Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Fwd: Re: [torchwood] (One of) The Seven Best British TV Shows Unavailable on American DVD]

Expand Messages
  • Jackie Moleski
    - ... US Copyright Law. Naturally. Basically, when I read the actual LAW, not someone s interpretation of it, it sounded like it was designed to prevent
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 3 10:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      -













      Lynn wrote:

      > From: Jackie Moleski <moleskij@... <mailto:moleskij%40execpc.com>>
      >
      > >Someone on the International DVD Talk board posted a copy of copyright
      > >law to the board, this was a couple of years ago.
      >
      > Okay, well, my first question would be *which* copyright law? There is
      > no one single worldwide copyright law -- it differs from country to
      > country -- sometimes widely -- despite the international treaties on
      > the subject.
      >








      US Copyright Law. Naturally.

      Basically, when I read the actual LAW, not someone's interpretation of
      it, it sounded like it was designed to prevent retailers in the US from
      selling non-US DVDs (this would include Japanese Anime, and Hong Honk
      action films, as well as British TV. Not to mention as another poster
      pointed out on this list--Patrick, I think-- foreign films.)

      In terms of fair use, e.g. making a second copy for your own personal
      use, such as a back-up or whatever-- there has been a LOT of coverage
      about this in places like SlashDot and Wired. Naturally, the mainstream
      media is ignoring the issue. Essentially, the issue is still up in the
      air as far as I know -- consumers want to be able to make back-up copies
      of CDs and DVDs (even stripping the copyright protection). Whereas
      Hollywood does not want this (because they think they will make more
      money by "forcing" consumers to buy multiple copies.) Essentially,
      Hollywood wants what software manufactors already have-- the ability to
      limit the use of an object AFTER you buy it.

      Re: US vs. UK policy on lending, etc. You're right-- in the US, stores
      like Blockbuster can and do rent copies-- I never said they didn't. (I
      do think they pay more for the original copy that they rent out than
      consumers do, but I'm not sure about that).

      You might actually be right about the lending-thing for the UK; I just
      looked it up in one of my DW books and it says, quote:

      [quote] This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by
      way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise
      circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding
      or cover other than that which it is published and without a similiar
      condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent
      publisher. [unquote]

      Which means, you can't take off or change the cover, then lend-out the
      book. Why? I have no idea!

      So, maybe what I caught on the UK/Interpol warning on DVDs was something
      similar, about the packaging, which I didn't fully catch (the warning
      does scroll fast, and I normally don't read it that closely).

      Anyway-- I've been WAY off topic for a few days now; and I apologise to
      the list, and promise to try to keep from typing so often.

      Take care,

      --Jackie M









      >
      > >But it clearly stated
      > >ONE copy only for personal use.
      >
      > In many countries making a second copy is considered a fair use,
      > meaning you can take the copy you bought, and make a second copy. That
      > doesn't mean you can't go down to the store and *buy* 10 or 20 copies
      > if you want, and resell them. That is certainly not illegal when it
      > comes to DVDs any more than it is to books, at least in the United
      > States. I've never heard it's illegal in Europe, either, and frankly,
      > it would make no sense if it were. This is exactly what wholesalers
      > do, so I have a hard time believing it's illegal.
      >
      > >(And if you read the warning at the
      > >start of a British DVD, it clearly states "only for personal use in
      > >homes".
      >
      > That's almost the same as the US version, and it has to do with the
      > "public performance" part of copyright law, which is separate from the
      > part that prevents making physical copies.
      >
      > >Actually, it also states you can't "lend, hire, re-sell" etc.
      > >I always ignore the "lend" part, because to me-- that's ridicolous!
      > >(And what are Blockbuster, Netflicks, and Amazon UK doing with their
      > >"rental" arms anyway?)
      >
      > I can't recall seeing that, but assuming it's correct in the UK, it is
      > certainly not the law here. In the US we have what's called the "first
      > sale" doctrine, which means that you most certainly *can* sell or give
      > away your original copy. (Witness: used book stores, and the
      > "previously viewed" section of DVDs in many chain retail stores.)
      > Renting lawful copies is also legal. And no law exists against loaning
      > legal copies, either -- my local library lends DVDs just like books.
      >
      > Regardless of what UK law might be (which is unenforceable in the US
      > anyway -- the UK has no jurisdiction here) there's no law that would
      > stop a US citizen from buying 10 copies of a DVD from amazon uk and
      > reselling them here in the United States -- as long as you're
      > complying with any other applicable laws (customs, etc).
      >
      > If the UK has a problem with that (which, again, would make no sense
      > to me) that's something they'd need to take up with the retailer, not
      > the purchaser who lives in another country.
      >
      > -lynn
      >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Lynn
      From: Jackie Moleski ... Copyright law doesn t say anything about this; it s limited, broadly speaking, to the right to copy, make
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 3 11:11 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        From: Jackie Moleski <moleskij@...>

        >Basically, when I read the actual LAW, not someone's interpretation of
        >it, it sounded like it was designed to prevent retailers in the US from
        >selling non-US DVDs (this would include Japanese Anime, and Hong Honk
        >action films, as well as British TV. Not to mention as another poster
        >pointed out on this list--Patrick, I think-- foreign films.)

        Copyright law doesn't say anything about this; it's limited, broadly speaking, to the right to copy, make derivative works, and publically perform works covered by the law. What you're talking about has more to do with trademark law and so-called grey-market goods, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. (It's why you see products like some high-end hair care products -- which, if the manufacturers had their way, would only be sold in salons -- in stores like Target these days.) Anyway, it's not illegal either way -- not for Amazon UK to sell to the US, or for Amazon US to sell to the UK.

        >In terms of fair use, e.g. making a second copy for your own personal
        >use, such as a back-up or whatever-- there has been a LOT of coverage
        >about this in places like SlashDot and Wired. Naturally, the mainstream
        >media is ignoring the issue. Essentially, the issue is still up in the
        >air as far as I know -- consumers want to be able to make back-up copies
        >of CDs and DVDs (even stripping the copyright protection).

        This is two different issues -- under copyright law, fair use definitely exists. The issue with electronic media is the DMCA, which doesn't allow stipping digital copyright protection even to make a fair-use copy. It doesn't cover analog forms of copyright protection, so you have the bizarre situation where fair use exists for some kinds of media but not others.

        >[quote] This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by
        >way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise
        >circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding
        >or cover other than that which it is published and without a similiar
        >condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent
        >publisher. [unquote]

        >Which means, you can't take off or change the cover, then lend-out the
        >book. Why? I have no idea!

        My guess would be the UK version of trademark law, but I'm not very well versed in it.

        -lynn
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.