8 ms·

The basis of Netflix’s U.S.-only disc business is that in the U.S. for physical-medium movies, there is no distinct rental right, but the first-sale doctrine al

The basis of Netflix’s U.S.-only disc business is that in the U.S. for physical-medium movies, there is no distinct rental right, but the first-sale doctrine allows Netflix to rent movies that have been offered for sale on disc and that Netflix has bought on disc.

SilasX 8y ago
I thought rental services had to pay more for copies bought in order to rent out en masse?
- VectorLock 8y ago
  You rent out the copies you buy.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Yeah I got that part. I just thought there were separate rights you had to buy in order to rent them out for money, based on comments I'd read from previous discussions. I just did some googling and found out there doesn't seem to be such a restriction.
    - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
      There's separate rights needed to show a movie to a public/large audience, like at a movie theater.
- d1zzy 8y ago
  The first sale doctrine allows any individual/company to buy retail discs and rent those physical copies out. No need of an agreement from the copyright holder for that. However, in practice, large rental companies (like Netflix) likely DO have contracts that make it easier and cheaper for them to get large numbers of discs without buying them on the retail market. But at least the first sale doctrine provides a fallback if contracts fail. I think I read somewhere that in the past Netflix has had to refer to the retail market for certain titles.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Ah, okay, that's what I must have heard and misinterpreted. Kind of makes sense, as it could allow for arrangements that reduce the losses from unused copies and thus the risk of buying too many. Edit: I also wonder if the unit price difference will ever be big enough that Netflix has to charge a premium for those who want the excluded titles?
  - chiph 8y ago
    I'm seeing more discs from my subscription that are marked "Rental" ... with monochrome labeling (no graphics), fewer subtitle & foreign language options, and lower bit-rate. So they definitely have agreements with the studios/distributors to get discs for the rental market, and it looks like that agreement is covering more and more titles. For the Marvel titles - it's about 50:50 (in perfect balance..)
- hsivonen 8y ago
  In Europe, yes.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
AIUI you have Fair Use rights to format shift content, has there been a test case for that wrt to streaming services, can they buy physical copies and "rent them out" digitally as long as viewers never exceeds the copies held it seems kosher?
- stordoff 8y ago
  Zevida: > The defendants, Zediva, self-described as a DVD "rental" service, served its customers with access to DVDs played from their data center where each DVD was streamed through its individual DVD player for up to four hours. Zediva customers did not have access to the digital file. > The court held that the "public interest is served by issuance of a preliminary injunction" in order to uphold copyright protections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._WTV_Systems,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc....
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Thanks for linking that, it's often hard to find this sort of thing unless you know exactly what you're looking for. Wow, was that ever a stitch up though; I have to vent(!): >"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. It did not matter whether Zediva's customers were using the service at different times and in different places. // Paraphrasing that "the clause requires the transmission to be to the public, the fact that here they're not transmitting to the public [but to paying customers only, in private] is not material". Way to take an explicit requirement and hand-wave it away there judge. What I'd love to know is how the motivations work in this sort of thing in USA, like do the politicians get paid by the media corps, and the politicians choose the judges, or is there a way the media corps pay off the judges direct [perhaps "consulting" jobs when they retire?]. >The court also refused to adopt the Second Circuit's volitional requirement // What a surprise! >Last, even though the plaintiffs required their licensees to provide a high quality movie-watching experience to the VOD customers, the defendants being non-licensed, were not obligated to meet such standards and provided sub-optimal customer experience that tarnished customers' perception of VOD as an attractive option for viewing the Copyrighted Works. // Except that's, again, exactly backwards if the VOD providers were better then they'd get the business. The defendant is paying full price for the DVD; the DVD is the quality the complainant made it - likelihood of irreparable injury is close to zero. I'll bet the court did a quick survey "would you like cheaper, easier access to dvd rentals at home?" and all the public said "no way, stop that shit ASAP!".

SilasX 8y ago

I thought rental services had to pay more for copies bought in order to rent out en masse?

VectorLock 8y ago
You rent out the copies you buy.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Yeah I got that part. I just thought there were separate rights you had to buy in order to rent them out for money, based on comments I'd read from previous discussions. I just did some googling and found out there doesn't seem to be such a restriction.
  - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
    There's separate rights needed to show a movie to a public/large audience, like at a movie theater.
d1zzy 8y ago
The first sale doctrine allows any individual/company to buy retail discs and rent those physical copies out. No need of an agreement from the copyright holder for that. However, in practice, large rental companies (like Netflix) likely DO have contracts that make it easier and cheaper for them to get large numbers of discs without buying them on the retail market. But at least the first sale doctrine provides a fallback if contracts fail. I think I read somewhere that in the past Netflix has had to refer to the retail market for certain titles.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Ah, okay, that's what I must have heard and misinterpreted. Kind of makes sense, as it could allow for arrangements that reduce the losses from unused copies and thus the risk of buying too many. Edit: I also wonder if the unit price difference will ever be big enough that Netflix has to charge a premium for those who want the excluded titles?
- chiph 8y ago
  I'm seeing more discs from my subscription that are marked "Rental" ... with monochrome labeling (no graphics), fewer subtitle & foreign language options, and lower bit-rate. So they definitely have agreements with the studios/distributors to get discs for the rental market, and it looks like that agreement is covering more and more titles. For the Marvel titles - it's about 50:50 (in perfect balance..)
hsivonen 8y ago
In Europe, yes.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

AIUI you have Fair Use rights to format shift content, has there been a test case for that wrt to streaming services, can they buy physical copies and "rent them out" digitally as long as viewers never exceeds the copies held it seems kosher?

stordoff 8y ago
Zevida: > The defendants, Zediva, self-described as a DVD "rental" service, served its customers with access to DVDs played from their data center where each DVD was streamed through its individual DVD player for up to four hours. Zediva customers did not have access to the digital file. > The court held that the "public interest is served by issuance of a preliminary injunction" in order to uphold copyright protections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._WTV_Systems,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc....
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Thanks for linking that, it's often hard to find this sort of thing unless you know exactly what you're looking for. Wow, was that ever a stitch up though; I have to vent(!): >"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. It did not matter whether Zediva's customers were using the service at different times and in different places. // Paraphrasing that "the clause requires the transmission to be to the public, the fact that here they're not transmitting to the public [but to paying customers only, in private] is not material". Way to take an explicit requirement and hand-wave it away there judge. What I'd love to know is how the motivations work in this sort of thing in USA, like do the politicians get paid by the media corps, and the politicians choose the judges, or is there a way the media corps pay off the judges direct [perhaps "consulting" jobs when they retire?]. >The court also refused to adopt the Second Circuit's volitional requirement // What a surprise! >Last, even though the plaintiffs required their licensees to provide a high quality movie-watching experience to the VOD customers, the defendants being non-licensed, were not obligated to meet such standards and provided sub-optimal customer experience that tarnished customers' perception of VOD as an attractive option for viewing the Copyrighted Works. // Except that's, again, exactly backwards if the VOD providers were better then they'd get the business. The defendant is paying full price for the DVD; the DVD is the quality the complainant made it - likelihood of irreparable injury is close to zero. I'll bet the court did a quick survey "would you like cheaper, easier access to dvd rentals at home?" and all the public said "no way, stop that shit ASAP!".