuster says now and what BB would actually do if the time came when a delay on their new releases was actually imposed is two different things. If BB complies with a 30 day delay on their new releases how can they ever expect to continue charging $4 or $5 for NEW releases when the new release is then 30+days OLD by the time the BB customer can rent it. BB rental charge price is ridiculously high now–totally idiot if you pay that high price for a 30 day OLD release. Maybe if at their BB express kiosks where they supposedly will charge $1 would people be willing to rent 30day old delayed releases.

        • Visitor [Join Now]
          John Small [visitor]

          BB is willing to comply at their kiosks, not their Brick & Mortar stores.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Kevlit [visitor]

            Whats the difference? They are still renting out the same titles….what sets one apart from the other? Thats just commiting suicide for BB. Why spend money to have kiosks installed only to make it less desireable to rent from if you cant get the dvds from that machine for 30 days when you can get them from their own stores?….

          • Member [Join Now]
            DocHemi [dochemi]

            Easy answer Kevlit….more customer choices….sure you might not be able to get a title day one at a kiosk, but you can get many other current releases easier than going to the store itself, and lots of people like that….otherwise BB wouldn’t do it…I’m sure they did lots of studies and demographics before they decided to plung millions of sollars into this venture.

  3. Member [Join Now]
    Mark [rb123456789]

    I have seen reports that Redbox employees are often easily identifiable when they buy the DVDs, their employees are on duty and are wearing their Redbox logo shirts. Maybe that has changed or will change now that Walmart is setting limits.

    Someone buying multiple copies of multiple DVDs stands out, no matter what, though. And perhaps since Redbox has a limited number of employees in any given area they are all well known on sight by now.

    • Member [Join Now]
      The Turnip [the-turnip]

      While I agree that *anyone* buying multiple copies of the same DVD *might* stand out, I would be really surprised if the typical employee at a retail store had been properly briefed in some policy about not selling mass quantities to Redbox specifically.

      Someone wearing a Redbox T-shirt probably wouldn’t be scrutinized any more than my grandfather wearing nothing but a thong (shudder.)

      Besides, an incredibly easy work-around: Wear a different shirt.

  4. Visitor [Join Now]
    FalconFour [visitor]

    Ugh, this is painful to watch. Now that Redbox is actually buckling over and buying them AT RETAIL PRICE – which is much more of a sale than the studios could EVER expect to get “naturally” – the studios are still shooting themselves in the foot.

    Wow. I honestly didn’t think that Redbox would actually agree to buy them at retail to begin with. It was never even on my mind that the studios would be dumb enough to argue with THAT. It just goes to show that studios are dumber than we could have ever, ever, EVER imagined.

    It’s worth giving a read: Gizmodo – My $62.47 Royalty Statement: How Major Labels Cook the Books with Digital Downloads – if you want to get really depressed about how ridiculously stupid the entertainment industry is.

    • Visitor [Join Now]
      FalconFour [visitor]

      Hmm, considering the studios are this dumb with money…

      Redbox should run a “test market” in the lobby of a big studio’s building. Set the price at $10,000 a night. They’ll have little to complain about – after all, $10,000 is nothing (see article) ;)

  5. Visitor [Join Now]
    John Small [visitor]

    This is not a studio issue. Large retailers have always limited the number of copies of a title you can buy of a New Release DVD on street date.

    Most street date prices are loss leaders. They are used to entice customers to come into the store and buy other products. Redbox employees are not doing this so it is just a loss for the big store.

    Indie Video Stores have run into this problem for years at Wal-Mart. This is nothing new. There is no basis for the Redbox complaint.

  6. Member [Join Now]

    Come on, it’s nothing but greed on the part of the studios. When actors stop making so much money they drown in it, paid by of course the studios, and start making quality movies that make it worth it to go to the theater and pay the outrageous price, then they can stop worrying about rentals taking away their profit. Look at music and Itunes – face the future studio execs – you are being morons. I never buy movies, what a rip off, and very, very seldom go to the theater as I’m not into giving my money away with out a guarantee that I’d like the movie. What has business society come to when the big 3 of movies, like the biggies of finance control so much? Look what happened to the financial market, maybe it will happen to the movie business and give some good indie productions a shot!

    • Visitor [Join Now]
      rb [visitor]

      What the studios NEED to do is review their major actors and see if those actors are actually worth the 10 or 20 million dollars the studios pay them according to what those actors’ movies are actually bringing in for the studios. For instance, I bet Cameron Diaz is being paid $10 million plus for ANY movie she’s in, BUT what was her last hit? She’s probably actually worth $1 million a movie SO the studios could save the $9million plus and add it to their total revenue if they paid her what she’s actually worth. Same for many, many highly paid actors who just aren’t worth the BIG bucks the studios continue to pay them.

  7. Member [Join Now]

    Dunno about all of that; but with the code rb posted yesterday
    I got both Terminator and Night at the Museum which is available
    in the RedBox kiosk at Walmart in San Clemente Ca.;
    but, it was funny, when I stopped in at Albertsons down the street,
    the Redbox didn’t have it.
    Anyways even if it is a day and half late it still
    beats waitng for NetFlix to get it to me;
    I’d be waiting weeks!

  8. Visitor [Join Now]
    A2K [visitor]

    John Small is a Troll!

    • Visitor [Join Now]
      John Small [visitor]

      Simply untrue. I have had positive things to say about Coinstar and Redbox when they have acted in the best interest of their company. Their current policy is wrong-minded and needs to change for them to survive.

      Do you want Redbox to survive?

      • Visitor [Join Now]
        FalconFour [visitor]

        Maybe you need to rephrase how you say what you’re saying, then… sounds like you’re just… well, just a total prick.

        • Visitor [Join Now]
          John Small [visitor]

          If having to repeat the facts of the case over and over again make me sound like a prick then so be it.

          I’m not here to make friends, just to clarify some wrong-minded thinking.

          Most of the people on this board whine about the studios not letting them watch their movies for $1.00 like it a right that has been taken away from them.

          If you want to continue to be able to watch movies, step up, pay a reasonable amount for a title and be happy that someone is willing to risk millions on the hope that they will get their money back.

          This is America, not old school communist Russia.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            Joe Schmuck [visitor]

            If they’re not whining about $1.00 a night movies, a lot are whining about not enough free codes.

            I, for one, would love for free codes to be given by Redbox every day, because I know it’s not a sustainable business model.

            A lot of you think John Small harbors some sort of grudge against Redbox. But in reality, everything that he has said in this forum in regards to studios, suppliers, Wal-Mart pricing, etc., I know for a fact to be true, also. I’m not sure that we don’t have some of the exact same connections in this industry.

            I’m not trying to “ruffle anyone’s feathers” here, but there are some things being said here on this forum that are being stated as fact, when in reality, it’s the posters’ opinion or belief, with no basis of fact.

            P.S. – Enjoy the temporary agreement between Redbox & Paramount, set to expire at the end of December. A “Little Birdie” told me that the agreement will not be extended.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            RunninWild [visitor]

            John Small

            You have managed to use some interesting words and lots and lots of “facts” to make this claim to having all of this “true” information. However, for a very good reason, you resist telling everyone WHY they should believe you…and I can totally respect you wanting to stay covert. I realize you cannot give out all of who you are and where you know these details from but what if I told you that I know for a fact that a few of the KEY points behind all of your arguements are, in fact, incorrect enough to really undermine all of your points about what this has done to the industry and why redbox will fail, etc ?? Please keep in mind that a lot of what you were told was TOLD to you by someone “in the know” and also remember that when someone is pleading THEIR side to you that many times THEY will be stretching the truth to gain your support. Whether or not you are KNOWINGLY lying to help support your arguements or just repeating some things you “found out” that are in fact ..incorrect, I think it’s important for people here to know that just because someone SOUNDS like they have all the info, doesn’t mean they do ;)

            hang in there kiddo!

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            RunninWild [visitor]

            …and I also find it pretty amazing that guys like JohnSmall and Joe Schmuck are so “connected” and such “players” in the industry and yet they find so much time to spend here trying to win the support of a few hundred regulars who pop onto this site between renting movies from redbox! If you guys know so much, how about getting back to your desks..sorry…I mean huge offices….and making something happen instead of playing “Guess what I heard that guy said?”….LOL

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            RunninWild [visitor]

            Heres the rub for me…

            With all of your “knowledge”, why not try to offer up some good advice for struggling store owners like us instead of trying to impress us with how much you know. It’s like you just see this place as a stage to show everyone how cool you are. The people reading this are either redbox users who dont care at all what you know or say except to just argue a point OR struggling store owners like us that hope to find a little something they can use to help their business.That Ted Engen guy seems like kind of a douche but at least he is trying to do something for us.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Feel free to provide any information that you have that disproves what I am saying. Most of what I have posted can be found on the internet through quarterly reports and income statements.

            If you know how to read them and also how to read between the lines when someone is spinning news to their investors, things become very clear, very quickly.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            FesteAinoriba [visitor]

            I’ve provided sufficient data in my post above to satisfy a reasonable objective person. Redbox is running in the black and is doing fine in a depressed economy.

            I hold this truth to be self-evident: if they had sued to get better volume discounts than anybody else gets, the case would have been totally dismissed -OBVIOUSLY John. Do you really expect anybody to believe that Redbox is suing to get anticompetitive price structures that would tilt the playing field in their favor, and that the court would allow THAT suit to continue under antitrust? Are you daft or dishonest?

            You are the one making absurd claims that the suit seeks to give redbox better wholesale volume pricepoints than other “rentailer”. How about you prove that ridiculous claim.

            You are claiming that redbox is losing money at their current pricepoint. How about you prove that ridiculous claim. Just go to google finance and look at the numbers (my source for the data I cited above). The secret to profitability at $1/night pricepoint is their orders of magnitude lower operational overhead – as compared to brick ‘n’ mortar stores- (which is being interfered with by forcing them to the inefficient practice of sending teams out to buy retail – yet they are still making money).

            Blockbust charges LESS per night for their movies than does redbox, but the studios don’t seem to have issue with that? But, what’s this? The studios get a revenue sharing agreement with Blockbuster. Hmmmm. What does a revenue sharing agreement do? Why would Blockbuster entertain such a thing? Well, it is because of cash flow and risk. The revenue sharing agreement includes a reduced wholesale price structure that allows Blockbuster to establish inventory at a significantly lower upfront cost, and then share the revenue stream from the rental with the studio for between 30 and 45 days of market introduction. Thus, the studios and Blockbuster are literally entangled partners in the rental business, with the studios take some risk – betting on Blockbuster’s revenue stream to more than compensate for the lower wholesale price point. Yes, Blockbuster pays “cash” at this reduced pricepoint, but owes well over $100M in revenue sharing to the studios – and the number is growing fat as blockbuster goes deeper and deeper in the red and fails to pay their debts. Last quarter alone, Blockbuster posted a $113M dollar loss – close to double the loss from the prior year. Blockbuster is bleeding money and the studios are NOT getting the revenue sharing stream that they bargained for.

            Because of the revenue sharing agreements with Blockbuster, the studios are defacto partners with them and are thus competing with the Redbox’s and other independent “rentailers” of the world. This is the basis of the antitrust suit.

            What I’ve stated is factually based and logical. It is your position that lacks support or logic. So got ahead, provide proof that I’m wrong.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            John Small [visitor]

            Redbox has only been able to make a miniscule amount of profit per machine by having their buyback deal in place.

            That deal is not realistic as it means that someone takes a loss somewhere. The distributor was the one taking the loss in this case.

            If Redbox had to pay a similar price to what other Rentailers are paying, their machines would run at a loss. The numbers are in their quarterly results. The profit margins are so small that even a slight increase in costs, either in cost of goods or in cost of labor, results in Redbox going into the red.

            If they can manage to massage their numbers in the next quarter into a profit, I will be surprised. The quarter after that will be almost impossible. Unless they raise prices.

            I agree that Redbox has a lower overhead but it is still not low enough, given realistic cost of goods levels, for them to actually make a profit.

            Everything up to this point has been artificial profits on the back of their distributor. That has now dried up. They have to learn to swim in the deep end now.

  9. Member [Join Now]

    John Small, do you work for VBG? Blockbuster? Why in the world do you continue to side with these greedy, out of touch studios?

    • Visitor [Join Now]
      John Small [visitor]

      No I do not work for Blockbuster or the VBG (nor am I a member).

      How is it greedy to want to make a profit on something you have invested money into?

      The business model for $1.00 New Release rentals simply does not work for the studios or for Redbox. Redbox can only manage to make it work if they can get their product at below wholesale levels or below current Revshares levels.

      • Visitor [Join Now]
        RunninWild [visitor]


        You said
        “If they can manage to massage their numbers in the next quarter into a profit, I will be surprised. The quarter after that will be almost impossible. Unless they raise prices.”

        So what happens if they raise prices? Would you rather have a healthy redbox renting their titles for $1.50 or $2.00 a night or see them go out of business? How would that affect your “investment” you mentioned?

        • Visitor [Join Now]
          John Small [visitor]

          Sorry for the confusion. The “investment” I was talking about was the investment the studios make into their movies. I do not have an investment that will be affected by Coinstar’s success or failure.

          I have no problem with Redbox competing fairly in the marketplace. If they raise their price to $2.00 for the first night, I think they can still compete on the convenience factor and they can gain access to all the studios by paying a fair and equitable price for their product.

          The $1.00 a night price tag is unsustainable on a level playing field. Only by getting a substantially better deal than ANY other rentailer out there can Redbox make it work.

          In fact, Redbox getting that lower price tag could likely be their undoing because then the studios would have to offer a similar deal to the rest of the market. BB and indie rentailers would be able to drop their prices to compete at Redbox’s level.

          Where would consumers rather rent? A kiosk where you can chose from a couple hundred titles for $1.00 or a store where you can choose from several 1000 titles for $1.00 a piece with a greater likelihood of the movie you want is in.

          Redbox should be careful what they wish for!

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            RR [visitor]

            I have plowed thru the threads of argument above and John Small’s comments scream to me of representing the Studios in some fashion. It’s easy to claim you are an independent “voice in the wilderness” but I spent my whole adult life analyzing threats and motives of possible adversaries. Mr. Small sure reads like someone who represents an adversary of Red Box. Heck, I think he would have done superbly in my career field if he does as much “independent” research on Red Box, BB, and studio operations and logistics as he’s claimed just because he’s “interested” in having Red Box “do the right thing” when it comes to price ponts in an industry he claims not to be affiliated with.

            You can fool all of the people some of the time … but the studios have tapped themselves out after the many, many missteps of dealing with the new paradigm of the digital age and information (including entertainment information) distribution.

      • Member [Join Now]
        DocHemi [dochemi]

        And thats why they made a deal the the others are wanting to violate now.

        Redbox is only asking that the agreement they had with the vendors is uphelp. The vendors should never have made the agreement if they didn’t want the terms included therein.

        • Visitor [Join Now]
          John Small [visitor]

          If the deal was upheld, the distributor would simply declare bankruptcy and then the deal would become null and void.

          Of course that bankruptcy would affect 1000s of businesses and billions of dollars in revenue in the economy but sure, Redbox should be able to do whatever they want.

    • Member [Join Now]
      DocHemi [dochemi]

      He must be a Fachist or Communist, totally unsupporting of the American Free Enterprise System. And probably a stock holder in one of the big 3 movie makers.

      • Visitor [Join Now]
        John Small [visitor]

        I am an ardent supporter of the capitalist system and do not hold any investments in the big 3.

        You guys fail to understand the situation.

        What you want is cheap movies. I understand that. But there is a bit more to the industry than that my friends.

  10. Visitor [Join Now]
    patty [visitor]

    LOL! I will continue to rent from redbox, no matter a waiting period or not. The thing that makes me mad is that the studios aren’t happy just not supplying new releases to redbox. They want to limit how many copies redbox can buy from retailers such as Walmart. “I” can walk into any major retailer & buy as many copies of a movie that I want.

    P.S. Normally, bootleggers buy “1” copy of a new release, make 20+ copies, & sell for around $5-about the same price to rent from Blockbuster for 5 days. Hollywood should suck on that sour lemon.