4 ms·

"When Netflix or any other rental business buys DVDs, they don't just buy the same copy you and I do, but a rental version with different licensing terms which

by elq 17y ago

"When Netflix or any other rental business buys DVDs, they don't just buy the same copy you and I do, but a rental version with different licensing terms which costs considerably more" Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

yellowbkpk 17y ago
Ok, you can be the person that pays for my lawyer then. Seriously, though: I've organized several dozen publicly-advertised movie screenings of movies (new release or not) and have had to pay anywhere from $50-500 for the rights to do so. When you pay for such a thing (through Swank [1], for example) you get a box with a DVD and a piece of paper with a mailing slip and a license for showing the movie publicly on a certain date. The DVD has a different silk screen printed on it than a retail DVD and was sometimes even a different color (purple or yellow plastic instead of clear). [1] http://www.swank.com/college/index.html http://www.swank.com/college/index.html
- elq 17y ago
  public screening rights are not covered in first sale doctrine.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I love Wikipedia, but surely you've noticed the [citation needed] tag on this assertion. I strongly dispute the assertions of the Wikipedia editor about what this case meant. Here are before-and-after articles about the lawsuit from Video Business, the trade publication for the video rental industry: http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6398859.html http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6398859.html http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6461951.html?q=nebg http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6461951.html?q=nebg NEBG, a retailers' association, sought to prevent Genius group, a distributor, from including an 800 pritned on the front of discs along with the message 'for sale only, call if you suspect piracy', arguaing that including this on DVDs would damage their members' businesses by implying criminal activity on their part. The case was dismissed since the labeling never took place, and so no harm had actually occurred. they were particularly annoyed because an exclusive rental distribution agreement existed between the distributor and Blockbuster, such that NEBG members had no way to obtain rental copies to offer to their customers. They assert it is legal for them to do so under the first sale doctrine, but this has never actually been tested in court, so it would be more accurate to say it has not so far been forbidden. It is not established case law, and in this sense the Wikipedia article is incorrect. If the studeios and distributors establish a 28 day sale window with Netflix's agreement, and if they make rental copies freely available to wholesale buyers, then there may well be a test case brought against anyone who sell consumer copies for rental, brought by both the distributors and very possibly Netflix themselves. IANAL, but I am an industry professional, so that's my humble opinion.
- elq 17y ago
  I work for netflix. I also know that redbox is buying retail dvds (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-redbox4-2009dec04,0,2713370.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-redbox4-2009dec04,0...) netflix used retail dvds for years. AFAIK netflix stil does for certain low volume titles.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Which was fine when the DVD retail window took place after the rental window, as it did for years. Of course movie studios and distributors like the long tail but once they've recovered enough of the life time revenues they were content to let that slide. Please see the copyright Act s109.b.1.A, which states (in part - software-specific verbiage removed): unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording ... neither the owner of a particular phonorecord ... may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord ... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000109----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000109----... I mean look, it's pretty clear that you can not rent audio recordings without permission (there's an exception for libraries). It's just not allowed. Now if the film industry's back is against the wall and they either make a case or lobby Congress to extend the same protection to movies, they can make two parallel arguments: 1. it's ridiculous and unfair that you should be able to prevent the rental of a movie's soundtrack on CD but not have the same control over the movie itself on DVD; and 2. while there is an explicit distinction between phonorecordgs and audiovisual works such as motion pictures (so that it can be argued the above simply does not apply), there exists a compulsory license for phonorecords - ie you can license a piece of published music for distribution whether or not the copyright holder wishes to sell it to you - hence all those awful compilation records - but there is no such right for motion pictures, and thus a distributor of same is perfectly at liberty to refuse to sell to someone, and impose contractual conditions to that effect, which is the path that Universal appears to be taking (See s.115 of the copyright act). In short you don't have an automatic right to be able to obtain a copy. Incidentally, since you work for Netflix, and I presume your presence here means you're probably programming for them, the main complaint that I hear from distributors about Netflix is opacity - they really want better metrics, of the kind Apple supplies to their content providers. They like the checks but find it very hard to track the performance of the individual films they distribute, which in turn frustrates producers.

by elq 17y ago

yellowbkpk 17y ago

Ok, you can be the person that pays for my lawyer then. Seriously, though: I've organized several dozen publicly-advertised movie screenings of movies (new release or not) and have had to pay anywhere from $50-500 for the rights to do so. When you pay for such a thing (through Swank [1], for example) you get a box with a DVD and a piece of paper with a mailing slip and a license for showing the movie publicly on a certain date. The DVD has a different silk screen printed on it than a retail DVD and was sometimes even a different color (purple or yellow plastic instead of clear). [1] http://www.swank.com/college/index.html http://www.swank.com/college/index.html

elq 17y ago
public screening rights are not covered in first sale doctrine.

anigbrowl 17y ago

I love Wikipedia, but surely you've noticed the [citation needed] tag on this assertion. I strongly dispute the assertions of the Wikipedia editor about what this case meant. Here are before-and-after articles about the lawsuit from Video Business, the trade publication for the video rental industry: http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6398859.html http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6398859.html http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6461951.html?q=nebg http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6461951.html?q=nebg NEBG, a retailers' association, sought to prevent Genius group, a distributor, from including an 800 pritned on the front of discs along with the message 'for sale only, call if you suspect piracy', arguaing that including this on DVDs would damage their members' businesses by implying criminal activity on their part. The case was dismissed since the labeling never took place, and so no harm had actually occurred. they were particularly annoyed because an exclusive rental distribution agreement existed between the distributor and Blockbuster, such that NEBG members had no way to obtain rental copies to offer to their customers. They assert it is legal for them to do so under the first sale doctrine, but this has never actually been tested in court, so it would be more accurate to say it has not so far been forbidden. It is not established case law, and in this sense the Wikipedia article is incorrect. If the studeios and distributors establish a 28 day sale window with Netflix's agreement, and if they make rental copies freely available to wholesale buyers, then there may well be a test case brought against anyone who sell consumer copies for rental, brought by both the distributors and very possibly Netflix themselves. IANAL, but I am an industry professional, so that's my humble opinion.

elq 17y ago
I work for netflix. I also know that redbox is buying retail dvds (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-redbox4-2009dec04,0,2713370.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-redbox4-2009dec04,0...) netflix used retail dvds for years. AFAIK netflix stil does for certain low volume titles.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Which was fine when the DVD retail window took place after the rental window, as it did for years. Of course movie studios and distributors like the long tail but once they've recovered enough of the life time revenues they were content to let that slide. Please see the copyright Act s109.b.1.A, which states (in part - software-specific verbiage removed): unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording ... neither the owner of a particular phonorecord ... may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord ... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000109----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000109----... I mean look, it's pretty clear that you can not rent audio recordings without permission (there's an exception for libraries). It's just not allowed. Now if the film industry's back is against the wall and they either make a case or lobby Congress to extend the same protection to movies, they can make two parallel arguments: 1. it's ridiculous and unfair that you should be able to prevent the rental of a movie's soundtrack on CD but not have the same control over the movie itself on DVD; and 2. while there is an explicit distinction between phonorecordgs and audiovisual works such as motion pictures (so that it can be argued the above simply does not apply), there exists a compulsory license for phonorecords - ie you can license a piece of published music for distribution whether or not the copyright holder wishes to sell it to you - hence all those awful compilation records - but there is no such right for motion pictures, and thus a distributor of same is perfectly at liberty to refuse to sell to someone, and impose contractual conditions to that effect, which is the path that Universal appears to be taking (See s.115 of the copyright act). In short you don't have an automatic right to be able to obtain a copy. Incidentally, since you work for Netflix, and I presume your presence here means you're probably programming for them, the main complaint that I hear from distributors about Netflix is opacity - they really want better metrics, of the kind Apple supplies to their content providers. They like the checks but find it very hard to track the performance of the individual films they distribute, which in turn frustrates producers.