Boycott SmartFlix!
- Thread starter bbalser
- Start date
having just been made aware that this subject is public, I feel it's important to first note that VASST informed Smartflix several months ago that we did not want them renting our titles. In fact, we've looked for evidence that they have replicated our titles illegally, and still believe this is being done.
Second, VASST specifically forbids the rental of our titles with certain/limited exceptions.
Third, it is common form that royalties are paid to content owners in the rential industry, particularly in "special interest" categories.
Given that this is now a public affair, I'd urge all content creators to let the industry know that Smartflix is unethical. How? By exploiting specific and sought-out holes in the law. Legally, one can get away with a lot of behaviors. Calling that "ethical" simply because a series of disconnected stipulations in the law exist is in itself a declaration of amoral intent.
Roughly 8% of Smartflix Digital category is taken from VASST. I'd expect at least some form of recognition to our letter and request. Mr. Corcoran's writings do at the least, provide a small amount of information that may be usable against him in a court of law. Or not. Either way, it's unfortunate that such a person can call themselves "ethical" or "moral." Barry's suggestiong of buying back DVDs is a good one; I'd happily refund all of Mr Corcoran's money if I could identify all of his accounts. Unfortunately, he also makes it very easy for people to steal our content. It's just as possible if not more likely that pirate copies of our product found on Ebay started with Smartflix as it is possible that the titles were pirated by someone who bought our product legitimately.
As the producer of a large bulk of his content, we're disgusted with his business practices. More to come.
If we can demonstrate that Smartflix is duplicating our content, I hope they've got a good legal team.
Just for giggles, howzabout 5-6 of you trying to rent a copy of his Final Cut Volume 1 from VASST, all at the same time.
Second, VASST specifically forbids the rental of our titles with certain/limited exceptions.
Third, it is common form that royalties are paid to content owners in the rential industry, particularly in "special interest" categories.
Given that this is now a public affair, I'd urge all content creators to let the industry know that Smartflix is unethical. How? By exploiting specific and sought-out holes in the law. Legally, one can get away with a lot of behaviors. Calling that "ethical" simply because a series of disconnected stipulations in the law exist is in itself a declaration of amoral intent.
Roughly 8% of Smartflix Digital category is taken from VASST. I'd expect at least some form of recognition to our letter and request. Mr. Corcoran's writings do at the least, provide a small amount of information that may be usable against him in a court of law. Or not. Either way, it's unfortunate that such a person can call themselves "ethical" or "moral." Barry's suggestiong of buying back DVDs is a good one; I'd happily refund all of Mr Corcoran's money if I could identify all of his accounts. Unfortunately, he also makes it very easy for people to steal our content. It's just as possible if not more likely that pirate copies of our product found on Ebay started with Smartflix as it is possible that the titles were pirated by someone who bought our product legitimately.
As the producer of a large bulk of his content, we're disgusted with his business practices. More to come.
If we can demonstrate that Smartflix is duplicating our content, I hope they've got a good legal team.
Just for giggles, howzabout 5-6 of you trying to rent a copy of his Final Cut Volume 1 from VASST, all at the same time.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
Well at least now no one will accuse me of being a spy... :cheesy:
Honestly, Barry, what do you hope to accomplish with this appeal? Travis hasn't acknowledged that he's even doing any harm -- even I will admit that there is potential for the authors to lose business over SmartFlix's rentals.
But even if Travis does somehow recognize this, why do you expect him to care? If you asked me to stop doing business in a way that caused you harm, I would likely listen, because I am part of this community and I respect you and the help you've given me in the past.
But Travis has no stake in this place. Why should he care if you go out of business or not? Walmart doesn't care that the Mom & Pop store next door closes because their prices are lower. They're in business to make money. So is he, and so are you. That isn't unethical. That's capitalism.
------------------
That said, I find it unfortunate that Travis has made almost no effort to directly debate any of the points made here, nor has he done anything to suggest he is willing to work with people for a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I don't think he should have to pay more for his titles, or give anyone royalties. But how about doing something basic as a gesture of good faith?
For starters, Travis needs to do the following:
1) Remove ALL screenshots and copied descriptions from his website. Regardless of the legality, that's just laziness, and is unprofessional. If you're making money off of someone else's work, the least you can do is write your own descriptions, and take your own pictures of the discs.
2) When an author complains about their work being listed, offer to put a full-size banner for that author's website directly on that product's page. If he really is encouraging people to buy the products he rents, he can make it easy for them by advertising on the product's pages. This would cost him nothing.
3) Offer rental services for author's work on behalf of the author. That way an author that sells a title could put a referral banner on their product page, offering rental services of that disc through SmartFlix. When the author's customers click on the link and rents from SmartFlix, the author gets a commission. Then, everyone wins.
Thoughts?
Barry_Green said:
Honestly, Barry, what do you hope to accomplish with this appeal? Travis hasn't acknowledged that he's even doing any harm -- even I will admit that there is potential for the authors to lose business over SmartFlix's rentals.
But even if Travis does somehow recognize this, why do you expect him to care? If you asked me to stop doing business in a way that caused you harm, I would likely listen, because I am part of this community and I respect you and the help you've given me in the past.
But Travis has no stake in this place. Why should he care if you go out of business or not? Walmart doesn't care that the Mom & Pop store next door closes because their prices are lower. They're in business to make money. So is he, and so are you. That isn't unethical. That's capitalism.
------------------
That said, I find it unfortunate that Travis has made almost no effort to directly debate any of the points made here, nor has he done anything to suggest he is willing to work with people for a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I don't think he should have to pay more for his titles, or give anyone royalties. But how about doing something basic as a gesture of good faith?
For starters, Travis needs to do the following:
1) Remove ALL screenshots and copied descriptions from his website. Regardless of the legality, that's just laziness, and is unprofessional. If you're making money off of someone else's work, the least you can do is write your own descriptions, and take your own pictures of the discs.
2) When an author complains about their work being listed, offer to put a full-size banner for that author's website directly on that product's page. If he really is encouraging people to buy the products he rents, he can make it easy for them by advertising on the product's pages. This would cost him nothing.
3) Offer rental services for author's work on behalf of the author. That way an author that sells a title could put a referral banner on their product page, offering rental services of that disc through SmartFlix. When the author's customers click on the link and rents from SmartFlix, the author gets a commission. Then, everyone wins.
Thoughts?
scannon
Well-known member
§ 107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
To win the game you have to be in it. COPYRIGHT your work product properly!
Clearly spell out the licensing terms including the use by resellers!
Have an attorney work this out with you, one who is a copyright lawyer.
That said a copyright is no better than the size of your wallet. If your movie sucks will you sue to protect? Can you first find out that copyright was violated or can you prove that you were significantly harmed to sue for damages?
Hollywood copyright's everything as SOP and has on staff attorneys to back it up even on box office bummers.
VASST has clear content that's worth protecting. I hope they have it copyrighted beyond the FBI warning?
Smartflix may be bluffing or not but one thing is for sure if they are making a lot of money then we all better figure this out and soon. If not, they are going for a quick buck before they are shut down.
If we are all serious about our work then don't fall short in protecting what you perceive to be a saleable work product that deserves compensation.
I am not pessimistic and I am working on two projects I will further invest in to have properly copyrighted and supported if infringement does occur.
Best regards,
S Cannon
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
To win the game you have to be in it. COPYRIGHT your work product properly!
Clearly spell out the licensing terms including the use by resellers!
Have an attorney work this out with you, one who is a copyright lawyer.
That said a copyright is no better than the size of your wallet. If your movie sucks will you sue to protect? Can you first find out that copyright was violated or can you prove that you were significantly harmed to sue for damages?
Hollywood copyright's everything as SOP and has on staff attorneys to back it up even on box office bummers.
VASST has clear content that's worth protecting. I hope they have it copyrighted beyond the FBI warning?
Smartflix may be bluffing or not but one thing is for sure if they are making a lot of money then we all better figure this out and soon. If not, they are going for a quick buck before they are shut down.
If we are all serious about our work then don't fall short in protecting what you perceive to be a saleable work product that deserves compensation.
I am not pessimistic and I am working on two projects I will further invest in to have properly copyrighted and supported if infringement does occur.
Best regards,
S Cannon
Last edited:
Greggl
Well-known member
Guys.. this is a losing battle... unless you challenge it legally and keep
a lawyer on a retainer to continue to protect your revenue stream.
If you succeed in getting Travis to remove your titles from his catalog,
there is NOTHING stopping someone from 'filling the gap' with another
rental establishment that either specializes in titles that he no longer
carries.
You have two options... beat the rental market to the drop... rent your
titles directly, hitting a price point that upsets the parasite model, or
live with it.
Playing the 'ethics' card on him, may not work with the next guy and
you're right back where you started.
a lawyer on a retainer to continue to protect your revenue stream.
If you succeed in getting Travis to remove your titles from his catalog,
there is NOTHING stopping someone from 'filling the gap' with another
rental establishment that either specializes in titles that he no longer
carries.
You have two options... beat the rental market to the drop... rent your
titles directly, hitting a price point that upsets the parasite model, or
live with it.
Playing the 'ethics' card on him, may not work with the next guy and
you're right back where you started.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
...arrestthisman said:
Well Sad Max, we certainly agree on one thing...Sad Max said:
When congress established the rules which allowed for rental of copyrighted works, they did so with certain assumptions in mind - that's why they made an exception for music.
Unfortunately, the law is rarely perfect in that the letter often does not correspond 100% to the spirit, which is why "loopholes" are exploited.
And so it is in this case. I'm sure that had Congress been aware of the market realities for instructional material, they would've put in an exception for this too. After all, the aim is the greatest public good overall. What works for big Hollywood studios, does not work for the specialty market. Unfortunately, it was an imperfect law, not because Congress carefully considered the specialty market and decided it's OK to destroy it, but rather due to simple lack of consideration. The spirit does not match the letter of the law - as so often.
So what are the remedies? One would be to turn to Congress to amend the law. That can be a long process. Therefore, meanwhile, all one can do, is find some kind of legal remedy for this loophole - a "better" loophole. For that, one needs a good lawyer, or team of lawyers, and then having the means to possibly test it in court, should it come to that. That's a lot of money. I'm not sure the instructional DVD community has such resources.
And I agree - even if Travis agrees to pull those DVDs off his catalogue (and why should he, given he's a businessman) - all that would happen is somebody else would spring in his place, who has no such compunction. The only remedy is a good legal trick to be found by the instructional DVD community or a different business model. Not much left to say, really, since even "success" at voluntary action by Travis, gets us nowhere
Unfortunately, the law is rarely perfect in that the letter often does not correspond 100% to the spirit, which is why "loopholes" are exploited.
And so it is in this case. I'm sure that had Congress been aware of the market realities for instructional material, they would've put in an exception for this too. After all, the aim is the greatest public good overall. What works for big Hollywood studios, does not work for the specialty market. Unfortunately, it was an imperfect law, not because Congress carefully considered the specialty market and decided it's OK to destroy it, but rather due to simple lack of consideration. The spirit does not match the letter of the law - as so often.
So what are the remedies? One would be to turn to Congress to amend the law. That can be a long process. Therefore, meanwhile, all one can do, is find some kind of legal remedy for this loophole - a "better" loophole. For that, one needs a good lawyer, or team of lawyers, and then having the means to possibly test it in court, should it come to that. That's a lot of money. I'm not sure the instructional DVD community has such resources.
And I agree - even if Travis agrees to pull those DVDs off his catalogue (and why should he, given he's a businessman) - all that would happen is somebody else would spring in his place, who has no such compunction. The only remedy is a good legal trick to be found by the instructional DVD community or a different business model. Not much left to say, really, since even "success" at voluntary action by Travis, gets us nowhere
Christopher Barry
Veteran
Perhaps abandon the DVD media model and make the content embedded in an interactive "computer program"? § 109(b)(1)(A)
You can't rent out a computer program, right?
Does content created with, say, Macromedia Director, constitute a "computer program"? If so, it is both PC/Mac cross platform friendly. Sure, not as broad a market as DVD media.
You can't rent out a computer program, right?
Does content created with, say, Macromedia Director, constitute a "computer program"? If so, it is both PC/Mac cross platform friendly. Sure, not as broad a market as DVD media.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
Christopher Barry said:
You can rent out a computer program, but most EULAs do not allow it. So if you go the software route, make sure you have a rock-solid EULA written up that covers everything that's important to you.
rapsucks
Well-known member
Are there any Massachusetts DVXers here? If it's not expressly illegal, someone should contact a state legislator. Let's make it expressly illegal. State authorities are usually quite approachable. (Not that I'm naive enough to think that it always ends favorably. I am from Utah, the only one-party system in the US.)
Christopher Barry
Veteran
TwistedLincoln said:
Tony, does that mean a rock-solid EULA would protect DVD content, or is that different? A question I have asked over and over again in this thread. :smile:
GenJerDan
Veteran
TwistedLincoln said:
Quoted from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ US_Copyright_Law
<I>Infringement of right to distribute
Copyright owners also have the sole right to distribute copies of their work, whether through sales or otherwise. This
includes the right to import: 17 U.S.C. § 602 bans unauthorized importation of copyrighted works, except for certain
personal or educational uses.
The key exception to this right is the first sale doctrine. Once a legal copy is sold, the copyright holder has no
further control over its distribution. The only exceptions to this doctrine are sound recordings and computer
programs, which cannot be rented out even after their first sale. 17 U.S.C. § 109.</i>
Software and music = renting is a no-no.
So....I'd suggest distributing instructional video on two-sided disks. One side being the DVD, the other being an audio CD. Plenty of musicians around to provide music for it.
This first-sale doctrine argument he substantiates his entire business on is precarious at best. I am not certain how we're still skirting the FBI warning language, which clearly states that "reproduction, distribution or exhibition" constitutes a felony violation.
If this placard is in place, and there is ostensibly a LOC copyright to back it up, there should be no legal interpretation possible except that the work is protected under the FBI jurisdiction.
The FBI is quite clear about an individual's ability to utilize this warning:
"The graphic you see on this page--the FBI's Anti-Piracy Warning Seal--was specifically created to deter illegal practice and to increase public awareness of the penalties associated with piracy.
Why? Because piracy of media and other commercial goods causes huge losses to the U.S. economy each year…and it's American consumers who are paying the price.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Where will the seal (and all statements that say "FBI Anti-Piracy Warning") appear? On a lot of different kinds of goods…subject to the terms of licensing agreements. But right now, we're just getting started. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As of August 2006, the FBI has authorized use of the FBI Anti-Piracy seal and warning by members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), subject to each member entering into a formal Uniform Authorization Agreement. Association members should contact the MPAA, RIAA, SIIA, BSA, or ESA for more information.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Now we are evaluating the licensing arrangements we have with members of these associations with a view towards permitting the broadest possible public use of the seal by all individuals and businesses with a copyright interest. Please check this webpage periodically for updates on the status of this initiative.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In the meantime, it is perfectly fine for anyone, without FBI approval, to use the following generic language on material protected under U.S. copyright law: "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." [/SIZE][/FONT]
e
If this placard is in place, and there is ostensibly a LOC copyright to back it up, there should be no legal interpretation possible except that the work is protected under the FBI jurisdiction.
The FBI is quite clear about an individual's ability to utilize this warning:
"The graphic you see on this page--the FBI's Anti-Piracy Warning Seal--was specifically created to deter illegal practice and to increase public awareness of the penalties associated with piracy.
Why? Because piracy of media and other commercial goods causes huge losses to the U.S. economy each year…and it's American consumers who are paying the price.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Where will the seal (and all statements that say "FBI Anti-Piracy Warning") appear? On a lot of different kinds of goods…subject to the terms of licensing agreements. But right now, we're just getting started. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As of August 2006, the FBI has authorized use of the FBI Anti-Piracy seal and warning by members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), subject to each member entering into a formal Uniform Authorization Agreement. Association members should contact the MPAA, RIAA, SIIA, BSA, or ESA for more information.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Now we are evaluating the licensing arrangements we have with members of these associations with a view towards permitting the broadest possible public use of the seal by all individuals and businesses with a copyright interest. Please check this webpage periodically for updates on the status of this initiative.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In the meantime, it is perfectly fine for anyone, without FBI approval, to use the following generic language on material protected under U.S. copyright law: "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." [/SIZE][/FONT]
e
GenJerDan
Veteran
It's correct in this instance. You want the original text?
USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 109:
(b)
(1)
(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.
USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 109:
(b)
(1)
(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.
Suppose we could file a complaint with MPAA? Even if the Association has no members affected by this model, they would certainly be interested to know about the model itself and the pretenses under which SmartFlix operates.
Who knows? Could be mail fraud.
It has been proven that SmartFlix purchases titles under false names for the sole purpose of commercial re-distribution. Because intellectual properties are protected from reproduction, distribution and exhibition under US copyright, this very well might cross into the realm of mail fraud under mis-representation (to their customers) and impersonation.
Other avenues for filing of complaints should be include the BBB and USPS.
e
Who knows? Could be mail fraud.
It has been proven that SmartFlix purchases titles under false names for the sole purpose of commercial re-distribution. Because intellectual properties are protected from reproduction, distribution and exhibition under US copyright, this very well might cross into the realm of mail fraud under mis-representation (to their customers) and impersonation.
Other avenues for filing of complaints should be include the BBB and USPS.
e
Last edited:
cecil995
Well-known member
The text is correct in interperting copyright law as it pertains to computer software and recorded music.
I am not sure if you could really entitle a video to that type of protection by making it have computer program features, considering the fact that many dvd movies that are out there for legal rental are laced with pc-only features ( new star wars movies, for example). I would also argue that adding a music cd to the package would be a stretch considering the intent of the user to purchase the video is based on the video itself, and by adding music to the package could be looked at as some kind of bonus material. Not to mention the added production costs to make it happen, which would ultimatly get passed onto the consumer.
I don't agree that Smartflix is exploiting some loophole in the law, simply because there is no law in place at the moment stating that it is illegal (if in fact they are only renting out legaly purchased videos).
Let me be straight in saying that I don't condone these business practices being used by Smartflix. It's the little guys that put their blood sweat and tears into these videos, and any loss of profit, no matter how small, can be a make or break condition for these producers. However, I don't think that making him feel guilty or not "christan-like" is going to deter him from running his business. Shoot, most of the big businesses out there would not be running if they did what was "right".
The best course of action in these cases always seemes to be awareness. So either putting pressure on public servants, or even starting a web site exposing the true nature of their business practices will put much more heat on him than simply saying that "hey, your not a nice person, that isn't fair!"
I am not sure if you could really entitle a video to that type of protection by making it have computer program features, considering the fact that many dvd movies that are out there for legal rental are laced with pc-only features ( new star wars movies, for example). I would also argue that adding a music cd to the package would be a stretch considering the intent of the user to purchase the video is based on the video itself, and by adding music to the package could be looked at as some kind of bonus material. Not to mention the added production costs to make it happen, which would ultimatly get passed onto the consumer.
I don't agree that Smartflix is exploiting some loophole in the law, simply because there is no law in place at the moment stating that it is illegal (if in fact they are only renting out legaly purchased videos).
Let me be straight in saying that I don't condone these business practices being used by Smartflix. It's the little guys that put their blood sweat and tears into these videos, and any loss of profit, no matter how small, can be a make or break condition for these producers. However, I don't think that making him feel guilty or not "christan-like" is going to deter him from running his business. Shoot, most of the big businesses out there would not be running if they did what was "right".
The best course of action in these cases always seemes to be awareness. So either putting pressure on public servants, or even starting a web site exposing the true nature of their business practices will put much more heat on him than simply saying that "hey, your not a nice person, that isn't fair!"
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
Christopher Barry said:
I would think that it would, but it's hard to say. I'll have to do some in-depth reading of the First Sale Doctrine. Most of my research in the past has had to do with software, not media. My guess, however, is that simply putting a piece of software on a multi-session DVD wouldn't cut it. You'd likely need something at the beginning of the video, as well as something on the box, as well as something on your sale page... And even then, First Sale might trump it regardless...
rapsucks said:
While I certainly don't encourage anyone to try to get rid of the First Sale Doctrine (which I agree with), I will point out that contacting a state legistlator will get you no where. Federal Law trumps State Law -- this issue can only be changed via Congress.
I really should have elaborated what I meant. In the software world, "renting" isn't just the practice of charging for a set period of time to use a software disc, the way SmartFlix does with DVDs. "Renting" software also means installing it on a PC and charging people per hour to use that PC. That practice doesn't seem to be addressed by Federal Law, but almost every EULA I've read prohibits it.GenJerDan said:
And more importantly to everyone here, it seems likely that putting a small piece of software on a DVD isn't going to prohibit rental of that DVD -- if the primary purpose of the product is the video, my guess is that the laws that cover that video would apply. Otherwise all someone would have to do to stop the use of anything would be to attach a piece of software to it (imagine buying a digial watch that came with a EULA stating that you could never resell it, because of restrictions placed on its operating software...).
I still believe that the only way to ensure that you can control the content you create in the ways advocated in this forum is through contract law. It wouldn't be convenient, but having each buyer fax you back a signed contract stating that they won't rent out your DVD would probably give you grounds for a breach of contract suit if they do it anyway. Really paranoid? Make them mail you an original along with a photocopy of their driver's license before you send out the DVD.