Boycott SmartFlix!

When they first ordered from us, we had no idea who they were, and foolishly sent a copy. They ordered a couple more, and so we looked into who they were, found out what it was, and refunded their money and asked them to remove us from their catalog. Of course they refused; they take the attitude of "screw you" to any author who objects. And if we don't sell directly to them, they would probably just buy used copies off ebay or whatever.

So now, to circumvent content providers figuring out who they are and recognizing that they wouldn't want to be ruthlessly taken advantage of, apparently "smartflix" has taken to obfuscating who they are. In the original order they identified themselves as "SmartFlix", but I've now heard that they're ordering product specifically as an individual, in the name of "Travis Corcoran", and the website/business they list in the order is not SmartFlix, but something like TJIC.com or something. Which means that they are engaging in a further level of deception to try to hide from the content provider exactly what it is that they intend to do.

Legal? Maybe. Sleazy? Hell yes.
 
This is tough. I wouldn't have thought this was possible.

How to you get the MPAA to go after butt heads like this rather than college students downloading music?

What would happen if a tutorial video was produced illegally, infringing on a music copyright for example, and they rented it. Can the copyright holder go after them too.

If so pick a Beatles song and let them go at it.

Or

Everyone on DVXUser should rent HVX Bootcamp , dispute the charge on your credit card, and just not send it back. At least it would get them out of circulation and force them to go out and buy more of them. We can sell the same DVD's on eBay, over and over again.... :)
 
we would definitely discourage it, but everyone of us woulld be sitting behind our computers laughing our heads off that Barry Green is being made a rich man because of smart flix!
 
Guys,

I'm reading this thread and shaking my head a little.

It appears (at least without further investigation) that Netflix has basically stumbled upon a legal (but to the authors of the materal they rent an undeniably immoral) "rights" loophole and thus have put together a profitable business model based on same.

There are understandable comments above about lawyering up, banding together, retribution, business morality, etc. etc. etc.

But we're filmmakers guys! Not lawyers (at least some of you:Drogar-Love(DBG): ) or activists (at least most of you:Drogar-Love(DBG): ) or vigilantes (at least all of us). So why are we discussing those means of fighting Netflix? Why not just roll over?

Then again ... we're filmmakers! Anyone heard of "Supersize Me?" How about "This Film is Not Yet Rated?" Why aren't one or more of us banding together, using our skills and talents and putting together a nice little (fair-minded) documentary that explores Netflix, their "legal" business practises, their "friendly" my-lawyer-is-badder-than-your-lawyer responses, and the impact that such practises have on the filmmakers they're making their profits from? I'd watch a doc about that! Hell, I'd buy a doc about that! And I bet a bunch of other people would, too.

And after the doc is made and it gets some buzz and gets picked up and distributed, maybe everyone would be happy because it would give Netflix another title to rent!

Assuming people still wanted to rent from them.

EDIT: Thanks BenB. Good point. Wherever I said "Netflix" above, read "Smartflix". And I say we do doc on them both!
 
Last edited:
We're not talking about Netflix, we're talking about SmartFlix.

Two very different business models.
 
I've used em for a couple of videos.. Hate to say it guys, but they built a better
mousetrap... at least until you guys rewrite your licensing or someone challenges
them in court.
 
Dahopafilms said:
Guys,

I'm reading this thread and shaking my head a little.

It appears (at least without further investigation) that Netflix has basically stumbled upon a legal (but to the authors of the materal they rent an undeniably immoral) "rights" loophole and thus have put together a profitable business model based on same.

There are understandable comments above about lawyering up, banding together, retribution, business morality, etc. etc. etc.

But we're filmmakers guys! Not lawyers (at least some of you:Drogar-Love(DBG): ) or activists (at least most of you:Drogar-Love(DBG): ) or vigilantes (at least all of us). So why are we discussing those means of fighting Netflix? Why not just roll over?

Then again ... we're filmmakers! Anyone heard of "Supersize Me?" How about "This Film is Not Yet Rated?" Why aren't one or more of us banding together, using our skills and talents and putting together a nice little (fair-minded) documentary that explores Netflix, their "legal" business practises, their "friendly" my-lawyer-is-badder-than-your-lawyer responses, and the impact that such practises have on the filmmakers they're making their profits from? I'd watch a doc about that! Hell, I'd buy a doc about that! And I bet a bunch of other people would, too.

And after the doc is made and it gets some buzz and gets picked up and distributed, maybe everyone would be happy because it would give Netflix another title to rent!

Assuming people still wanted to rent from them.

EDIT: Thanks BenB. Good point. Wherever I said "Netflix" above, read "Smartflix". And I say we do doc on them both!
Click to expand...

Sort of like a "Roger and Me" doc would be interesting.

What I don't understand is that:

It's illegal to distribute copywrited music
It's illegal to distribut copywrited movies

but this is legal? Its it because the stuff is not copywritten in the firstplace?

From smartflix website:

NOTE: many of the DVDs we rent are DVD+R or DVD-R format. Almost all modern DVD players can play this, but please verify that your DVD player can play these discs before renting; we can not give refunds to customers who rent a video on a medium that they can not view.

That should be a good indication that there is some shady practice going on
 
Once again, I've gotten nothing but originals from them. Gnomon videos mostly.

Lets not forget, lots of these How To videos are low volume burn runs, some done
by the filmmakers directly.
 
cecil995 said:
What I don't understand is that:

It's illegal to distribute copywrited music
It's illegal to distribut copywrited movies
Click to expand...

Just because something isn't registered with the United States Copyright Office doesn't mean it isn't copywrited. As soon as an original work is created, a copyright exists.

The issue here is what happens when no license agreement exists. To my knowledge, current copyright law gives all rights to the copyright holder. The only rights you have to use a copyrighted work is the rights given to you by the copyright holders via a license. That is, in fact, the definition of a license -- the right to do something you wouldn't ordinarily have the write to do.

The question here is what happens when a monetary transaction takes place, but no license is exchanged? SmartFlix appears to be taking the position that if they purcahsed a piece of copyrighted material from the original holder without a license agreement, they are given unrestricted rights to use the product as they see fit.

It is unclear if this is supported under current law (I seriously doubt it). But I certainly agree with them.

It is the responsibiltiy of anyone who holds copyright to a work to make it known the terms and conditions of any sale that takes place involving that material. Absent any specific restrictions, one must be able to assume that they are free to use the product as they see fit. Otherwise, the only other choice would be to assume one has no rights, and was therefore swindled out of their funds.

I'm sure this position will be unpopular here, as people who are involved in creative works are often very protective of such work. However it is unreasonable to assume that you should maintain full control over a product that you have sold when you made no effort to make that control a condition of the sale.

I've written an entire editorial on this on my website (though it talks about EULAs in software, the same principle applies here).

You can read my article here: The Tenth Amendment and End-User Licensing Agreements

Honestly, I believe that copyright holders should only be able to control how you distribute their content, not how you use it. So rentals of original (not DVD-R copies) should be permitted if that copy was purchased legitimately.

If the copyright holder does not wish their material to be rented out, they should make such terms a part of the sale, which would fall under contract law, not copyright. Of course, many people might object to having to sign a full legal contract to purchase a DVD. But that's a logistical problem, not a legal one...

In case anyone wishes to accuse me of not understanding what it's like to have my work "ripped off" by someone after I put in all the effort, I'll point out that I'm going to be releasing a line of instructional DVDs in the next few months. I've actually been holding off because it has taken a rather long time to draft a full, complete license agreement for them. I'll post the license text up here when I'm finished...

Don't all shoot me at once. Trust me, I'm on your side too...
 
The question here is what happens when a monetary transaction takes place, but no license is exchanged? SmartFlix appears to be taking the position that if they purcahsed a piece of copyrighted material from the original holder without a license agreement, they are given unrestricted rights to use the product as they see fit.

It is unclear if this is supported under current law (I seriously doubt it). But I certainly agree with them.
Click to expand...


I don't understand how that argument holds up when the whole controversy with illegal music downloading is in part due to people buying cds legally, then uploading those songs onto file sharing servers, and they are not even making a profit like smartflix is.

Let's call a spade a spade. The only reason smartlix is probably getting away with this is because the copyright holders are small time producers....if they were buying and distributing MGM material in this manner, there would be lawsuits filed already.
 
cecil995 said:
I don't understand how that argument holds up when the whole controversy with illegal music downloading is in part due to people buying cds legally, then uploading those songs onto file sharing servers, and they are not even making a profit like smartflix is.
Click to expand...

SmartFlix is simply renting the DVD's, however. Now, if they are making copies of the discs an then renting them, that's another story. But if they only rent out originals, then there is a very big distinction. Sharing music online causes each person who downloads it to have their own copy. Whereas when you rent out an original DVD, the only copy being used was legally paid for.

So has anyone here rented from SmartFlix? I'm curious if they are renting out copies or not. Sadly, I suspect they are, which would certainly be unacceptable in my mind.

cecil995 said:
Let's call a spade a spade. The only reason smartlix is probably getting away with this is because the copyright holders are small time producers....if they were buying and distributing MGM material in this manner, there would be lawsuits filed already.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that statement. Regardless of if I agree with how the laws are currently structured or not, it is grossly unfair that anyone be taken advantage of due to the inability to afford expensive lawyers.
 
They are sending out dvd-r's to people who rent them......which means they have someone in the back room making illegal copies
 
So, does this mean I can buy the LOTR trilogy and rent it out to whoever I want? I wouldn't get in trouble for that? Something tells me I would.

Can I buy a music CD and rent it out to people?

This is ridiculous. You can be sued if you watched the superbowl on a tv screen larger than 55", but they can do this crap????

Whatever.
 
cecil995 said:
They are sending out dvd-r's to people who rent them......which means they have someone in the back room making illegal copies
Click to expand...

Ive rented around 14 discs from them.. none were copies.. all were originals.
 
Greggl said:
Ive rented around 14 discs from them.. none were copies.. all were originals.
Click to expand...


I am not saying that from experience...They state that fact plain as day on their own website.
 
Some 'How To' originals are burned on home systems... even small run
duplications at Discmakers can be +R or -R discs. They'll even sell you
slickly printed blanks for doing 'home' duplication if you are doing limited
runs.

You're reading more into the statement than is actually there. If there
was clear cut copying, it'd be a cakewalk to have their service stopped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top