Zediva Gets Shut Down...Permanently

Actually no, their service is nothing like a "long cord" -- ala an HDMI repeater.

It's exactly like putting a slingbox on a DVD player and renting (remote) access to it. The player's output(s) are being converted and streamed to someone else. Now, if I owned the player and the slingbox, it's a different story, but they'd still have a legal tantrum over it.

Wrong. When you go to blockbuster or your mailbox, you are receiving a physical product. The doctrine of first sale applies here; no "streaming" is occurring. What the dvd player is doing in order to get something on your TV is not "streaming"; it's doing exact what it's designed (and licensed) to do, and you have the physical media in your possession that grants you a license for a "private performance".

Really? I wasn't aware the link between my DVD and TV was IP. Mine's actually component video -- so analog. (if I use the PS3, it's HDMI.)

You are, again, COMPLETELY. MISSING. THE. POINT. With Netflix and Blockbuster, you have physical possession of the media.

... Then I have that DVD player connected by a several mile wire to my TV ...
So am doing something illegal? no.

check out my topic "Long cord? No." for a comprehensive explanation of why it's not legally like renting a DVD from Blockbuster. The key is physical transfer of the DVD vs. streaming the DVD content without physical transfer. One is legal, the other is (apparently) not.

well, all I can say is the court disagrees with you. You can rent a physical DVD but you can't rent the contents without a license to do that (like a video streaming license). Despite Zediva's posturing that they were actually renting DVDs, the judge ruled that that was essentially a sham, and it was no different than a video streaming service, since it was the content that was being tendered to the "renter", not the actual DVD itself.

Until and unless it's overturned on appeal (which I doubt it will be, personally), that is the established precedent now.

You are essentially asserting Zediva's argument that what they did is the same as what Netflix and Blockbuster do. That assertion was shredded by the court.

Wow, that judge must be techincally inept. I personally see no reason why Zediva is infringing. The length of a cord determines if it is infringing or not? What a joke.

Court after court based on Sharia law decided that death by stoning was A-ok.

Court after court in Nazi Germany decided that killing and torturing Jews was just fine.

Some courts found that crap called Prohibition was ok.

Some military courts found that if one was gay an exemplary military record would still not count and kick that person out.

Military courts found that waterboarding was a war crime (unless we do it).

There are those things called screwed up laws that usually take a lot of effort to get rid of.

which is sad because if the DVDs where purchased than the movie goons got their money.

Had they negoeated a rental liecense in advance, with fees based on the way they intended to distribute rather than trying to sneak around the intent of the restrictions everyone might be happier, and they would still be in business.

the fees would likely have been higher than at a brick and morter (including redbox type machines) location because the viewings per day are potently much higher.

and of course they would need a way to audit the viewing/disks purchased to assure ONLY genuine rental disks were used (the sneakness factor works against their "trustworthness" in going strictly according to the ToS )

Ahh crap... I read this 6 times! Where do I send the check?

This reminds me of a time when I bought a computer game that wouldn't load onto my computer. Of course, since it was opened, CompUSA wouldn't take it back so I wrote to the software company that I was unable to comply with their licensing terms and was requesting a full refund. If said refund was not provided within 7 business days, that a new license would be in effect which would allow me to copy, reverse-engineer, upload the software and that their failure to provide a refund constituted acceptance of the new agreement. Needless to say, I never heard from them so their software found its way onto the Verizon Usenet server (back when they had one!) Presumably, I would have been legally covered if anything had come of it but nothing ever did.

License agreements are almost as stupid as 'Click here to prove you are over 18' web site buttons.

Logically they seem to be in the right...

So, basically, what we are saying here is that THAT was legal, only because you had to drive to the store and physically take possession of it?