Topic: Great site to get the 1-12 discs (Read 11265 times)

kaelaria · « **on:** October 06, 2006, 01:11:36 am »

I have been using this site to get a lot of odd ball videos, it caters to just about everything produced that you wouldn't find in blockbuster. It has a nice selection of Photography related discs to rent along with just about every other topic, including LL! It doesn't require any monthly subscription, and they give you the return packaging just like netflix, etc.

Prices are very reasonable considering each disc they rent often sells for $20+ each, and they have them for 1 week's rent for $5-$10 each.

I rented LL 1-12 for $101, for example!

Technical Video Rental

Just passing it on, a great way to see the older issues, to browse before you buy!

Christopher Sanderson · « **Reply #1 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:05:40 am »

I take a pretty dim view of this - seems to me like a breach of copyright but apparently not. Let's hope it is just another form of viral marketing for the LLVJ

Chris Sanderson

kaelaria · « **Reply #2 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:19:01 am »

I won't argue (refering to your original post, not what is now above) since I don't know what arraingement you may or may not have - but I would be surprised if they are in the wrong, it's quite a large established company, and I don't believe they violate anything by renting videos they presumibly have purchased. For example am I somehow in violation if I rent my original's to a friend, or a stranger for that matter? Again - NOT arguing just asking...and no I am NOT a copyright lawyer or expert!! It just seems like common sense that there is nothing wrong with it to me. I have rented dozens of videos from them - they have always been original copies of the discs and it's no different than my Blockbuster membership as far as I can see.

Christopher Sanderson · « **Reply #3 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:26:21 am »

It seems to me that the question of whether our copyright is infringed or not is a matter for legal minds - not mine. As you know, this site exists on the sale of the LLVJ, and the fact remains that their rental of our material puts money into their pockets - not much into ours . . .

I guess if I see lots of sales going to one address, we will have to start a rental business of our own!

Chris S

GregW · « **Reply #4 on:** October 06, 2006, 09:16:54 am »

Quote

It seems to me that the question of whether our copyright is infringed or not is a matter for legal minds - not mine. As you know, this site exists on the sale of the LLVJ, and the fact remains that their rental of our material puts money into their pockets - not much into ours . . .

I guess if I see lots of sales going to one address, we will have to start a rental business of our own!

Chris S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

International copyright law is quite clear on this. Unless the content was purchased with the license to loan out or rent you are infringing it by doing so. Furthermore the content owner is normally advised to make this clear on the packaging and in the case of a DVD on screen as well.

Companies like Blockbuster will pay a incense to the content owner either at point of sale or by a volume licensing agreement.

In my opinion you guys should talk to this company and negotiate a license with them. It could be a free of charge license, based on the number of rentals or an initial purchase price which included the license cost. This is the best solution as it doesn't require the company to keep and provide you with audited sales numbers and you don't have make provisions for future income. You can just book it when you sell it. You would also be within your rights to request a settlement based on past rentals.

Christopher Sanderson · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2006, 09:38:32 am »

Thanks Greg.

This seems to synch with the few educational libraries and clubs to whom we have sold copies and who have specifically asked for the right to lend them out or screen them publicly. The TVR guys certainly did not ask permission. I have dropped them an email - let's see how they respond . . .

Chris S

Christopher Sanderson · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2006, 12:35:13 pm »

Mr Travis J I Corcoran, President of Technical Video Rental has replied to me stating at length that his use is within the US & Canadian Copyright laws. He has purchased one copy, this allows for one copy to be in circulation from TVR at a time . . .

Chris S

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #7 on:** October 06, 2006, 12:37:21 pm »

I, for one, am happy owning my own copies of the LLVJ. But I must admit that I do borrow other commercial videos from my local public library.

And I'll bet my #15 will be here before I could rent it anyway.

Eric

GregW · « **Reply #8 on:** October 06, 2006, 12:46:31 pm »

That does suprise me be it's possible there is some local provision I am not aware of. Hi response would not wash in Europe. I also have to be honest and state that my experience is more in Intelectual Property than copyright.

Technical Video Rental · « **Reply #9 on:** October 06, 2006, 01:49:47 pm »

Hi,

This is Travis Corcoran, founder and president of Technical Video Rental, Inc. (soon to be renamed as "SmartFlix").

I'd like to thank Christopher Sanderson for his kind invitation to drop by the forum and say a few words.

I'd like to get the copyright issue out of the way quickly: some commenters mention that renting out videos without permission from the copyright holder is illegal in Europe. They're entirely correct...however, the law is different in the US and Canada. Here, the right to resell, lend, and rent is acquired along with the purchase of a legal copy of the video.

Video rental stores in the US do not pay higher prices because they intend to rent - in fact, they often pay lower prices, by purchasing in bulk. Video rental stores do not pay royalties with each rental - however, a few large chain stores *choose* to pay a small amount on each rental (Blockbuster, for example), but that's part of agreements they negotiate with the vendors, in return for paying nothing up front to get a copy of the video.

Next, and just for the record, let me state that TVR takes a very strong stand on respecting and defending author's rights to their work. Every one of the tens of thousands of videos we own is a fully legal original.

Finally, some vendors are concerned about lost sales because of rentals. I believe that, if anything, TVR has led to far more sales.

Because TVR has a very broad selection of how-to videos of all kinds, folks often find us when they would have never found smaller vendors that carry only a few titles. We've had many customers tell us that they never knew about entire categories of videos until they visited our site.

Whenever a customer approaches us for information on purchasing a video, we tell them that we do not sell videos, and we direct them to vendors. We don't know exactly how many extra sales vendors have made because of our referrals, but we know that there have been dozens, if not hundreds. Many vendors have actually asked us if we would be willing to sell their videos in addition to renting them, and this is something we're looking into.

Of course, not every customer does go back to the vendor and purchases a video, sometimes they're satisfied with just a rental. This doesn't always mean that a sale was lost: a customer who is willing to pay $9.99 to see a video once is often not willing to pay $30, $50, or $70 to buy a video, and the original vendor did not lose a sale because such a customer was never in the market to purchase a video to begin with. In fact, because of TVR, the original vendor made several more sales than he otherwise would have...to TVR. Think about the videos you rent from the corner video store - would you buy each movie you watch, for $20, $30, or $40, if you couldn't rent it for $3?

When VCRs first came on the scene 25 years ago, the movie industry got very upset when video rental stores opened. They protested that these stores "weren't fair", because they cannibalized business. They even tried to stop them legally, before the courts ruled that video rentals are legal. Over the 1980's, though, the studios realized that the stores were buying far more videos than the customers ever would, and recognized that this additional channel was putting a lot of money in their pockets. We think that having your video available through TVR will do the same for you.

I strongly believe that the record shows that TVR is, as Christopher said, effective as a form of viral marketing.

As a final word: if you like a video enough to watch it twice or more, please purchase copies from the original vendors. It seems that Christopher has done great work with these videos, and building a community here. For those folks who are already familiar with Christopher and his videos, it would seem to be a no-brainer to purchase copies straight from him.

...but if there are hobbies other than photography that interest you, and you're not sure how the various competing videos stack up, and you're not sure that you want to spend a lot of money purchasing with out taking a "test drive" first, then Technical Video Rental might be a decent choice for you.

Thanks to all of you for your time, and thanks again to Chris for the invitation to speak here.

Travis J I Corcoran, President
Technical Video Rental, Inc.

--
http://TechnicalVideoRental.com/]
You need to know. We show you how.

Josh-H · « **Reply #10 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:05:42 pm »

Quote

Hi,

This is Travis Corcoran, founder and president of Technical Video Rental, Inc. (soon to be renamed as "SmartFlix").

I'd like to thank Christopher Sanderson for his kind invitation to drop by the forum and say a few words.

I'd like to get the copyright issue out of the way quickly: some commenters mention that renting out videos without permission from the copyright holder is illegal in Europe. They're entirely correct...however, the law is different in the US and Canada. Here, the right to resell, lend, and rent is acquired along with the purchase of a legal copy of the video.

Video rental stores in the US do not pay higher prices because they intend to rent - in fact, they often pay lower prices, by purchasing in bulk. Video rental stores do not pay royalties with each rental - however, a few large chain stores *choose* to pay a small amount on each rental (Blockbuster, for example), but that's part of agreements they negotiate with the vendors, in return for paying nothing up front to get a copy of the video.

Next, and just for the record, let me state that TVR takes a very strong stand on respecting and defending author's rights to their work. Every one of the tens of thousands of videos we own is a fully legal original.

Finally, some vendors are concerned about lost sales because of rentals. I believe that, if anything, TVR has led to far more sales.

Because TVR has a very broad selection of how-to videos of all kinds, folks often find us when they would have never found smaller vendors that carry only a few titles. We've had many customers tell us that they never knew about entire categories of videos until they visited our site.

Whenever a customer approaches us for information on purchasing a video, we tell them that we do not sell videos, and we direct them to vendors. We don't know exactly how many extra sales vendors have made because of our referrals, but we know that there have been dozens, if not hundreds. Many vendors have actually asked us if we would be willing to sell their videos in addition to renting them, and this is something we're looking into.

Of course, not every customer does go back to the vendor and purchases a video, sometimes they're satisfied with just a rental. This doesn't always mean that a sale was lost: a customer who is willing to pay $9.99 to see a video once is often not willing to pay $30, $50, or $70 to buy a video, and the original vendor did not lose a sale because such a customer was never in the market to purchase a video to begin with. In fact, because of TVR, the original vendor made several more sales than he otherwise would have...to TVR. Think about the videos you rent from the corner video store - would you buy each movie you watch, for $20, $30, or $40, if you couldn't rent it for $3?

When VCRs first came on the scene 25 years ago, the movie industry got very upset when video rental stores opened. They protested that these stores "weren't fair", because they cannibalized business. They even tried to stop them legally, before the courts ruled that video rentals are legal. Over the 1980's, though, the studios realized that the stores were buying far more videos than the customers ever would, and recognized that this additional channel was putting a lot of money in their pockets. We think that having your video available through TVR will do the same for you.

I strongly believe that the record shows that TVR is, as Christopher said, effective as a form of viral marketing.

As a final word: if you like a video enough to watch it twice or more, please purchase copies from the original vendors. It seems that Christopher has done great work with these videos, and building a community here. For those folks who are already familiar with Christopher and his videos, it would seem to be a no-brainer to purchase copies straight from him.

...but if there are hobbies other than photography that interest you, and you're not sure how the various competing videos stack up, and you're not sure that you want to spend a lot of money purchasing with out taking a "test drive" first, then Technical Video Rental might be a decent choice for you.

Thanks to all of you for your time, and thanks again to Chris for the invitation to speak here.

Travis J I Corcoran, President
Technical Video Rental, Inc.

--
http://TechnicalVideoRental.com/]
You need to know. We show you how.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What a bunch of Hogwash.....

LLVJ exists because of subscribers like myself and others who have the foresight to understand that it can only exist because of our subscription contributions. We understand that it is produced off the back of subscribers money and that the LL website exists also because of subscribers money.

You might well be legally within your right to be doing what you are doing in the USA - but dont for a second beleieve its ethical, moral, justifiable or even 'ok' for that matter.

I pay my full subscription rate to LLVJ because I love the high quality material produced by Michael and Chris. You are jeopardizing the future of this content by renting out your copies for personal profit. Profit that would have otherwise been re-invested by Michael and Chris into future issues, had viewers of your rentals purchased copies.

You have the gall to insinuate - if fact you dont insinuate you literally state it - that you may have led to more sales of LLVJ because you kindly rent it out. Let me tell you that is complete pig swill. Prospective purchasers of the LLVJ can download sample clips on the LL website to see what its all about and try before they buy [as I did and others have done]. The real fact is you are encouraging piracy by renting discs you didnt produce knowing full well the end user is probably burning copies and thus depriving the creator of an income - and eventually depriving me of quality future issues.

Piracy is riff out there of DVD's and you can bet there are ppl renting it and burning copies who would have otherwise purchased them and thus contributed to future issues.

Not only do I not condone what you are doing - but now [based on your pathetic attempt at justification] I will go out of my way to steer people away from you and your services.

If you really beleive you are doing LL a favour by renting out their discs - how about offering to pay them a royalty for each rental so that at least they are getting 'some' income from your rentals and thus there is a contribution to future issues?

I'll bet you dont however - as your motivation is clearly to make a profit off the hard work of others with not forethought as to how this may effect the creators or the subscribers who finance future issues.

Shame on you.

kaelaria · « **Reply #11 on:** October 06, 2006, 09:33:39 pm »

WOW, I can only IMAGINE what you say about Blockbuster and Netflix!!

Josh-H · « **Reply #12 on:** October 06, 2006, 09:37:24 pm »

Quote

WOW, I can only IMAGINE what you say about Blockbuster and Netflix!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That was before my morning coffee And in my opnion it needed to be said.

kaelaria · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2006, 12:46:01 am »

I've been on a LLVJ marathon since Friday night...today I've watched 3-10 pretty much straight...I only have #11 left. I rented through 12 only to then realize - duh, I already owned 12 and up - lol! So that's one left to have to squeeze in anyway!

It's neat to see the progression of the series as far as topics, emphasis, camera work, beard / no beard (keep it), and watch it and people in it grow. Especially from someone doing it all at once like I am now, in essentially time lapse video!

Another really interesting fact...usually with any long term series, there are stinker episodes. I can absolutely say this is the first one Ihave ever watched that is free from that curse. Not only is every episode a great one, but they improve with time. I definitely envy those that get to work on such a project for a living, and produce such fine work!

englishm · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:13:19 am »

Corcoran's comments did not ring true for me... particularly with respect to a remembered conversation I had years ago with a video store owner.

A little research indicates that video performance rights in North America appear to be licensed for "Home Use " or "Public Performance", with Public Performance rights costing (or so it seems) about 5 to 6 times that of "home use rights." Renting or public performance (even lending by a public library), requires the purchase of a "Public Performance" license.

So it would seem that unless Michael and Chris have specifically licensed their videos for "Public Performance", renting them is not permitted.

I'm obviously not a copyright lawyer, but I am quite certain that Michael would have access to a good one. I would be curious to hear what that lawyer might think of this situation.

andythom68 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:59:24 am »

I am not a lawyer (or even from the US) but from a quick read of the US Copyright law it is clear that a person or company does NOT have a implicite right to rent/lease/reproduce for commercial purposes any copyrighted material they may own with-out the agreement of the copyright owner.

Took a simple Google search to get the following link:-

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Unless Travis Corcoran's company is a registered non-profit organisation (like a library) he could be in breach of US Copyright Law. When I read the posting by Travis I immediately thought his statement was completly wrong.

Time for Chris and Michael to contact a lawyer to clarify their position ...

Technical Video Rental · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:27:12 pm »

I'd like to again thank Chris for inviting me to participate in this discussion.

That said, I have to disagree strongly with 'andythom68' and 'englishm'. While I don't doubt their intentions, the fact is that a partially remembered years-old conversation with a video store owner, and a layman's quick read of the copyright law are no substitute for a deep understanding of the law, membership in a professional group, and the services of a dedicated Copyright law law firm (all three of which SmartFlix has acquired, at no little expense).

The bottom line is that the First Sale doctrine absolutely does allow for a legitimate owner of a video to rent it out.

The Supreme Court cases that establish this are Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908) and Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al (1979).

You can read up on the doctrine, and some of the relevant court cases, here:

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

The first-sale doctrine is limitation upon copyright recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the US Copyright Act, section 109, as a limitation to which all copyrights are subject. The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, lawfully made copy of the protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold. Originally (back in 1909), the codification applied to copies that had been sold (hence the "first sale doctrine"), but in the 1976 Act it was made to apply to any "owner" of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord regardless whether it was first sold...

In 1979 Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al. (often called "The Betamax Case"), resulted in a ruling that because the VCR was capable of substantial noninfringing uses, copyright owners who objected to the infringing uses people could make of it could not prevent its sale. The lawfulness of the VCR, coupled with the high price of the first few movies on VHS and Betamax tapes ($50 each) resulted in an explosion of the home video rental market -- a practice in which retailers bought the expensive tapes and rented them at a fraction of the cost, thereby making them affordable for the masses and (in a surprise to movie studios) stimulated huge sales volume to video retailers. Within a short time, the home video industry that motion picture studios had tried to snuff out in the crib was generating over half of the domestic revenue from all other sources combined. Coupled with the first sale doctrine, the Betamax ruling meant that Beta and VHS tapes could be purchased by video rental stores, and then rented out to the public, without permission from the copyright holders.

In 1983 the Consumer Video Sales/Rental Amendment of 1983 (1983, H.R. 1029/S. 33) tries to require anyone who wanted to rent out videotapes to obtain prior permission from the copyright owner. This bill was defeated.

Regarding the "Home Use" vs. "Public Performance", there absolutely is a distinction. It is legal for someone to purchase a DVD, and watch it at home. It is legal for someone to rent a DVD and watch it at home.

...however, it is equally illegal for anyone to purchase a DVD and play it in public, and for someone to rent a DVD and play it in public.

We make it clear in both our FAQ and our terms of service (which a customer must actively agree to before we let them rent any videos) that they do not have the right to play the video in public, unless they are an educational institution.

Copyright law (and history) is fascinating stuff, and if you have the time, I recommend digging into it.

Travis J I Corcoran, President
SmartFlix

--
http://SmartFlix.com/
web's biggest how-to DVD rental store

andythom68 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:36:38 am »

Hi Travis,

I wish you had specifically mentioned the "First Sale Doctrine" (FSD) in your initial posting, it would have made your position more clear and my comment would have been completely different. For your information there is no specific mention of FSD in the US copyright law at: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html .

Having never heard of FSD before I did some digging around on the link you provided and on www.answers.com ( http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine ). I saw one thing on answers.com you may like to clarify (maybe you are already aware of the following point).

There is a paragraph which reads ...

In 1998 in Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998, WL 9625) [2] there was a unanimous ruling: in a case involving distribution of hair care products bearing a copyrighted label, the Supreme Court found that the doctrine does apply to importation into the US of copyrighted works (the labels) which were made in the US, then exported. This is significant for grey market imports of software, books, movies or other copies of copyrighted works, where the price outside the US may be lower than the price inside. The importation of goods first manufactured outside the US under the copyright laws of other countries was specifically excluded from that decision, leaving undecided whether goods "lawfully made" under the Copyright Act but made outside the United States also benefit from the first sale doctrine. Until that is decided, copyright holders are free to take action against foreign distributors who sell products made in their region into the US market.

It is the section highlighted that may be of concern to you as the LLVJ is created in Canada. However, the legal wording could be mis-interpreted by a "layman" like me :-)

TomConnor · « **Reply #18 on:** October 24, 2006, 06:07:38 am »

In addition, given that the LLVJ is Canadian, one wonders what relevance the NAFTA would have on the rental or distribution of the LLVJ within the US, given the provision that:

2. Each Party shall provide to authors and their successors in interest those rights enumerated in the Berne Convention in respect of works covered by paragraph 1, including the right to authorize or prohibit:

( a ) the importation into the Party's territory of copies of the work made without the right holder's authorization;

( b ) the first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale, rental or otherwise;

( c ) the communication of a work to the public; and

( d ) the commercial rental of the original or a copy of a computer program.

Author Topic: Great site to get the 1-12 discs (Read 11265 times)