Boycott SmartFlix!

[bherr]

Anyone checked out a library book? Did the author get a dime for your read of his/her work? I agree that the legalese has to be on the cover, visible pre-purchase to make rental a breach of contract. NFL films says "private use of our audience" with explicit prohibitions just for this purpose.

 

[David Jimerson]

This really ought to go before a court of law.

Then we'll see.

It already has. It's how video rental companies sprang up.

A long time ago -- early '80s -- there was a bill in Congress which would have required that rental companies obtain permission before they can rent, but it was defeated.

 

[Sad Max]

Don't video rental companies purchase their inventory under different terms, than a private home-use consumer purchases her personal copy of a work?

 

[David Jimerson]

I'm certain they do. But that's a business process, not a legal one. They had to come to terms with the movie companies, because nothing says the movie companies HAVE to sell to them. So, the rental houses pay a lot more per copy than retail -- or they don't get the stock.

They could, I suppose, get them from a retail company . . . but then they won't have any on the day the movies are released, and their competitors will.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

I don't know how it works now, but back in the early nineties, I was looking at a catalogue for a rental store. The purchase price for VHS Movies was like a hundred bucks. Something we could buy in a store at that time for 20 bucks or less.

Jason

 

[rapsucks]

This may be straying from the topic, but I think that movie rental practices have changed since the heyday. They did pay significantly more than others--but they also got them a month or two before they hit the shelves for purchase. It must have been something they worked out with the distributors. Nowadays I think they give a cut to the distributors.

But as to the matter at hand, I think the real issue has been mentioned once before: If they were using this business practice with Hollywood MPAA films they wouldn't last a week. Why? I don't know. But it may have something to do with this little guy we've all seen a hundred times:

Erik's idea of implementing something like this might have some legitimacy. If you could make the restricted distribution a condition of the purchase, and then found them renting the title, you could really bust them.

I would recommend a couple of things:

1. Copywrite your stuff. And none of this de-facto copywrite stuff. Give Uncle Sam $50 and get the piece of paper.

2. Add a license agreement to your purchase. Even if it could be challenged in court, it might scare off some of the more predatory scumbags.

3. Add a license screen to your video.

Between steps 2 and 3 these dirtbags will at least not be able to claim that they had no way of knowing that you didn't want your work to be rented. And maybe band together a group of people who have their material on this rental site against their wishes and hire a lawyer. A few people banding together makes the legal cost easier to bear and it increases the amount of a possible settlement--something that will attract more lawyers (like flies to a rotting carcass).

I wish the best to all of you. If nothing else, this thread has influenced a couple of people to never use this site (myself included).

Edit: spell check. Gets me every time.
Edit #2: I misspelled Erik's name. For some reason, I always assume Erik is Eric, as in Clapton.

 

[Erik Olson]

I'll be honest with you... I love his music, I do... I'm an Eric Clapton fan. For my money, I don't know if it gets any better than when he sings "Tears in Heaven".

I celebrate the guy's entire catalogue.

e

 

[cecil995]

I'll be honest with you... I love his music, I do... I'm an Eric Clapton fan. For my money, I don't know if it gets any better than when he sings "Tears in Heaven".

I celebrate the guy's entire catalogue.

e

You must have just come from a meeting with the Bobs

 

[Nathyn]

Actually, that is terrible. There's got to be a copyright attorney somewhere who feels the case is worth his time.

I'm not an attorney but I've worked for copyright firms and have taken a class entertainment law. What they've done is found basic legal loopholes in which they can get away with stuff like this. Especially if they pay a higher amount for the goods.

-Nate

 

[Sad Max]

I'm certain they do. But that's a business process, not a legal one.

It's more likely both. Part of what those rental companies get, for the premium they pay, is the license to rent the copies of the movies they stock, and charge a fee for the privilege.

Someone who pays less for the personal in-home ownership of a copy of a movie, probably isn't purchasing that license, and therefore wouldn't enjoy that privilege.

 

[GenJerDan]

Anyone checked out a library book? Did the author get a dime for your read of his/her work?

Libraries get special "library binding" copies of books from the publisher. (At least they're supposed to.)

Whether the author gets any "extra" out of the deal, or it is considered sort of a loss leader-ish thing, or it is done from a sense of obligation to society, it is done with the permission of the author/publisher...not snaked out from under them.

 

[David Jimerson]

But as to the matter at hand, I think the real issue has been mentioned once before: If they were using this business practice with Hollywood MPAA films they wouldn't last a week.

It definitely would, and beyond . . . which is how Blockbuster stays in business.

Why? I don't know. But it may have something to do with this little guy we've all seen a hundred times:

You've noticed that this is on movies you rent, right?

Erik's idea of implementing something like this might have some legitimacy. If you could make the restricted distribution a condition of the purchase, and then found them renting the title, you could really bust them.

No. The grandaddy case of the first sale doctrine involved pretty much exactly that, thought it was printed into a book instead of being put on a video.

I would recommend a couple of things:

1. Copywrite your stuff. And none of this de-facto copywrite stuff. Give Uncle Sam $50 and get the piece of paper.

It's copyrighted as soon as it's put in tangible form. But YES, you most certainly should register your copyright. :beer:

2. Add a license agreement to your purchase. Even if it could be challenged in court, it might scare off some of the more predatory scumbags.

3. Add a license screen to your video.

It may act as a deterrent, but it's likely not going to help you legally.

Between steps 2 and 3 these dirtbags will at least not be able to claim that they had no way of knowing that you didn't want your work to be rented.

They know full well, but don't care.

I have no doubt that Corcoran sees himself as some kind of hero, with letting people rent videos they'd normally have to pay $60 or more for, sticking it to the man, etc..

But the reality is that most of the videos he has on his site aren't done by big companies, but by people just trying to make a living selling what they know.

And maybe band together a group of people who have their material on this rental site against their wishes and hire a lawyer. A few people banding together makes the legal cost easier to bear and it increases the amount of a possible settlement--something that will attract more lawyers (like flies to a rotting carcass).

It's a nice thought, but with the law being what it is, it's not likely to get much of anywhere. :huh:

I wish the best to all of you. If nothing else, this thread has influenced a couple of people to never use this site (myself included).

 

[David Jimerson]

It's more likely both. Part of what those rental companies get, for the premium they pay, is the license to rent the copies of the movies they stock, and charge a fee for the privilege.

Someone who pays less for the personal in-home ownership of a copy of a movie, probably isn't purchasing that license, and therefore wouldn't enjoy that privilege.

I'm sure that's how the contract is written, but it's a paper tiger. The first sale doctrine being what it is, the right to "vend" rests only the first sale by the copyright holder. Someone who holds a legitimately-obtained copy may sell it, rent it, lend it, give it away, etc.. This is long-standing law.

Now, those are all things which involve transferring the entire copy. You can't do things like public displays of it, or make and distribute copies of it, etc..

 

[Dahopafilms]

Hey guys.

Just visited the SmartFlix site for the first time to poke around a little.

The following occurs to me.

Look at the design of their site. Every rentable dvd has a nice little thumbnail relating to the video. I'm looking at a (rather squished) thumnail of Barry Green right now.

Gosh, I'm not a lawyer or anything (well, gee, maybe I am ...) but how did they get that image? Copy it from ... the dvd? AK! Legally, they can't rip images from the dvd for their own commercial purposes - that's duplicating, isn't it? And gosh, they're using Barry Green's (and others') image. Did they get a release from him? Betcha not.

Just a thought ...

 

[Barry_Green]

Ooooh... perhaps my lawyerly consultants should look into that...

 

[Jason Ramsey]

That's interesting. If they live in loopholes, then you have to find some other loophole to come at them with.

Interesting Dahopa

Fight loopholes with loopholes.

Jason

 

[cwebster]

Someone forwarded me the photos of Travis J CORCORAN, President of SFs and his trusty sidekick, Pete Krautscheid. I like to put faces with who it is we're discussing. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

TRAVIS J CORCORAN (in the glasses) and Pete with Elisabeth in the others.

 

[HorseFilms]

They look like a couple of real winners to me.:huh:

 

[kyle.presley]

That's interesting. If they live in loopholes, then you have to find some other loophole to come at them with.

Interesting Dahopa

Fight loopholes with loopholes.

Jason

We took down Capone for tax evasion...

 

[bbalser]

They look like a couple of real winners to me.

Did you mean winners or weeners?

So, they are reproducing "in part" and a violation of copyright laws, as far as I understand it. You can rent it out, but you can't reproduce it in whole or part for any purpose. It has to be the in-tact, full, original packaging.

They're scum who don't care one iota about the money they're taking out of authors pockets...

Yeah, the product can't be reproduced in whole or in part without permission, etc, etc. And this looks very much like they "ripped" a still from the DVD's video footage illegally!