/Rene

So yes, if he eats a rabbit it is his own business. If he asks for $5000 that’s fine too. If he makes it a condition he will eat a rabbit if he can’t raise the money, that’s fine. But if he can be found to present the condition under the presumption that the act will render unhappiness or anger and moderation conditional transfer – yes.

Fine line, but he’s crossing it. Though getting a DA to file the indictment is UNLIKELY. These things cost money, and the DA will weigh the value vs other crimes that must be prosecuted. DA time is limited.

IMHO, renting digital media doesn’t make sense. It’s become an artificial construct anyway. There are widely available tools and laptops that make it easy to practice “rent, rip and return” without even leaving the Blockbuster parking lot. So why pretend there is any difference between renting a movie and selling a movie? I would rather see Download-To-Own become so cheap that offering a rental service isn’t a practical business model. I believe Hollywood should sell digital copies for about the same cost as renting a physical disc.

Alternatively, as you suggest, a subscription model makes a lot of sense and DivX is one of the few technologies that supports a New-Replaces-Old rental model that seemed to work so well for Netflix. Unfortunately, NRO for digital media does not neatly fit into the business models of Hollywood studios and digital NRO is just hard for most consumers to wrap their head around.

In any event, your advice is better targeted at Film Fresh and/or Hollywood. DivX doesn’t create or sell media. Nonetheless, I take it to heart and endeavor to chip away where I can.

For those who don’t know Davis Freeberg, he is a prolific blogger on all things digital media. Sometimes I envision a foaming lunatic but usually he dispenses sage wisdom. I’m honored he stopped by my site and certainly encourage everyone to visit his.