Not For Rental

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by cranialscratch, Aug 30, 2004.

  1. cranialscratch

    cranialscratch
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ok, so everyone is on to the bandwagon labeling DVD's with 'Not For Rental', threatening 'civil action'. Does anyone know what the law supporting this really is?

    Surely anything you purchase belongs to you and what you choose to do with it is your business? You can hire furniture, houses, vehicles, toys, games (the list is neverending), yet DVD's have somehow become 'exclusive'.

    Can anyone help explain this to me? :lesson:
     
  2. Matthew Attoe

    Matthew Attoe
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2001
    Messages:
    702
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +11
    Dunno... but maybe something along the lines of you own the disc, but not the contents, and only purchased a license to view the contents.

    And intellectual property rights, probably.
     
  3. cranialscratch

    cranialscratch
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    If that were true then there wouldn't be such an uproar about ripping your DVD's to MP4 for watching on the move or making back-up copies to protect your investment. Or should it mean that if my disc gets scratched, I should be able to buy a copy without having to pay for the licensing bit again?

    I am really keen to understand the legal aspect. Does anyone know where I should look? What type of civil action am I facing if I hire my collection out to people from work? <<< Ah ha! I hear you say! There's the rub! He's got DVD's and wants to hire them out. Yep! That's me. And until the recent advent of every disc I buy slapping on this new label...

    I haven't started hiring them out yet, but I need to fund my DVD addiction (I've tipped the 420 mark). This label is now threatening the chances of me growing this collection any further. :(
     
  4. Matthew Attoe

    Matthew Attoe
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2001
    Messages:
    702
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +11
    Actually, i think if you do damage a disc, you can send back to the company and get it replaced for a small fee. Never actually tried it myself, tho :)
     
  5. pjclark1

    pjclark1
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,463
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Thailand
    Ratings:
    +271
    sell the disks, then buy them back for less.
    No rental involved then!
     
  6. cranialscratch

    cranialscratch
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    :rolleyes: Could be a loop hole, but I'd seriously rather go with knowing that this whole 'Not for Rental' thing isn't anything more than the movie industry throwing their weight around without much of a leg to stand on.

    There's nothing on the web (that I can find) about the action the studios can take against you. Anyone?
     
  7. CrispyXUK

    CrispyXUK
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,751
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Land of the Living, Essex
    Ratings:
    +45
    Japanese games have a "not for resale" label on the back, yet you can still buy second hand games, comes under the same thing if you ask me.

    Begins with B ends in T
     
  8. Azrikam

    Azrikam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think you'd have to be doing pretty major rental business before anyone took notice. Someone renting out DVDs to friends and coworkers should be fine. I think this is another case of labelling something just in case the studio/distributer wants to be able to pursue a case. Kind of like these rediculous legal statements IT companies attach to their outgoing emails nowadays. It's 99% b:censored:t, but as long as it makes some manager feel more secure, then it's doing its job.

    (IANAL)
     
  9. IanD

    IanD
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2002
    Messages:
    122
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +8
    My Mother runs the Royal Naval Film Trust and I think that she said that the reason for the statement is not so much to do with the rental side of things but more to do with the "public viewing". I think she means that when you buy a DVD you are buying it for your viewing, not for it to be watched by viewer A, then viewer B etc. I do know that she sometimes has to pay around £60 for a single DVD to get the public viewing rights (daft thing is that these films get watched on a ship in the middle of an ocean, not too many members of the public around).
     
  10. cranialscratch

    cranialscratch
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Surely that's the same as racketeering? What makes the movie industry any different to the music or video game industry? You are free to share your CD's with whoever you please, providing it's not copies of course.

    What the movie industry is doing is promoting piracy, plus irritating consumers by slapping annoying (and if Fox are reading - VERY LOUD) commercials on the front (that you can't skip past) shouting about Not for Rental. And I suppose they put trailers/previews on so called rental copies.

    Anyway, anybody found any concrete law supporting their silly labeling?
     
  11. John

    John
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Messages:
    11,305
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,922
    I wrote a big reply the other night , didn't make a lot of sense before ,so didn't post it .But after Iand's post it might now :D

    The "not for rental" warning applies more to rental chains than anyone else .And iirc harks back to the video release of RAINMAN , which was the first VHS tape to be released on sell thru at the same time as for rental (you could of course buy films on release before , but would have to pay the same as the rental chains £60+ vat , BATMAN was one of the first to go to £65+vat :lesson: :laugh: )
    So you can imagine the panic by the distibuters if the demand for £65 vids were changed for £15 vids , hence all the for rental only / not for rental stickers
    I had speculated that the price for rental versions might have come down, since I worked in my local video shop many moons ago .But having read Iand's post I guess they have not :laugh:
     
  12. cranialscratch

    cranialscratch
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's strange how the movie industry is allowed to make such monopolies. Other industries could try the same but would be stopped almost instantly.

    Early adopters of technology are used to paying over the odds to be the first to get a new gadget, but over time, more people buy, competition stiffens, more are produced and the price reduces. That's acceptable (neigh, tollerable).

    Car manufacturers will create one with all the bells and whistles, and a hefty price tag, and then make a stripped down version for a lower price. That's acceptable.

    What examples, other than the movie industry, can a company sell the same product at different prices and force the buyer what to do with it after purchase?!?!

    Madness I tell you.

    Still curious if anyone can find proof of how the movie studios can legally back up their threats. I'm tempted to run this one past the Advertising Standards Authority.
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice