Comments on: Redbox Goes Fox Hunting, Files Lawsuit

By: moviecrazy

moviecrazy — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:04:14 +0000

To Kevin: so the MILLIIONS the studios make at the theaters isn’t enough profit? PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK! There’s no end to the studios greed! They make enough already so I say screw the studios not Redbox!!

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:43:08 +0000

I hope the studios win. If you were owned the studio, wouldn’t want the right to protect your product and distrubute it where you choose or would you want it dictated to you. You need to understand the business. Redbox is discounting the product for $1.00 rentals and then selling it off as previously rented product which floods the market with prodcut. By doing this it hurts the studios retail business which is what affords them the money to create the movies in the first place. So Screw Redbox!!!

By: 1, 2, 3 Big Studios: Redbox Files Suit Against Warner | Inside Redbox

1, 2, 3 Big Studios: Redbox Files Suit Against Warner | Inside Redbox — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:07:00 +0000

[...] against Warner in federal court. This makes the third big studio Redbox has taken on, after their recent suit against Fox and their suit against Universal last year. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, filed suit in Delaware [...]

By: Quickeyepi

Quickeyepi — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:18:37 +0000

Very Good Fred

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:52:09 +0000

first off these studios are dumb, but the big difference between netflix and kiosk is that while any good flipper could get close to 30 movies a month on the 3 at a times netflix most netflixers aren’t movie flippers and only get a hand full of rentals a month, so it makes more money per rental on average. but the main reason for this 30 day thing is to try to get people to buy versus rent cause they know if they take away the cheap rental they might encourage more sales. But that is so wrong the reason sales are slumping is cause most new movies suck, and we are just seeing a giant rehash of what happened 10 years ago when the music industry was blaming the downloaders for decreased sales, when really people stopped buying cause the music sucked. Go REDBOX don’t buckle to the dumb studios.

By: John

John — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:39:11 +0000

If Blockbuster charges $4 to rent a new release…they give the studio 37% of the charge ( $1.48) If Redbox get $1 and they share 37% then the studios get 37¢…the studios have a lot to pay for in creating the movie, and they’re in it to make money…..so the $1.48 wins!

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:00:05 +0000

At issue here are several legal points. Under existing antitrust laws (eg Sherman Act as a starting point) a supplier must offer similiar terms of sale to similar customers. While I’m not specialized in antitrust law, I believe that only the purchase transaction would be considered. Specifically, how or even what the customer does with the goods purchased are not considered but rather things like quantities, time of deliver, credit history or finanical terms are the only factors. One fine point is that a supplier may choose who it sells to and while this has already proven to upheld, its very risky and means a yes or no that must be applied consistantly. A good example is the delay from theatrical relase to DVD release.

The motovation for Fox, Universal et al is their fear of the errosion of the value of their movies. Their worst nightmare is that the masses stop paying $10-15 per person to go to the theater. Kiosks represent a value errosion. This is what they really fear.

Irregardless of what Fox et al think, one only needs to look at the companies inivolved. Blockbuster stock peaked in mid 2002 just shy of $30/share. Today they are trading < $0.75. The vast majority of competitors are already gone and in Jan predictions for the year Blockbuster was one the 10 most likey companies to not survive 2009. So much for retail rentals.

Internet/mail movie businessed like Netflix and others delivered the fatal blow to the store front model. While Blockbuster scrambled to respond they have failed to recover from this intial wound. Now with kiosks on the landscape the market will get divided between customers who want supreme convenience and those who seek lowest cost. VBG is an attempt to plead the case for independant store operators using the same obsolete store front business model but it won't change the outcome. The customers have spoken loud and clear with their wallets.

One more additional thought. I would think Redbox would force Fox et al to explain the difference between them and Netflix. For a customer renting 3 movies at time and cycling them rapidly I would think you could pretty easily arrive at a cost roughly equal to the $1/night per movie. So how is a kiosk model different than mail?

By: The Future of Redbox: Part 3 | Inside Redbox

The Future of Redbox: Part 3 | Inside Redbox — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:33:25 +0000

[...] a deal with another studio, but also saw 2 other studios try to limit their success. Now Redbox has filed a suit against one (Fox), and another suit (with Warner) may be just days [...]

By: moviecrazy

moviecrazy — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:34:09 +0000

Yeah but who wants to watch movies on a VCR nowadays?

By: slidecage

slidecage — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:57:27 +0000

dont even need that.. my uncle few years back got a Dvd dubber thing (little plastic box that i can hook from a dvd to vcr (or another dvd)

4 new release movies @ 15 each 60..
4 new release movies @ 1.00 each + 1.29 vhs tape to hold all 4movies…. 5.29 and they will have a copy of each movie …..

though the copy box thing cost them 179 bucks when they got it 4 years ago.. and cant really remember the last time they used it… (when they first got it and they had netflix then were flipping movies daily lol)