“Starz Entertainment cable network said on Thursday it is suing a unit of Walt Disney Co. [Buena Vista Television (BVT)] for allowing other movie download services to sell titles while they were exclusively licensed to Starz,” Reuters reports.
MacDailyNews Note: The lawsuit notes that Disney has “begun to sell over the Internet via services like Apple Computer Corp.’s iTunes and (Wal- Mart Corp’s) Walmart.com the very same Disney films licensed to Starz.” The suit seeks to prevent BVT “from continuing to infringe on Starz’s rights” and asks for all profits BVT has realized from its infringing activities.
Reuters reports, “According to the lawsuit, Disney is barred under a 2005 licensing agreement with Starz from selling some of its films, such as the blockbuster ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,’ for transmission over the Internet before and during a period of exclusivity agreed upon for Starz.”
“Starz has paid over $1 billion for the exclusive rights to Disney films since 1993, according to the lawsuit. It also has the right to offer the films on its subscription Internet download service, Vongo,” Reuters reports.
Full article here.
In the press release, Starz Entertainment Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Robert B. Clasen said:
Disney has been a great partner. We hope to continue our relationship. But our agreements clearly prohibit them from selling their movies by electronic download over the Internet while they are exclusive to Starz. If Disney is permitted to violate our contract in this manner, it will undermine the integrity of copyright in general which is a cornerstone of our industry.
The film studios have been very aggressive, and quite rightly so, in protecting their copyrights, particularly with regard to the Internet. Starz must be equally aggressive in protecting the value of the deal it made. It is especially disappointing to see one of the largest studios ignore so blatantly its own contractual obligations to protect the copyrights it has licensed to Starz.
Full press release here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Adam W.” for the heads up.]
Related article:
Starz intros ‘Vongo’ Windows-only, iPod-incompatible online movie download subscription service – January 03, 2006
Sorry Starz there is a new sheriff in town.
Jobs, Steve Jobs.
License to kill cable.
Vongo?
Are you kidding me?
A contract is a contract if Disney gave Starz exclusive rights then Disney deserves to be sued.
Of course I’ve seen neither the contract nor the lawsuit, so I have no idea whether Disney is in breach or Starz is sucking sour grapes.
I am a Starz subscriber.
oops
(And Walmart.com is still cannabalizing their own in-store movie sales with video downloads? Huh. I wonder how that’s working out?)
Why would a movie studio like Disney limit themselves with a stupid contract like that to a cable channel. Got to be some real losers in there sales department to come up with a dumb contract like that.
Not commenting on the validity of the suit, but Starz is gonna learn the meaning of the phrase…. “don’t mess with the mouse.”
Transmission over the Internet is probably what some opportunistic lawyer is grabbing onto. Disney has been selling Pirates for a while on DVD now. I doubt the deal with Starz covers the sale of the movie to the public. The deal probably does involve broadcast rights on cable. So transmission for sale is probably not covered by the deal, but who knows. Stranger things have happened.
I had vongo once. It was really bad. Always with de coughing and de hacking . . .
I know how this feels.
Almost as bad as getting left outside in de cold and de rain when your owners forget they let you out and you watch them drive away to de movies.
I remember jumping up and looking in de window and they had left de Starz channel on. It was playing “The Crying Game”.
Must’ve been little Timmy who ordered that one.
First of all, Disney is infringing on nothing. if in the wrong it is merely breaching a contract/licensing agreement with Starz. Starz does not own the IP, it is merely a licensee.
I am so sick and tired of all the mischaracterizations used to imply a greater wrongdoing. (eg, the RIAA’s continued insistance that music theft is rampant. It is not theft (a crime), it is merely copywrite infringement, (a civil infraction).
In other news … Disney buys STARZ and ends all litigation on itself…
Triumph- You are morphing into a master of subtlety. That was very good.
“Why would a movie studio like Disney limit themselves with a stupid contract like that to a cable channel”
I think the article shows that disney has a billion reasons.
I think this problem developed because when the contract was signed, there was no such thing as a online movie store.
So ‘transmission over the internet’ was likely to mean free distribution, much like TV.
Starz is going to use this to try to stop Disney’s content from getting on iTunes because iTunes is a threat to cable companies buisness model of delivering content to the customer fast.
iTunes doesn’t do rentals, so cable is still cheaper.
Oh yea, there is no profits in renting.
WiseGuy: “I think this problem developed because when the contract was signed, there was no such thing as a online movie store.”
Sounds exactly right. Starz sees the end in sight, especially if they don’t diversify into other areas. They’re pulling a stop-gap move.
Doubt they’ll win.
P.S. Triumph, I hate when that happens too.
After reading a few other articles on this story — it looks like Disney is free to sell DVD and videos during Starz’s exclusive broadcast period. Starz is considering iTunes and like sales to be broadcasts over the internet. While Disney is considering them to be more like DVD/video sales.
And this is how lawyers afford vacation homes in the Bahamas.
I think Starz does not know the difference between selling a movie over the internet and streaming a movie over the internet.
You won’t win this one Starz. Nice use of the word copyright though. Sure made the rant sound legitimate.
MAFIAA: “I am so sick and tired of all the mischaracterizations used to imply a greater wrongdoing. (eg, the RIAA’s continued insistance that music theft is rampant. It is not theft (a crime), it is merely copywrite infringement, (a civil infraction).”
Written like someone who’s NEVER created an artistic ANYTHING, much less tried to make a living at it. So “MAFIAA”, pull your head out of your ass … stop trying to shift the blame from yourself and onto the “big, bad record companies” and their union. Sure, they’re a bunch of tools, too — but that doesn’t change the fact that people who seek out, receive, get, download, or otherwise acquire music (or ANY “for sale” digital material) that they DIDN’T PAY FOR are guilty of BOTH copyright (not “copywrite”) infringement AND theft. Yes, THEFT. As in, STEALING.
I love this part: ” …it is merely copywrite[sic] infringement, (a civil infraction).” Yaah, a “civil infraction” for which you can be sued by the copyight owner for a sizable amount of money depending on the circumstance. A crime is still a crime. It’s intellectual dishonesty and the height of disingenuousness to blame someone else for your own wrongdoing. Doesn’t matter if the record companies are “evil” or if the RIAA “sues” people (the meanies), downloading music you didn’t pay for or receiving music that was stolen is still THEFT. You can’t blame the quality of music or lack thereof on the average CD; you can’t blame the price of an average CD; you can’t blame the industry for taking too long to adopt a new distribution model; you can’t blame the “system”; you can’t blame the “man”; you can’t even blame your mother! Look in the mirror. YOU are at fault. So shut the f-ck up and quit babbling your ignorance.
By the way, I plan on coming around to your place of employment when you get your paycheck and I’m going to deduct a percentage that I determine to be equitable from it. You know, I’m going to STEAL part of it — so you’ll get less compensation for your hard work. Yaah, I love douchebags who think that just because it’s digital and it’s on the web and it can be dragged and dropped that it MUST be free for the taking. “It’s not theft, dude, it’s just copywrite infringement.”
Fool.
By the way– Triumph: Good stuff.
I plan on coming around to your place of employment when you get your paycheck and I’m going to deduct a percentage that I determine to be equitable from it.
you mean, tax? Nothing new.
TAXES
the dreaded word. You guys in US are pretty lucky. If I was getting paid my taxes instead of my paycheck I would have a considerable boost on my finances! Sux big time when your paycheck is lower than the actual tax paid.
You guys in US are pretty lucky. If I was getting paid my taxes instead of my paycheck I would have a considerable boost on my finances!
Thanks Arghhhh. We are lucky.
One is pay per view and one is own. There is a difference.
So, in other words, Disney is guilty of stealing it’s own material. Now that’s entertainment!
Seriously, I think we’ll see an out of court settlement on this one and an “Oops, we fracked up,” from Disney. Starz’ll probably get their billion back and still be able to braodcast the BV films tey licensed for free.
C’est la guerre.
Say, Calabassas. I make visual stuff. And every time someone looks at my work without paying for it or buying the products associated with my visuals they are stealing from me. How dare they look & derive pleasure without paying me!!!
You act like casual sharing or even downloading is stealing food out of your mouth. I call bullsh*t.
Organized counterfeiters cost the recording industry far more than downloaders, but who do you cuss out & who does the RIAA pursue? Why the lowly individual with little facts or legal resources to respond to your attacks.
You’d like to tell me to “shut the f-ck up” and just pay up dammit. Do you get any airplay for your music? is that free for me to hear??? Is that so people will know about your music???
How much money is lost for a product that has no value except for free??? What if I wouldn’t pay to hear your music but if I can have it for free & listen a time or two & discard it???
If you come to my office & steal from me & I’ll kick you and your high horse in the ass. Yes, you need to get paid to eat, but you think that calling me names & threatening to come steal from me in some half assed “moral equivalence” theory is a way to get my dollar? You son, are as stupid as the RIAA.
When economic conditions change the smart change with them, the stupid try to make legislation to protect their old turf. It hasn’t worked in the longterm for other industries & it won’t work for yours.
You know they give away water for free at fountains, yet people still pay hard cash for a bottle of it. Why? convenience of form, perceived quality, etc. things the record companies could learn about instead of attack the customer.
I think I see a fool indeed & his name is Calabassas.
Say, Calabassas. I make visual stuff. And every time someone looks at my work without paying for it or buying the products associated with my visuals they are stealing from me. How dare they look & derive pleasure without paying me!!!
You act like casual sharing or even downloading is stealing food out of your mouth. I call bullsh*t.
Organized counterfeiters cost the recording industry far more than downloaders, but who do you cuss out & who does the RIAA pursue? Why the lowly individual with little facts or legal resources to respond to your attacks.
You’d like to tell me to “shut the f-ck up” and just pay up dammit. Do you get any airplay for your music? is that free for me to hear??? Is that so people will know about your music???
How much money is lost for a product that has no value except for free??? What if I wouldn’t pay to hear your music but if I can have it for free & listen a time or two & discard it???
If you come to my office & steal from me & I’ll kick you and your high horse in the ass. Yes, you need to get paid to eat, but you think that calling me names & threatening to come steal from me in some half assed “moral equivalence” theory is a way to get my dollar? You son, are as stupid as the RIAA.
When economic conditions change the smart change with them, the stupid try to make legislation to protect their old turf. It hasn’t worked in the longterm for other industries & it won’t work for yours.
You know they give away water for free at fountains, yet people still pay hard cash for a bottle of it. Why? convenience of form, perceived quality, etc. things the record companies could learn about instead of attack the customer.
I think I see a fool indeed & his name is Calabassas.