That's not an accurate description of the case. Disney sells packages containing a physical disk and a single-user download code. Redbox is purchasing the packages, using the disks in its rental operation, and selling the download codes that it is not otherwise using.
They aren't selling anything that wasn't in the package they bought (unlike your hypothetical) and isn't selling additional copies of anything.
They are violating language on the packaging, in splitting the items, but the judge has found the limitations attempted to be imposed by that language to be illegal.
> If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!!
No, this decision turns entirely on the doctrine of first sale with regard to the physical product Disney is selling. While someone might argue that a first-sale principle should apply to digital products on similar terms with physical ones, that's not either the current law or the decision in this case.
They aren't selling anything that wasn't in the package they bought (unlike your hypothetical) and isn't selling additional copies of anything.
They are violating language on the packaging, in splitting the items, but the judge has found the limitations attempted to be imposed by that language to be illegal.
> If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!!
No, this decision turns entirely on the doctrine of first sale with regard to the physical product Disney is selling. While someone might argue that a first-sale principle should apply to digital products on similar terms with physical ones, that's not either the current law or the decision in this case.