3 ms·

Can someone clarify something for me? If I am a movie producer, do I or do I not have the right to release a movie in one region and a month later in another r

Can someone clarify something for me? If I am a movie producer, do I or do I not have the right to release a movie in one region and a month later in another region? Do I have the right to release in one medium first, then some other medium later (or not at all)? Do I have the right to maximize the profit on an optional, non-essential product? Now, the studios say one thing, everyone here seems to be saying another. There's a ton of rhetoric on either side, but no clear-cut answers. (By "here", I mean in general tone, not specifics within this particular thread of conversations.)

davidw 11y ago
They have that right, but that doesn't mean it isn't lame. It goes against an open internet. I'm happy to pay for stuff I like on line, but found it supremely annoying that I couldn't get US shows or movies when I lived in Italy, even with a US credit card and billing address. I ended up signing up for a proxy thing, so on top of paying for content, I had to pay extra just to access it! Realistically, not everyone is going to make that choice. Mostly, Amazon seems to have gotten things right with the Kindle: content is mostly accessible anywhere, and it's very easy to buy, making that the path of least resistance.
- thirdsun 11y ago
  Music's got it right too - it's a flawless, DRM-free experience to buy an album these days. And I do it a lot (not a fan of streaming, prefer to own my content). Movies however...it couldn't be any less convenient to buy a movie in high quality and original audio/language that can be played in any media player (like Kodi/XBMC). In fact it is legally impossible. Buy and download online? Not possible. The closest option is buying a bluray and ripping it. I'd even consider getting an optical drive (that I absolutely don't need otherwise) to do that, but as a european I'd also have to deal with those unnecessary delays in availability. I'm sorry, but as long as this situation remains, I won't feel sorry about pirating bluray-ripped movies in good quality. On the other hand I can't remember when I last pirated music.
a_c_s 11y ago
I don't see the value in allowing people to discriminate geographically: the artist shouldn't have control over who can purchase their product or consume their work so long as the artist is properly compensated. (Similarly for physical goods: it would be absurd to set up a bookstore but based on people's passports I may or may not sell them books.)
aidenn0 11y ago
These are great questions! US policy has, in at least one specific case, decided that you are not allowed to restrict use of the copyright, so long as you are fairly compensated for it. This is called "compulsory licensing." Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, so it is natural that there will be tension over the extent of it. Some people strongly feel that it is natural that creators should have control over the publishing of their content, others feel htat it is not so. Roman law provided for no copyright, but several other legal traditions, including ancient Greek, as well as Jewish Talmudic laws provided for what today are known in Europe as "moral rights" which are distinct from copyright and cover things such as false-attribution and distortions of the work. So the question would be, what grounds does a movie producer have to prevent me from giving away a thousand copies of a DVD I have purchased? Clearly there are legal grounds, but are the legal grounds representative of some underlying philosophical ownership a creator has of their works, a monetary incentive for creators to publish their works, or something else?

davidw 11y ago

They have that right, but that doesn't mean it isn't lame. It goes against an open internet. I'm happy to pay for stuff I like on line, but found it supremely annoying that I couldn't get US shows or movies when I lived in Italy, even with a US credit card and billing address. I ended up signing up for a proxy thing, so on top of paying for content, I had to pay extra just to access it! Realistically, not everyone is going to make that choice. Mostly, Amazon seems to have gotten things right with the Kindle: content is mostly accessible anywhere, and it's very easy to buy, making that the path of least resistance.

thirdsun 11y ago
Music's got it right too - it's a flawless, DRM-free experience to buy an album these days. And I do it a lot (not a fan of streaming, prefer to own my content). Movies however...it couldn't be any less convenient to buy a movie in high quality and original audio/language that can be played in any media player (like Kodi/XBMC). In fact it is legally impossible. Buy and download online? Not possible. The closest option is buying a bluray and ripping it. I'd even consider getting an optical drive (that I absolutely don't need otherwise) to do that, but as a european I'd also have to deal with those unnecessary delays in availability. I'm sorry, but as long as this situation remains, I won't feel sorry about pirating bluray-ripped movies in good quality. On the other hand I can't remember when I last pirated music.

a_c_s 11y ago

I don't see the value in allowing people to discriminate geographically: the artist shouldn't have control over who can purchase their product or consume their work so long as the artist is properly compensated. (Similarly for physical goods: it would be absurd to set up a bookstore but based on people's passports I may or may not sell them books.)

aidenn0 11y ago

These are great questions! US policy has, in at least one specific case, decided that you are not allowed to restrict use of the copyright, so long as you are fairly compensated for it. This is called "compulsory licensing." Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, so it is natural that there will be tension over the extent of it. Some people strongly feel that it is natural that creators should have control over the publishing of their content, others feel htat it is not so. Roman law provided for no copyright, but several other legal traditions, including ancient Greek, as well as Jewish Talmudic laws provided for what today are known in Europe as "moral rights" which are distinct from copyright and cover things such as false-attribution and distortions of the work. So the question would be, what grounds does a movie producer have to prevent me from giving away a thousand copies of a DVD I have purchased? Clearly there are legal grounds, but are the legal grounds representative of some underlying philosophical ownership a creator has of their works, a monetary incentive for creators to publish their works, or something else?