zediva造句

• The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against Zediva.
• Zediva purchased DVDs and " rented " them out to users one-by-one.
• Zediva only rented DVD's to one customer at a time and did not make DVD copies.
• Zediva was not licensed or authorized by the plaintiffs to distribute or perform any of the copyrighted works.
• Zediva's service was thought to have a significant negative impact on the market for other licensed VOD providers.
• It did not matter whether Zediva's customers were using the service at different times and in different places.
• Zediva also argued that the system was " like playing back a movie from a DVD with a very long cable attached ".
• Zediva argued that it serves a similar function as rental stores like Blockbuster who don't need a licensing agreement to rent movies.
• The plaintiffs alleged that " Zediva's business was built on streaming performances of motion pictures, not the rental of discs ".
• During October 2011, Zediva took down their DVD streaming service and agreed to pay $ 1.8 million to the Motion Picture Association.
• In August 2011, the U . S . District court Judge John Walter ordered a preliminary injunction against Zediva, shutting down their service.
• The defendants provided a service named Zediva which allowed customers to watch movies online by streaming the digital signal from physical DVD players housed in its data center.
• Online movie start-up, Zediva . com, aimed to differentiate itself from competitors such as Netflix by streaming popular movies the day they came out on DVD for an extremely low price.
• The court did not directly address Zediva's first sale argument, but law professor James Grimmelmann pointed out that " first sale is a defense only to the distribution and display rights ", irrelevant to the lawsuit based on the performance right.
• Whether the place where Zediva's customers watched was public or not did not matter as much as the fact that the customers were " members of the public " . " The non-public nature of the place of the performance has no bearing on whether or not those who enjoy the performance constitute'the public'under the transmit clause ", stated the court.