As mentioned in an earlier post, Universal filed a motion for dismissal of the lawsuit that Redbox brought against it in October of last year. In a recent amendment to that motion, Universal resorted to name-calling, calling Redbox a “jilted distributor”.
On March 5, Redbox filed their response to the motion, in part saying:
“Making unwarranted attacks on opposing counsel or stating snappy one-liners is not a substitute for legal reasoning. Such tactics do not allow Universal to avoid the effect of [Redbox’s] well-pled allegations. Universal’s motion to dismiss must be denied. No amount of name calling by Universal can, or should, change that result.”
Another quote from Redbox’s motion:
“Universal seeks to expand its limited copyright monopoly to secure other monopoly rights not granted by the Copyright Act, including the right to control the terms of retail rental and resale after the first sale by Universal; Universal’s actions to prevent distributors and retailers from selling new-release DVDs to Redbox violates public policy; and Universal seeks to expand its limited copyright monopoly to take control of retail DVD rental and resale to consumers and to drive competition from the retail new-release DVD rental and resale market.”
These are interesting times we live in. Media companies continue to try and stay relevant through litigation instead of innovation. While I agree that companies have the right to protect their copyrights, trying to redefine laws to do so is a bit shady.
It’s time to live in this century, Universal. Good luck, Redbox.