24,000 Abandoned Redbox DVD Rental Kiosks Are Leaking Sensitive Customer Information

Privacy

from the privacy-shmivacy dept

You probably remember Redbox, the DVD-rental kiosk company that went went bankrupt last June. The story behind the bankruptcy is interesting, in case to you missed it. The company failed to pivot to streaming (you might recall the failed joint venture with Verizon), and the bankruptcy has been profoundly ugly in a scorched Earth kind of way.

Frustrated employees (who stopped receiving health insurance last May) have apparently been stripping the company for parts, including selling used DVDs all over eBay. The company’s kiosks have also been left abandoned everywhere. 404 Media had a good story about how some innovative tinkerers have been making interesting use of the abandoned machines (of course they’re capable of running Doom).

But Ars Technica notes another problem: many of the abandoned machines still have the sensitive data of customers left on the hard drives. That includes rental histories, email addresses, zip codes, and, in some cases, credit card numbers, all going back to at least 2015:

“[The Redbox] logged lots of information, including debugging information from the transaction terminal, and they left old records on the device. This probably saved them some time on QAing software bugs, but it exposed all their users to data being leaked.”

There are numerous mistakes here, including storing any of this data locally and logging way more data during transactions than was reasonably needed. Flaws that transparent security research could have identified and prompted a fix for before it became a problem.

Redbox and its corporate parent, Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, clearly not only sucked at business, but sucked at sucking at business. They were warned about potential privacy violations during bankruptcy proceedings. Pretending for a minute the U.S. isn’t too corrupt to pass modern privacy laws, there’s not much of a company left to hold accountable for the privacy-related “oversight.”

Now a lot of this data is old. And however bad this sounds it can’t hold a candle to the data collected on you by a vast array of dodgy international regulators, who routinely leak vast U.S. consumer datasets into the wild because the U.S. is literally too corrupt to pass a basic privacy law or regulate data brokers.

Still, it’s a problem: as the Wall Street Journal notes, there’s an estimated 24,000 of these abandoned rental kiosks scattered all over the U.S., and retail landlords are struggling like hell to just find somebody to come take them away.

Filed Under: bankruptcy, consumers, data, dvd rental, kiosks, privacy, red box kiosk, security
Companies: chicken soup for the soul, redbox

Disney Fixes Its Sketchy DVD Rental License, Wins Injunction Against Redbox Over Digital Downloads

Copyright

from the copyright-as-blocking-innovation dept

Earlier this year we wrote about Disney’s silly lawsuit against Redbox. If you don’t recall, Redbox, whose main business was renting DVDs out of kiosks started also offering digital download codes that could be purchased at their kiosks. What Redbox did, was it would buy Disney “combo packs” (that came with both a DVD and a download code) and would offer up just the slip of paper with the code out of its kiosks. This seems like perfectly reasonable first sale rights. A legitimate code was purchased, and then resold.

When we wrote about the case back in February, it involved the court smacking down Disney, and even saying that the company was engaged in “copyright misuse” in overclaiming what copyright allowed the company to do. Later in that ruling, the court also rejected Disney’s claim that Redbox was in breach of a contract by saying that the text Disney prints on the box (at the time: “codes are not for sale or transfer”) was not actually a contract. Of course, as we noted at the time, the court’s language made it clear that slightly different language could fix this. From the ruling:

The phrase ?Codes are not for sale or transfer? cannot constitute a shrink wrap contract because, like the box at issue in Norcia, Disney?s Combo Pack box makes no suggestion that opening the box constitutes acceptance of any further license restrictions…. Although Disney seeks to analogize its Combo Pack packaging and language to the packaging and terms in Lexmark, the comparison is inapt. The thorough boxtop license language in Lexmark not only provided consumers with specific notice of the existence of a license and explicitly stated that opening the package would constitute acceptance, but also set forth the full terms of the agreement, including the nature of the consideration provided, and described a post-purchase mechanism for rejecting the license. Here, in contrast, Disney relies solely upon the phrase ?Codes are not for sale or transfer? to carry all of that weight. Unlike the box-top language in Lexmark, Disney?s phrase does not identify the existence of a license offer in the first instance, let alone identify the nature of any consideration, specify any means of acceptance, or indicate that the consumer?s decision to open the box will constitute assent. In the absence of any such indications that an offer was being made, Redbox?s silence cannot reasonably be interpreted as assent to a restrictive license.

So my prediction following that was: “this almost certainly means that Disney is quickly reprinting the packaging on all its Combo Pack DVDs to make this language more legalistic to match the Lexmark standard.”

And… bingo. That’s exactly what happened. In a new ruling, the court has now granted a preliminary injunction against Redbox all because of the new “contract” language Disney has put on its DVDs (though amusingly, in a footnote, the court notes “Disney does not concede that the changes were necessary.”)

Disney subsequently changed the language on its Combo Pack boxes, changed the download sites? Terms of Use, and amended its Complaint. Disney?s Combo Pack packaging for the movie Black Panther is the first to reflect changes implemented after this Court?s denial of Disney?s first motion for a preliminary injunction. The front of Black Panther Combo Pack boxes indicates that the Combo Packs include a ?Digital Code.? The back of the boxes state, in some of the largest print displayed, ?Digital Code Included*[.]? The asterisk directs the reader to a discrete text box at the bottom of the package, which states, in smaller, allcapitalized text, ?Digital code redemption requires prior acceptance of licence terms and conditions. Codes only for personal use by recipient of this combination package or family member. Digital movie code . . . subject to expiration after May 15, 2023.? Smaller type in a more central, fine print-type section of the packaging reads, ?The digital code contained in this package may not be sold separately and may be redeemed only by the recipient of this combination package or a family member. Visit MoviesAnywhere.com, RedeemDigitalMovie.com, and disneytermsofuse.com for code redemption and other applicable terms and conditions.? The paper Code insert within the Combo Pack contains a similar statement and also reads, ?This digital code is part of a combination package and may not be sold separately,? and ?Digital code redemption is subject to prior acceptance of license terms and conditions.?

It actually goes on from there. Basically, in response to the earlier ruling, Disney slapped legal warnings and language basically everywhere possible. Some of us would suggest that this — again — represents clear copyright abuse, trying to use copyright in restraint of first sale, but the court notes that under the Lexmark standard, it’s all groovy. The court does still seem a bit perturbed at Disney’s actions, and has a somewhat fascinating discussion on the differences between shrinkwrap, clickwrap, and other types of agreements (while arguing that Disney is arguing things that are not accurate about what constitutes a contract), but does conclude that with Disney pasting legalese everywhere, Redbox is on notice:

At this stage, the court need not make a determination whether Combo Pack purchasers enter into a shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or other type of agreement, nor precisely delineate the terms of any such agreement. It appears from the record currently before the court that neither Redbox nor any other Combo Pack purchaser could (or did) reasonably believe that, notwithstanding the Black Panther licensing language on the box itself, the Combo Pack included unrestricted ownership rights to any digital content…. Because Redbox did not obtain an ownership right to any digital content when it purchased Combo Packs, Disney has adequately shown that it is likely to succeed on its claim that Redbox encouraged Redbox customers to infringe Disney?s copyrights by redeeming Codes in violation of the license terms set forth on the redemption sites.

As in the earlier ruling, the court is not impressed by Redbox’s First Sale argument, noting that it was basically killed off due to the awful ReDigi ruling that killed off reselling MP3s.

This is, of course, silly. Everyone recognizes that Redbox has every right to buy physical DVDs and then resell them. In what world does it make sense that it can’t also buy up a piece of paper with a download code and resell that as well? Apparently, the one we live in. I’ve seen some copyright extremists online cheering on this ruling, which is not surprising, but ridiculous. Cheering on a ruling like this is cheering on monopolistic practices that limit innovation and the spread of culture.

Filed Under: clickwrap, contracts, copyright, downloads, dvd rentals, first sale, licenses, movies, rentals, shrinkwrap
Companies: disney, redbox

Disney's Stupid Lawsuit Against Redbox Results In Judge Saying Disney Is Engaged In Copyright Misuse

Copyright

from the blowback dept

Well, well. For the past few months I’ve been meaning to write about Disney’s silly lawsuit against Redbox, but other stuff kept coming up, and now a judge has ruled against Disney and said that Disney appears to be engaged in copyright misuse. This is in a case that Disney brought — and it appears to be backfiring badly. Redbox, as you probably know, has kiosks where you can rent DVDs relatively cheaply. It’s managed to stay alive despite the traditional DVD rental business disappearing most everywhere else. About a decade ago, Hollywood fought vigorously against Redbox, but the company survived (though being taken over by a private equity firm in 2016), relying heavily on first sale rights, enabling it to legally purchase DVDs and then rent them out.

Back in December, however, Disney sued Redbox over taking its business to the next level and including download codes that could be purchased at a Redbox kiosk. Though it took them basically forever, Hollywood studios have finally realized that offering online access with the purchase of movies is a good idea, but they only want the end consumer who is buying a DVD to get access to them. So, Redbox would buy the Disney “Combo Packs” that offered the DVD and a download code, and the would offer the paper codes in kiosks to let renters watch the movie online. They weren’t just copying the code and letting anyone use it — it was still a one-to-one limitation with the purchase in that they would buy the DVD with a paper code on it, and then stuff that paper code into their kiosk delivery pods. Disney argued that this was contributory copyright infringement, even though the code pointed to a legitimate/authorized version of the movie and was legitimately purchased.

Redbox hit back by arguing that the First Sale doctrine protected it (as it did with the physical rentals) and that it is free to use the codes in this manner as the legal purchaser. Disney’s response to that was that First Sale does not apply to the download code because it’s not the copyright-covered work.

But Redbox also hit back with a separate punch against Disney, arguing that it was engaged in copyright misuse, a concept we’ve discussed in the past, but that rarely shows up in cases these days (even though we’ve argued it should be used more often). The basic argument was that Disney was over-claiming what copyright allowed it to exclude in order to stamp out competition. And, (somewhat surprisingly), in the process of denying Disney’s demand for a preliminary injunction, the court agrees that Disney is engaged in copyright misuse because it is using its copyright in the movies to restrict what happens to purchases.

Combo Pack purchasers cannot access digital movie content, for which they have already paid, without exceeding the scope of the license agreement unless they forego their statutorily-guaranteed right to distribute their physical copies of that same movie as they see fit. This improper leveraging of Disney?s copyright in the digital content to restrict secondary transfers of physical copies directly implicates and conflicts with public policy enshrined in the Copyright Act, and constitutes copyright misuse.

Because of this, the court finds that Disney has little chance of prevailing on its contributory copyright infringement claims and denies the injunction request.

The court then notes that it doesn’t even need to get into the First Sale issues, but then suggests Redbox would have difficulty winning on a pure first sale argument, mainly because of the ReDigi decision that said you can’t sell “used” MP3s. And then concludes that First Sale doesn’t really come into play since it’s the code that’s at issue, rather than the copyright-covered content:

Notwithstanding ReDigi, the plain language of the statutes, and the important policy considerations described by the Copyright Office, Redbox urges this court to conclude that Disney?s sale of a download code is indistinguishable from the sale of a tangible, physical, particular copy of a copyrighted work that has simply not yet been delivered. Even assuming that the transfer is a sale and not a license, and putting aside what Disney?s representations on the box may suggest about whether or not a ?copy? is being transferred, this court cannot agree that a ?particular material object? can be said to exist, let alone be transferred, prior to the time that a download code is redeemed and the copyrighted work is fixed onto the downloader?s physical hard drive. Instead, Disney appears to have sold something akin to an option to create a physical copy at some point in the future. Because no particular, fixed copy of a copyrighted work yet existed at the time Redbox purchased, or sold, a digital download code, the first sale doctrine is inapplicable to this case.

There’s a separate issue around whether or not Redbox’s actions constituted a “breach of contract,” and again the court is unimpressed. The key question is whether or not the text that Disney prints on its box about how “codes are not for sale or transfer” represents a contract. The court easily concludes that it does not:

The phrase ?Codes are not for sale or transfer? cannot constitute a shrink wrap contract because, like the box at issue in Norcia, Disney?s Combo Pack box makes no suggestion that opening the box constitutes acceptance of any further license restrictions…. Although Disney seeks to analogize its Combo Pack packaging and language to the packaging and terms in Lexmark, the comparison is inapt. The thorough boxtop license language in Lexmark not only provided consumers with specific notice of the existence of a license and explicitly stated that opening the package would constitute acceptance, but also set forth the full terms of the agreement, including the nature of the consideration provided, and described a post-purchase mechanism for rejecting the license. Here, in contrast, Disney relies solely upon the phrase ?Codes are not for sale or transfer? to carry all of that weight. Unlike the box-top language in Lexmark, Disney?s phrase does not identify the existence of a license offer in the first instance, let alone identify the nature of any consideration, specify any means of acceptance, or indicate that the consumer?s decision to open the box will constitute assent. In the absence of any such indications that an offer was being made, Redbox?s silence cannot reasonably be interpreted as assent to a restrictive license.

Of course, this almost certainly means that Disney is quickly reprinting the packaging on all its Combo Pack DVDs to make this language more legalistic to match the Lexmark standard.

Still, the court also notes that Disney makes other claims on the box that are clearly not true, which further undermine the claim that random sentences on the box represent a contract:

Indeed, the presence of other, similarly assertive but unquestionably non-binding language on the Combo Pack boxes casts further doubt upon the argument that the phrase ?Not For Sale or Transfer? communicates the terms or existence of a valid offer. The packaging also states, for example, that ?This product . . . cannot be resold or rented individually.?… This prescription is demonstrably false, at least insofar as it pertains to the Blu-ray disc and DVD portions of the Combo Pack.8 The Copyright Act explicitly provides that the owner of a particular copy ?is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.? … Thus, the clearly unenforceable ?cannot be resold individually? language conveys nothing so much as Disney?s preference about consumers? future behavior, rather than the existence of a binding agreement. At this stage, it appears that the accompanying ?Not For Sale or Transfer? language plays a similar role.

While it’s a bit disappointing to see the court buy into the ReDigi reasoning on First Sale, it’s good to see it not buy the language on the box representing a contract and to call out the company for copyright misuse in leveraging copyrights to stifle other lawful activity. This case is likely far from over, though, so we’ll see how things progress.

Filed Under: copyright misuse, digital downloads, first sale, rental kiosks
Companies: disney, redbox

Warner Brothers And Redbox Sign New Deal: Rental Blackout Window Cut From Ridiculous 56 Days To Equally Ridiculous 28 Days

Movie Industry

from the 'half-as-stupid'-isn't-the-same-as-'twice-as-smart' dept

Redbox has ended its “standoff” with Warner Brothers and, despite its earlier moves, has come out on the losing end of the deal. If you’ll recall, earlier in the year Redbox decided to let its contract with Warner Brothers expire after the studio decided to withhold its new releases for 56 days — up from the already ridiculous 28 days. Redbox looked at the obscene size of this window and said, thanks but no thanks, we’ll just purchase your movies elsewhere.

This couldn’t have made WB too happy, what with Redbox exercising the right of First Sale to bypass the studio’s window and let itself in the front door. As for those looking to rent new releases while they were still new, Warner Brothers basically told them to shove off, and go look elsewhere for their entertainment. Having cut off a source of income and given more than a few potential customers a reason to check out alternate sources, the studio finally decided to renegotiate.

Here’s how it all works out for Redbox (and by extension, the customers):

For titles with street dates between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014, the studio will grant Redbox the rights to offer Warner Bros. theatrical titles on Blu-ray Disc and DVD 28 days after their retail release dates.

Apparently, a stupid window is slightly less stupid when it’s half the size it previously was. (But more stupidly, it’s exactly where the window sat previously, before Warner decided not enough people were buying during the rental shutout). What Warner refuses to understand is that people want to rent movies when they logically should be available (i.e., day and date with the DVD release), rather than at some arbitrary point in the future. Warner is still willing to trade rentals for sales, even if it means giving up some rentals for file sharing. But the stupidity of the deal gets worse:

In addition, Redbox announced plans to join the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) and has agreed to promote UltraViolet through a program of mutually agreed-upon promotions and marketing tactics designed to help retail customers discover UltraViolet.

On top of being forced to humor Warner’s ignorant windowing, Redbox is now being made to play nice with the studio’s too-little-too-late digital “offering.” It’s a bad deal all around, but the press release ignores all reality to paint a gloriously rose-tinted future for all involved.

The arrangement will improve the economics for both Warner Bros. and Redbox while ensuring consistent availability of Warner Bros. titles for the consumer.

Really? Judging from past experience, it seems more likely that Warner will continue to cripple the rental service by adding ridiculous agreements and stipulations while slowly killing off the everything anyone liked about it. There’s nothing about this equation that “improves economics.” Warner opens itself up to more piracy by setting up arbitrary windows and consumers looking for the latest Warner releases still have 28 days to kill before they become “consistently available.”

Here’s some more rah-rah, go team doublespeak from Warner Bros.

“We are pleased to once again have a direct relationship with Redbox, providing their consumers access to our movies,” said Ron Sanders, president, Warner Home Video. “In addition, we look forward to working together on other key initiatives such as UltraViolet and creating promotional opportunities to offer consumers great content when and where they want it.”

Translation: We are pleased that we have prevented Redbox from simply purchasing our movies from a third party and renting them out during our arbitrary blackout periods. In addition, we look forward to pushing our clunky digital services and creating restrictive “opportunities” to offer consumers great content when and where we say they can have it.

Filed Under: movies, rentals, windows
Companies: redbox, warner bros.

Redbox Won't Cave To Warner Bros. Demands; Will Buy WB DVDs From Other Sources And Rent Them

Copyright

from the good-for-redbox dept

With all the talk of movie studios trying to create a new window between DVD releases for sales, and DVD releases for rentals, it’s sometimes forgotten that Redbox tried to fight this fight a few years ago… and ended up in a big legal battle with the studios, before caving and agreeing to delay rentals. However, it appears that the company may be ready to fight back again. Rather than accept an increased 56 day window with other annoying restrictions, Redbox is apparently telling Warner Bros. to take its dumb idea and to shove it, because it’ll just buy the DVDs from alternative sources:

However, after lengthy talks between WB and Redbox this month, the companies couldn’t come to an agreement over the new demands from the studio.

Instead, Redbox has opted to turn to “alternate means” to purchase the films on DVD and Blu-ray it makes available to rent for as low as $1.20 a night through its more than 28,000 kiosks — and offer them the same day they hit store shelves to buy, according to Redbox senior VP of marketing Gary Cohen.

This could get interesting, because the last time they had this fight, the studios sought to block companies like Walmart from selling to Redbox, and Walmart put in place some restrictions to make it harder for Redbox to do this. I still think Redbox could potentially crowdsource these purchases, and get around any restrictions.

Either way, it’s stories like this that show why the First Sale doctrine is so important. Redbox should be able to buy from alternative sources and then be free to rent those movies. And that’s the case due to “first sale” rights — even if Warner Brothers wants to pretend they don’t exist.

Filed Under: copyright, first sale, movies, rentals
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.

WB, HBO Continue To Suck At Economics; New Policies Encourage Piracy

Economics

from the do-they-not-realize-this? dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting variations on two stories from last week that show — yet again — that the big legacy entertainment industry companies suck at economics. AdamR was the first to send over the news that Warner Bros. studio was increasing the “delay” period for rentals. If you don’t recall, WB has been at the forefront of this braindead idea that, if it forbids Netflix, Redbox and Blockbuster from renting videos, maybe more people will buy the DVDs they release for sale. Of course, other studios took the time to study the matter and found that such a delay in rentals doesn’t increase sales. Meanwhile, a separate study showed that such windows do increase infringement, as those who are perfectly willing to pay the price to rent, find the price to buy ridiculous… and seek alternatives.

It appears that WB is implicitly admitting that the strategy of delaying the rental period of a movie by 28 days has been a total failure, in the decision to increase the delay to 56 days. They’re basically admitting that not enough people were “buying” in those 28 days… so they somehow think that doubling the wait will increase the purchases. It won’t. If people really want to pay the extra money to buy the DVD, they’re likely to do so pretty early on. It’s not like they’re waiting 50 days in and then saying “gee, I can’t rent the movie, so I’ll just pay a lot more money than necessary to own an obsolete piece of plastic.”

Meanwhile, HBO, coming out of the same corporate lineage as WB, has decided to stop selling Netflix the DVDs of its shows. Netflix, of course, notes that it can get these DVDs from other sources, but it makes you wonder what HBO thinks it’s accomplishing here. Pissing off its fans on Netflix by trying to force them into HBO’s own annoying walled garden doesn’t help build fans. And if it does actually lead to Netflix not offering HBO shows, then as plenty of commentators quickly noted, all they’re really doing is encouraging more infringement.

This is basic stuff at this point. Not offering your content in simple, legitimate formats that the customers want doesn’t help you at all. It just drives people to infringe. How does that help in any way, shape or form?

Filed Under: delays, hbo, movies, tv shows, windows
Companies: hbo, netflix, redbox, warner bros.

Redbox Realizing That Caving To Hollywood On 28-Day Delay Was A Bad Idea

Movie Industry

from the duh dept

We were pretty surprised when Redbox caved in to the Hollywood studios, and agreed to annoy its customers with a ridiculous 28-day delay. We had many commenters say that people wouldn’t care and it wasn’t much of a big deal. However, the company is now admitting that the 28-day delay resulted in much lower holiday rentals than it had expected. Meanwhile, the only studio that has publicly released information about how its experiments with the 28-day delay went, Paramount, has said that such delays are bad for business, as it doesn’t increase sales of DVDs, and that allowing Redbox to rent movies sooner actually helped the studio (and Redbox) make more money. So why do we still have those delays?

Filed Under: delays, movies, rentals
Companies: paramount, redbox

Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays

Movie Industry

from the driving-fans-to-piracy dept

Hollywood continues to seek new and ever-more creative ways to shoot itself in the foot and drive movie fans to unauthorized copies of movies. Earlier this year, Warner Bros. studios was successful in pressuring Netflix and Redbox to delay rental releases by 28-days, with the hope that people who couldn’t rent the movie would buy it. Warner Bros. has been claiming this strategy succeeded and that they’ve sold more DVDs because of it. I would doubt that it’s the delay that’s increasing sales, and it seems like a pretty short-sighted strategy to look to increase sales of a format like DVD right now. Either way, Warner Bros. is now claiming it may try to increase the window over 28-days. It’s as if they want to drive more people to get the movie from unauthorized providers. Making it more difficult to let people watch movies the way they want to isn’t a solution that will work long-term.

Filed Under: delays, movies, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.

Warner Bros. Claims That Annoying Customers With 28-Day Rental Delay Is Working

Movie Industry

from the correlation? dept

Warner Bros. studio was among the more adamant about getting Netflix, Redbox and others to delay rentals of movies until 28-days after the DVD release, in the hopes that it would drive more people to buy. We suggested that was pissing off customers, just at a time when they’re discovering they have (perhaps not very legal) alternatives, and it probably isn’t a great business strategy. However, Khyle points us to the news that Warner Bros. CFO is claiming success with the program, claiming that DVD sales are up 15% following this strategy.

Of course, that leaves out all sorts of important details. Beyond the simple correlation ≠ causation issue, there are so many other variables here, I’d be hesitant to believe that the higher sales were due mostly to this delay. Perhaps there was just a popular movie that people really wanted to own when it came out. Or perhaps there were other promotions. Or, maybe, it’s just a dead cat bounce. Either way, let’s wait and see before declaring that pissing off your customers so much is a good idea.

The best part, though, might be the confident quote from the guy:

“You make money in the film business by putting your content in appropriate windows that matches up with the way consumers like to use it.”

Thing is, he’s got it wrong. It’s not the “windows,” but the different convenience and values that people consider. You can offer “the way consumers like to use it,” all at the same time, if you want. The studios aren’t doing this because they’re so in love with the “windowing” system as a way to price differentiate, that they keep wanting to introduce more and more windows. At some point they’ll realize that this is really dangerous short-term thinking. Pissing off people eventually comes back to bite you.

Filed Under: delays, movies, windows
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.

Paramount Says 28 Day Delay On Redbox Makes No Sense; Doesn't Cannibalize DVD Sales

Movie Industry

from the good-for-them dept

While some of the Big 6 studios have been incredibly anti-Redbox, Viacom’s Paramount has always been the most reasonable towards the DVD-rental kiosk provider. So it really comes as little surprise that Paramount has announced that, after testing delayed movie releases through Redbox it sees absolutely no reason to keep delaying such releases and instead will offer new release movies on Redbox at the same time the DVD goes on sale:

“There were two conclusions we came to,” said Dennis Maguire, president of Paramount Home Entertainment. “There hasn’t been a cannibalization of DVD sales from Redbox, and Redbox was allowing us to expand our business and ultimately make more money” than if the studio held back its DVDs to Redbox for a period of time.

Of course, this is exactly what many people said when studios like Warner Bros., Universal and Fox demanded the 28 day release, but it’s nice to at least see Paramount actually looking at the data and realizing that Redbox isn’t the evil destroyer of Hollywood that some of its competitors have made it out to be.

Filed Under: delays, dvds, rentals
Companies: paramount, redbox, viacom