criterionforum.org

Swo, it's been my experience that until you send back the far-away disc, it's like you never had it-- you still have a full number of slots and it's the bonus, regardless of whether it appears next to the plus sign or not. I had a far away disc for a week and sent back four or five discs in the meantime, and it wasn't until I sent back the far away disc that the plus disc disappeared.

Huh. Well I think that my experience with the + discs has mostly been when I downgraded my plan, or they sent me one as a reward or whatever, and it's been a while since I remember getting one. So maybe my memory's hazy or they've changed how they're doing it since then, but either way that's pretty swell. You'd think that at some point though they would start asking for their disc back. PerfectDepth, if you don't mind being part of an experiment, I would suggest that you keep Detective for, um, the rest of your life, or whenever Netflix punishes you in some way for still keeping it, whichever comes first. Keep us posted!

According to Domino, It's Tokyo Olympiad that I should keep for the rest of my life or until Netflix starts sending me death threats as that was the "far-away" disc.

Yes, Tokyo Olympiad. My brain must be asleep today. My clients will be thrilled!

There may very well be a grace period before they null the extra disc though-- I've only had one for a week at most and doubt I'll ever get to test the limits of their generosity

Looks as if there is indeed a window of time for the bonus disc as I returned detective and my "+" disc was removed.

Netflix to keep some distribution centers open on weekends to keep up with customer demand.

Well, it sounds iffy that it will happen at this point, but this looks like yet another attempt on the part of Netflix to cater to their customers without necessarily having any compelling financial reason to do so (well, other than possibly getting more subscriptions through positive word of mouth). I mean, was anyone really complaining about there not being any shipments on weekends? This appears to be a purely selfless move--every member will now be able to get a couple more movies each month, and at no added cost.

Move over Bill Murray. I now wish Netflix had been my dad growing up.

For fans of the Boetticher box set ... Netflix instant viewing has Westbound, another Western he made with Randolph Scott that DOES NOT appear on the box and isn't available on DVD.

swo17 wrote:Yes, and [Puffball] is actually only available through instant viewing.

Just a slight aside, but this (as with My Winnipeg) has been on the shelves at Blockbuster for a number of months now if anyone wants to see it via their TV and/or in better quality than Netflix's streaming.

I am reading the latest edition of 'Vertigo' magazine. (Just one of many good discoveries I've made browsing this forum). It contains an article by Jem Cohen entitled 'The Double Anchor', about the changing nature of 'the relationship between those who make creative work and those who receive it.'

Cohen has this to say about Netflix:
'In the US, DVDs are most often rented through Netflix, the world's largest online rental service, with about nine million subscribers. Audiences are thrilled by the access and many filmmakers with the visibility, but the hidden catch is that due to the obscure legislation called Doctrine of First Sale, Netflix can buy a few copies of a film at retail price (or more likely wholesale) and then continuously rent them out across the country without paying any/i] royalties to the creators.
Netflix' gross profit for 2007 was 419 million USD. The service is incredibly convienient, but at what cost?'

I am a UK resident, so I have no personal experience of Netflix, but I'm curious to know what board members think about Cohen's assertions. Are they true?
We have esteemed DVD producers among this board's members, perhaps they can shed light on the situation.

I am not an esteemed DVD producer, but I am a librarian, so I know something about the First Sale Doctrine. It's section 109 of US copyright law. It's not "obscure legislation," but rather a fundamental right of citizens to do whatever they want with the stuff they buy (with the exception of making copies of it). It's what allows libraries to buy books and lend them, what allows you to buy a DVD and then sell it on eBay if you don't want to keep it, and what allows you to lend a CD you like to a friend. It doesn't cheat filmmakers out of any money, because Netflix still purchases every single DVD that gets distributed, and they buy a lot of DVDs.

The Weinstein Company recently got sued by a group of independent video stores for claiming that the stores violated the Weinstein's "exclusive" rental agreement with Blockbuster by purchasing and renting retail DVDs marked "for sale only." The courts ruled against TWC based on the First Sale Doctrine.

I was under the impression that rental stores, whether Blockbuster, independent or online, had to by DVDs at a significant markup. Is this not so?

If they ruled against the Weinstein Company then why do most DVDs say 'FOR RENTAL' or 'NOT FOR RENTAL'. I thought that was to distinguish between a copy that more had been paid for by a rental company and one that was a consumer copy.

Cinetwist wrote:I was under the impression that rental stores, whether Blockbuster, independent or online, had to by DVDs at a significant markup. Is this not so?

Apparently not. I know someone who set up a rental store recently, and the process merely consisted of ordering DVDs from wholesailors (at reduced price, as if for retail) and putting them on the shelves. That's all!

That makes no sense at all. Screw the recession and the decline of brick-and-mortar stores, I'm setting up an independent rental shop!

Well, my friend gave it a shot, but it only lasted the best part of a year. People continued to use the ailing Blockbuster at the other of the town for new releases, and (as suspected) there just wasn't enough local demand for rentals of Béla Tarr movies!

In the UK it used to be the rule that a rental video would come out say a couple of months before a sell through release. This rental video would cost between £50 to £70 pounds and the rental store would have a couple of months to make a profit by renting it out.

In recent times a lot of boundaries have got blurred and this rental window has disappeared along with a large number of rental stores. So, although in the UK, this system still exists I am not sure if it is still enforced by the film industry, as sell through and rental now get released at the same time. However if a rental version of a dvd has been released a rental store would have to rent out this version. Many grey areas has sprung up especially if one adds the internet into the mix, so maybe the film industry is concentrating more on piracy.

Re ‘the First Sale Doctrine' one thing that puzzles me is, if you can sell on or rent out your books, music, dvds in the USA, one seems not able to do this with computer software which needs online activation (windows vista etc). How come this is not covered by ‘First Sale Doctrine'.

Have just checked on a wholesalers website for new releases, rental and sell through still exsist for popular new releases e.g.-

Gomorrah RENTAL PRICE £35

Gomorrah RETAIL NOT FOR RENTAL £19.99

julianw wrote:However if a rental version of a dvd has been released a rental store would have to rent out this version.

Yes, I remember this. Also, renting non-UK DVDs was a big no no (wrists would be slapped and the discs removed/confiscated by regulatory body).

julianw wrote:Re ‘the First Sale Doctrine' one thing that puzzles me is, if you can sell on or rent out your books, music, dvds in the USA, one seems not able to do this with computer software which needs online activation (windows vista etc). How come this is not covered by ‘First Sale Doctrine'.

US copyright law is a mess of legislation and court decisions. Reselling software is legal (see this recent court decision), but that doesn't mean than software companies have to make it easy for you to re-sell.

In the US, in the VHS days, is was also common for tapes to be sold at about $100 for the first six months or so (though some tapes never dropped in price, which is why some people used to haunt video stores that were going out of business to purchase their stock for $10 a tape). Consumers could purchase them at that price, but it was mainly rental stores that did. When DVD came around, the studios decided to price it at a sell-through price to help it catch on. When it did catch on, some studios talked about going back to the rental price window, but it went nowhere. Horses, barn door, etc.

And let me reiterate, the First Sale Doctrine is only a US law. UK and Australia (and every other country, I'm sure) have their own regulations on rental, resale, and loan of DVDs and such.

foggy eyes wrote:

julianw wrote:However if a rental version of a dvd has been released a rental store would have to rent out this version.

Yes, I remember this. Also, renting non-UK DVDs was a big no no (wrists would be slapped and the discs removed/confiscated by regulatory body).

This is far less strict in other countries, which is really annoying. For instance, I've heard of several indepent video stores in the US (in major cities) that stock and rent out imported dvds and I've been told that there are major chains in Australia that sell Criterion dvds.

julianw wrote:In the UK it used to be the rule that a rental video would come out say a couple of months before a sell through release. This rental video would cost between £50 to £70 pounds and the rental store would have a couple of months to make a profit by renting it out.

The U.S. used to do this (or maybe still does) for VHS - when DVD came out that's when it stopped. At that time I heard rumors that DVD would eventually have the same problem, but it never happened. I don't know if it was by law or if the studios just set it up that way ("normal" citizens actually could have bought these more expensive VHSs afaik, had they wanted).

It's absolutely legal to rent out DVDs from anywhere in the world in the US. There are DVD stores in Los Angeles, and there was one in New York until last year, that specialize in this (and there may be some in other big cities, too).

The only barrier is the stupidity of customers who rent DVDs that won't work in their DVD players and then angrily return them for a refund. I suspect this is the factor that keeps many stores from stocking import DVDs. The Mondo Kim's clerks were trained to ask every customer who rented a non-R1 DVD if they had a multi-region player, and I used to take great satisfaction in replying "Whut's thayut?" in my best Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel voice and then watching them struggle through a tortured explanation of the whole region-coding racket. "Oh, yeah, I does gots one of them!" Good times.

Customs fees are also largely unheard of to US buyers of international media (if the government tried to charge me to import a DVD, I'd tell 'em they could send it right back where it came from), although one of the snotty managers at Kim's did tell me that they quit stocking imports (for sale and rental) a few years ago because US customs finally started dinging them big-time for their crateloads of R2 DVDs.

Getting back on topic, this guy Jem Cohen really did manage to be wrong about everything he said in that quote, huh?

Perkins Cobb wrote:It's absolutely legal to rent out DVDs from anywhere in the world in the US. There are DVD stores in Los Angeles, and there was one in New York until last year, that specialize in this (and there may be some in other big cities, too).

It doesn't have to be a big city if it has the right demographics.

I live in a medium sized town (on the order of 100k people) where there is a large major university with *lots* of exchange students. Attached to one of the little grocery stores that specializes in imported Asian foods is a little video rental place that likewise specializes in Asian imports.

I've never gotten around to looking around in there carefully to see what all they might have that includes English subtitles. I should probably do that some time.

Matt wrote:Reselling software is legal (see this recent court decision), but that doesn't mean than software companies have to make it easy for you to re-sell.

My understanding (which is definitely subject to correction by specialists) is that for the reselling of the software to be strictly legal, the original owner would have to remove the software from their own computer. It's not legal to buy one copy and then use that to install the software on a bunch of systems (unless you buy a multisystem license, which is generally not what you're getting in the personal consumer market), and that's essentially what is happening if you resell your installation disks without removing your original installation.

It can be very difficult for the software companies to verify the de-installs of copies that are being resold. So I can understand why they are difficult to deal with in those situations.

The difficulty in reselling software stems from the fact that you are paying for the software license, and not the software itself. The license can dictate what you can and cannot do with it... to the extent of the law, which is pretty hazy on EULAs.