Subject URL: Warner vs. Video Rental stored

A while back Warner introduced a new system for thier DVD releases. They simultaneously release a new DVD for rental and purchase. Rental DVDs were $55, while private purchase DVDs were $25. When Warner caught out some rental stores renting the cheaper private purchase DVDs there legal carnage.

Now maybe I've missed something but I don't see any problem here. If a rental store stands to make money from renting their videos they should pay more. A rental fee so to speak. But surely that could never work anyway? Surely the renter should pay a percentage of profits to the copyright owner? If someone was renting my music I'd want some of the profits via a percentage I can't see any other way working.

The article indicates the two major Australian video rental businesses, Blockbuster and Video Ezy have "a seperate deal" with Warner. My guess would have to be a percentage. It all just seem so wacky to me.

And to Warner layers who are trying to get out of this by claiming that DVDs are "software" and hence they can control how they're rented, I hope you never work again.