Travel Technology - flexPLAY "No-return DVD Rentals"

I'd read about these, but encountered them for the first time in Staples yesterday. These are self-destructing disks that sell for the same price as DVD rentals -- I got Tropic Thunder for $4.95 and There Will Be Blood for $2.99. They come sealed in plastic and are playable for 48 hours after opening, after which you just throw them away. Transfer quality looks as good as standard DVDs, but there are no extras included.

These seem like good alternatives to buying DVDs for travel (I'd never take a rental disk on a trip -- the chances of losing it are too high).

And, for those who are wondering, yes, it appears that programs like DVDShrink and DVDdecrypter work just fine with them. :)

And, for those who are wondering, yes, it appears that programs like DVDShrink and DVDdecrypter work just fine with them. :)

Alas, a lot less economical than renting them the old fashioned way, if ripping is your goal anyway.

And, for those who are wondering, yes, it appears that programs like DVDShrink and DVDdecrypter work just fine with them. :)

That's unfortunate :td:

Cheers.

That's unfortunate :td:
Explain, please?

Explain, please?

Unless I misunderstand the intent of the mentioned products, I assume that they're for ripping DVD content and copying it, i.e. pirating...or they can be used that way, in any event. Just something I'm opposed to, be it movies, music, software. I know that there are legitimate uses for such things- copying things that one actually owns to make viewing easier as no disc is required, but I'd bet that this is the minority use of such products.

In the case of something purchased for a 48 hour time period, copying and using it beyond that time is clearly pirating. As far as I'm concerned, it's just unfortunate that it works.

Cheers.

Just what we need -- a throw-away product designed to fill up our landfills. :td:

Unless I misunderstand the intent of the mentioned products, I assume that they're for ripping DVD content and copying it, i.e. piratingNope. That's how you can move DVD content onto the hard drive of your computer. "Medium shifting" in other media, e.g. CDs and audio tapes, comes within fair use (notwithstanding the AHRA). I see no reason why medium-shifting to a computer would also not come within fair use, notwithstanding the (in my opinion) unconstitutional "copy defeat" provisions of the DMCA.

...or they can be used that way, in any event.So can VCRs. See Sony v. Universal. Contributory infringement in this context requires that the accused device have no significant legitimate purpose. That is clearly not the case.

Just something I'm opposed to, be it movies, music, software.So you're opposed to the AHRA?

I know that there are legitimate uses for such things- copying things that one actually owns to make viewing easier as no disc is required, but I'd bet that this is the minority use of such products.I'd bet you're wrong. Most people I know who use DVDShrink and DVDdecrypter use them to move DVDs to laptops so they can watch them on airplanes. Aside from the ease in carrying, and the aforementioned danger of losing rental disks while traveling, laptops use significantly less power reading from hard drives than from DVD drives and thus permit watching movies longer.

In the case of something purchased for a 48 hour time period, copying and using it beyond that time is clearly pirating. Wrong. It's 48 hours from the time the DVD is opened, not from the time that it is purchased. Particularly if the copy is ephemeral, i.e. not stored long term, there is no difference whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just unfortunate that it works.

Cheers.And as far as I'm concerned, you're unfamiliar with copyright law, as well as its underlying jurisprudence. Sorry, but you're wrong about a number of points. Incidentally, I'm a licensed attorney and have practiced IP law for 17 years.

Love's travel centers have these for $1-1.99.........I think it is biodegrading material that degrades so quickly it doens't work after 48 hours.

That's how you can move DVD content onto the hard drive of your computer. "Medium shifting" in other media, e.g. CDs and audio tapes, comes within fair use (notwithstanding the AHRA). I see no reason why medium-shifting to a computer would also not come within fair use, notwithstanding the (in my opinion) unconstitutional "copy defeat" provisions of the DMCA.
AND
Most people I know who use DVDShrink and DVDdecrypter use them to move DVDs to laptops so they can watch them on airplanes. Aside from the ease in carrying, and the aforementioned danger of losing rental disks while traveling, laptops use significantly less power reading from hard drives than from DVD drives and thus permit watching movies longer.
BINGO! +1. Thank you!
Dave

Wrong. It's 48 hours from the time the DVD is opened, not from the time that it is purchased. Particularly if the copy is ephemeral, i.e. not stored long term, there is no difference whatsoever.

No, not wrong. I was referring to the opening of the item since this is required for the copying. The purchase is irrelevant. If one copies this item and does not view it beyond the 48 hour shelf life of the item, I agree. If viewed after this time, it is a pirated copy.


And as far as I'm concerned, you're unfamiliar with copyright law, as well as its underlying jurisprudence. Sorry, but you're wrong about a number of points. Incidentally, I'm a licensed attorney and have practiced IP law for 17 years.

I never claimed to be an expert on copyright law, and it is quite clear that you are, but this doesn't seem relevant.

If I own a DVD and make a copy for ease of vewing, no problem, and we agree there.

If I rent a DVD and copy for ease of viewing, also no problem, I'd think, as long as I'm still renting the item. What about after I return it? Can i still view this item? For how long? Until i get the next one (Netflix model)? Until next Tuesday? Can I keep it on my hard disk, or on another DVD afterwards?

I'll freely admit to not knowing the legal answers to all of these questions, but I'm fairly sure that copyright laws do not allow one to copy and retain rented materials beyond the rental period. And, if you believe that people do not do this in large numbers using the aforementioned software packages and similar products, I think you may be more familiar with the legal than the real-world aspects, because it surely does happen.

Cheers.

No, not wrong. I was referring to the opening of the item since this is required for the copying. The purchase is irrelevant. If one copies this item and does not view it beyond the 48 hour shelf life of the item, I agree. If viewed after this time, it is a pirated copy.The intent of the 48-hour limit is that not permanent copy be created so that the flex product becomes a substitute for a rental. If someone is creating a permanent (or long term) library of videos, that is piracy. If someone is medium shifting, and the trans-medium copy is kept short-term, only, it is not.

I never claimed to be an expert on copyright law, and it is quite clear that you are, but this doesn't seem relevant.With all due respect, it doesn't seem relevant to you because you're not sufficiently familiar with the underlying rationale of copyright jurisprudence.

If I own a DVD and make a copy for ease of vewing, no problem, and we agree there.Right (again, DMCA notwithstanding).

If I rent a DVD and copy for ease of viewing, also no problem, I'd think, as long as I'm still renting the item. What about after I return it? Can i still view this item? For how long?For starters, I'd say multiple viewing extended beyond the rental period (one week at BlockBusters) would probably place it outside of fair use.

Until i get the next one (Netflix model)? Until next Tuesday? Can I keep it on my hard disk, or on another DVD afterwards?You can't keep it on another DVD -- there's nothing in fair use law that would suggest making back-up copies or exact duplicates in this context is permissible.

I'll freely admit to not knowing the legal answers to all of these questions, but I'm fairly sure that copyright laws do not allow one to copy and retain rented materials beyond the rental period.Once again, medium shifting is permissible. If I rent a bunch of movies, transfer them to my computer's hard drive, watch them over the course of a 3-week vacation, and then delete them, it's hard to imagine why that would not come within fair use (DMCA notwithstanding).

And, if you believe that people do not do this in large numbers using the aforementioned software packages and similar products, I think you may be more familiar with the legal than the real-world aspects, because it surely does happen.I didn't say it didn't happen. I said that I and most people I know use these products for medium-shifting purposes I've described. The test for contributory infringement set out in Sony v. Universal is whether the technology has a significant non-infringing purpose. These two products do, just like VCRs. Just like VCRs, I'm sure that many people use them for infringing purposes. I'm sure many people use DVD blanks for infringing purposes as well. Would you outlaw those, too?

OK, it seems we agree, in principle, on what is and isn't piracy versus fair use and simple medium shifting within fair use. We may differ on our opinions of he prevalence of one versus the other. As a software developer, I may be more sensitive to the piracy of digital material than you (and you considerably more familiar with the legal aspects).


With all due respect, it doesn't seem relevant to you because you're not sufficiently familiar with the underlying rationale of copyright jurisprudence.

Actually, I think I am familiar with the underlying principles, if not the legal details inasmuch as you seem to have agreed with my assertions about the piracy aspects of retained copies (either on hard drive or external media) which is what I was talking about. I never said there was a problem with medium shifting, if that's all it is.

In any event, this isn't OMNI, and this is off-topic (mea culpa), so thanks to PTravel for letting us know about an nteresting new technology for DVD rental :)

Cheers.

OK, it seems we agree, in principle, on what is and isn't piracy versus fair use and simple medium shifting within fair use. We may differ on our opinions of he prevalence of one versus the other. As a software developer, I may be more sensitive to the piracy of digital material than you (and you considerably more familiar with the legal aspects).I've spent my legal career defending the IP rights of my clients. Believe me, I'm very sensitive to piracy. I am also very sensitive to the First Amendment, which is why fair use exists in the first place -- copyright exists as an incentive to creation, whereas fair use exists to further the marketplace of ideas secured by the First Amendment. If you look at the statutory guidelines for fair use, you will understand that the underlying purpose of the doctrine is to ensure that the ability to exploit the monopoly granted by copyright is tempered to allow uses that either don't hurt the commercial value of the copyright-protected expression, or have an over-arching social function, e.g. education or commentary, that justifies limiting the scope of copyright protection. Medium shifting in this context does not hurt the ability to commercially-exploit the protected expression and thus should come within fair use.

This is also why I believe that the copy-defeat provisions of the DMCA are unconstitutional, notwithstanding the ambiguous addition of fair use guarantees to the statute.

Actually, I think I am familiar with the underlying principles, if not the legal details inasmuch as you seem to have agreed with my assertions about the piracy aspects of retained copies (either on hard drive or external media) which is what I was talking about. I never said there was a problem with medium shifting, if that's all it is.That's all it is or, at least, that's why I mentioned it. From the standpoint of fair use, there is no difference between copying a rental DVD, a flex DVD or a purchased DVD to a laptop hard drive as long as the purpose is medium/time-shifting. From the standpoint of the DMCA, all three are illegal as they involve defeat of a copy-protection mechanism.

In any event, this isn't OMNI, and this is off-topic (mea culpa), so thanks to PTravel for letting us know about an nteresting new technology for DVD rental :)My pleasure. ;) For what it's worth, I don't think the flex disks present enough of an advantage over rentals to supplant them, as they lack the extras which many people (myself included) enjoy. Though the video transfer quality appears high (unlike many of the "bargain" DVDs sold at supermarkets and the like), and they include Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks and subtitles, things like the "making of" videos are lacking.

However, for travel purposes they are ideal. Even without transfers (for those lucky enough to be riding in C or F with power ports), they can be viewed and then thrown away, without worrying about rental returns.


Cheers.Seinfeld. :)

So, if I am allowed (by law) to make a backup copy of my disc, what part of the law would prevent me from doing so with a disc that self destructs? Surely it isn't my problem that they designed these discs that way?

Also, if the law says I can make a backup of my movie, it is still considered "my movie" after the self destruction has taken place and the disc is no longer readable? Surely that is the whole purpose of being allowed to backup stuff? In case it breaks?

What if I own a movie, rip it, and my kid breaks the disc in half. It's still my movie, but it just isn't playable any longer. Does the broken disc invalidate my right to the backup?

So, if I am allowed (by law) to make a backup copy of my disc,You are not allowed by law to make a backup copy of a DVD. You are allowed to make a single archival copy of a "software program" and, I suppose, you could make a straight-face argument that a DVD is a software program. However, to my knowledge, no one has ever argued that and my gut-feeling is that it would be clear from the legislative intent of the software backup statute that DVDs and similar expressive content were not intended to be included.

Also, if the law says I can make a backup of my movie, it is still considered "my movie" after the self destruction has taken place and the disc is no longer readable? Surely that is the whole purpose of being allowed to backup stuff? In case it breaks?As I said, your initial premise is incorrect. The law does not permit making backup copies of DVDs. A key element in evaluating fair use is whether the specific use is "transformative," i.e. whether it is strictly a verbatim copy or whether it has been changed in some way.

What if I own a movie, rip it, and my kid breaks the disc in half. It's still my movie, but it just isn't playable any longer. Does the broken disc invalidate my right to the backup?Yes. You don't own the movie. You only own the physical DVD on which the protected expressive content is found. That content is distributed pursuant to limited license that allows home viewing but, for example, doesn't extend to other protected rights such as the right to publicly display, the right to distribute or the right to make copies.

Also, if the law says I can make a backup of my movie, it is still considered "my movie" after the self destruction has taken place and the disc is no longer readable? Surely that is the whole purpose of being allowed to backup stuff? In case it breaks?


I'd also argue that, even if making a copy of a movie that one owned were legal, as PTravel argues it should be by fair use, it would not apply here since this purchase is conditioned upon its being for "48 hours from opening." This is clearly intended to be a rental, and not a purchase model. So, protection against spoilage, even if it were permitted, would not be relevant here.

Archiving something you own the rights to should be legal, for personal, non-simultaneous use with the original (I know that this applies to software programs in many cases); archival copying of what is, in essense, a rented product whould not be.

Cheers.

Well, thank goodness more and more DVD's are coming with digital copies. Eventually the movie companies will enter the new millennium and start providing consumers with what they want, instead of developing pathetic solutions like the flexPLAY disc.

Curious how these are packaged, in order to assure when the buyer is ready to play it, the disk has not deteriorated? I can see a scenario where I buy the self destructing disk, but for whatever reason do not unpackage it and watch for sixty days.

I'd also argue that, even if making a copy of a movie that one owned were legal, as PTravel argues it should be by fair useWhoa, hold on a 'sec. I did not say that. I said copying to another medium for purposes of time/medium shifting would be legal, but for the DMCA (which I regard as unconstitutional). It is not legal to make a DVD copy of a DVD, nor is it fair use.

Archiving something you own the rights to should be legal, for personal, non-simultaneous use with the original (I know that this applies to software programs in many cases); You don't own the protected content, whether its a movie on a DVD or a software program on a CD. All you own is the physical copy. You're allowed to make archival copies of software programs because there is a specific statute that authorizes it. Fair use does not consider simultaneous use.

Curious how these are packaged, in order to assure when the buyer is ready to play it, the disk has not deteriorated? I can see a scenario where I buy the self destructing disk, but for whatever reason do not unpackage it and watch for sixty days.That's specifically contemplated as part of the business model of this product. They are sealed in air-tight plastic packages, not unlike the ones used for bologna. When you're ready to view the DVD, you unseal the package and, presumably, oxidation renders it unusable after 48 hours.

Well, thank goodness more and more DVD's are coming with digital copies. Eventually the movie companies will enter the new millennium and start providing consumers with what they want, instead of developing pathetic solutions like the flexPLAY disc.I agree completely. Passing laws requiring the sale of buggy whips with a new automobile is not the way to ensure companies with obsolete business models survive. My most successful clients found ways to profit from piracy (through value-added subscriptions, access to on-line material, etc.), rather than making huge investments in copy-protection schemes while trying to buy-off Congress to pass more bad legislation like the DMCA.

Whoa, hold on a 'sec. I did not say that. I said copying to another medium for purposes of time/medium shifting would be legal, but for the DMCA (which I regard as unconstitutional). It is not legal to make a DVD copy of a DVD, nor is it fair use.



Thanks for the corrections. I was always under the assumption that a personal backup of the disc you actually own was ok, but that DVD's were not really included because you can't rip one without bypassing the encryption.

Once again, medium shifting is permissible. If I rent a bunch of movies, transfer them to my computer's hard drive, watch them over the course of a 3-week vacation, and then delete them, it's hard to imagine why that would not come within fair use (DMCA notwithstanding).
I agreed with you until this paragraph. If you rent a movie, copy it to your hard drive, then return it, then watch it over a 3 week vacation, I could see that being a violation of fair use. You are licensing the movie to view during your rental period. If you watch/use it beyond the rental period, wouldn't that be a violation?

Whoa, hold on a 'sec. I did not say that. I said copying to another medium for purposes of time/medium shifting would be legal, but for the DMCA (which I regard as unconstitutional). It is not legal to make a DVD copy of a DVD, nor is it fair use.


Thanks for the corrections. I was always under the assumption that a personal backup of the disc you actually own was ok, but that DVD's were not really included because you can't rip one without bypassing the encryption.

Apologies. I thought this was the case as well, and thought you were suggesting that making the copy should be allowed (for "owned" items) by fair use. I certainly didn't mean to put words into your...er...hands here :)

Within fair use, I think it should ber permissable to make a backup copy of a DVD, to be used only if damage occurs to the original, just as with software.

Cheers.

I agreed with you until this paragraph. If you rent a movie, copy it to your hard drive, then return it, then watch it over a 3 week vacation, I could see that being a violation of fair use. You are licensing the movie to view during your rental period. If you watch/use it beyond the rental period, wouldn't that be a violation?Read the Sony v. Universal opinion. Transformative time-shifting of video is fair use.

Within fair use, I think it should ber permissable to make a backup copy of a DVD, to be used only if damage occurs to the original, just as with software.My suspicion with respect to archival backups of software is that the original distribution medium for this form of expression, floppy disks, was notoriously unreliable -- magnetic media would flake off, someone would leave the disk on a speaker and erase it, etc. Because software has usually represented a significant investment orders of magnitude greater than, for example, a DVD or, as was popular then, beta and VHS tapes, Congress agreed to allow an archived backup. Note, too, that the primary beneficiaries of the archive statue are businesses, rather than consumers, who have had far greater investments in software. Software is usually sold by license, i.e. you obtain a license to use the software which is distributed through the medium of floppy disks, DVDs, etc. Destruction of the physical copy doesn't necessarily implicate the license.

Buying a DVD is much more analogous to buying a book. You can't archive a book, though a book is much more susceptible to destruction than a DVD. If you wear out your book (or burn it, or spill coffee on it, etc.), your only option is to buy another book. The same is true with DVDs. You're not buying a license to view the movie, you're buying a single physical copy of the protected expression. Ownership of the copy conveys no rights to the underlying work.

Cheers.Everybody Loves Raymond.

Buying a DVD is much more analogous to buying a book. You can't archive a book, though a book is much more susceptible to destruction than a DVD. If you wear out your book (or burn it, or spill coffee on it, etc.), your only option is to buy another book. The same is true with DVDs. You're not buying a license to view the movie, you're buying a single physical copy of the protected expression. Ownership of the copy conveys no rights to the underlying work.

I believe (and this is from disclaimers I read in college and grad school days, and not based on knowledge of specific legal precedent) that a book can be photocopied for personal use. If so, this would allow making a copy of the book for archival purposes. It may not be of the same form, but that's a reproduction medium issue.


Everybody Loves Raymond.

You know, they really don't :)

Frasier.

Read the Sony v. Universal opinion. Transformative time-shifting of video is fair use.
That decision was talking more about TV programs. I'd be shocked if anyone could claim, in court, that applies to ripping a DVD you are renting, and don't own, so you can watch it beyond your rental period.

If you owned the DVD, I'd say go for it. Not owning it, you've been granted a temporary license to watch the DVD during the rental period. I'm assuming that there is something buried in the rental agreement specifically stating this. If it is in there, you're violating a contract, which would be a civil matter, and you could be sued over that. This, of course, would be on top of any possible criminal charges, if the sony v universal case didn't apply.

I believe (and this is from disclaimers I read in college and grad school days, and not based on knowledge of specific legal precedent) that a book can be photocopied for personal use.Nope. Books can't be copied for personal use. Pages of books can be photocopied in some circumstances.

If so, this would allow making a copy of the book for archival purposes. It may not be of the same form, but that's a reproduction medium issue.Nope. Only libraries are allowed by statute to archive books by photocopy.

You know, they really don't :)

Frasier.
Friends.

That decision was talking more about TV programs. I'd be shocked if anyone could claim, in court, that applies to ripping a DVD you are renting, and don't own, so you can watch it beyond your rental period.Sony v. Universal isn't limited to TV programs. It addressed the question of contributory infringement by making copies of broadcast video. It stands for the principle that time-shifting coupled with media transformation was fair use. It did a standard fair use analysis. You need to read the opinion. It is not about "TV programs."

If you owned the DVD, I'd say go for it. This is why non-lawyers shouldn't give legal advice.

Not owning it, you've been granted a temporary license to watch the DVD during the rental period. I'm assuming that there is something buried in the rental agreement specifically stating this. If it is in there, you're violating a contract, which would be a civil matter, and you could be sued over that. This, of course, would be on top of any possible criminal charges, if the sony v universal case didn't apply.With all due respect, this is not something that is subject to debate through application of logic and analogy on the part of lay people. Fair use is an equitable doctrine (and a defense to infringement) that requires complete familiarity with the entire corpus of fair use decisional law (that's because it's an equitable doctrine). You're just going to have to take my word for it.

This is why non-lawyers shouldn't give legal advice.

Well, nobody should give legal advice on the interwebs (or, flush everything one reads thru the "read it on the internet" filter).

With all due respect, this is not something that is subject to debate through application of logic and analogy on the part of lay people. Fair use is an equitable doctrine (and a defense to infringement) that requires complete familiarity with the entire corpus of fair use decisional law (that's because it's an equitable doctrine). You're just going to have to take my word for it.

Given some of the latest legislative moves and jurisprudence on the subject, it's far better to say that one should probably stick within the very basic premises available to all (claimed laypersons and otherwise) and not to cross any of the very grey lines--because in the end, it's a judge's (or, in a stretch, jury's) opinion that actually matters.

Well, nobody should give legal advice on the interwebs (or, flush everything one reads thru the "read it on the internet" filter).


Agreed. I don't think it is smart for lawyers to be giving legal advice on the net.

Given some of the latest legislative moves and jurisprudence on the subject, it's far better to say that one should probably stick within the very basic premises available to all (claimed laypersons and otherwise) and not to cross any of the very grey lines--because in the end, it's a judge's (or, in a stretch, jury's) opinion that actually matters.Okay, I need to be very, very clear here.

Fair Use, though codified, is not, "a law." It is a defense raised to an allegation of copyright infringement. Because it is an equitable defense, the judge (and not the jury) gets to decide if it applies. No non-IP lawyer should second guess Fair Use doctrine because, if you're wrong, you're going to be liable for copyright infringement.

Agreed. I don't think it is smart for lawyers to be giving legal advice on the net.I usually don't give legal advice on the intertubes, but sometimes I do and there is no reason I shouldn't -- the only risk in doing so is to myself.

I usually don't give legal advice on the intertubes, but sometimes I do and there is no reason I shouldn't -- the only risk in doing so is to myself.

That is the perspective I was taking with me comment, yours. I don't think it is smart for you to give out legal advice on the interwebs. Same goes for other lawyers.

I've also read that the whole "this isn't legal advice" tag hasn't gone over well in courts. But that was just some article on the interwebs, so who knows. :)

Fair Use, though codified, is not, "a law."

Here, I thought it was a limitation on the exclusive right of a copyright holder. Of course, I may be parsing 17 U.S.C. § 107 incorrectly.

It is a defense raised to an allegation of copyright infringement.

Which is nicely codified as 17 U.S.C. § 107 (and probably a whole bunch of places in various states for which I'm too lazy to look).

But your point is well taken that as a practical matter, it's probably only ever used as a defense.

Because it is an equitable defense, the judge (and not the jury) gets to decide if it applies. No non-IP lawyer should second guess Fair Use doctrine because, if you're wrong, you're going to be liable for copyright infringement.

As a practical matter, with anything lacking a clear precedent (and maybe even things that seem clear) an appellate judge is going to decide the whole shebang anyway.

But it's not like IP lawyers have a lock on "right" and/or "wrong" on fair use--I'm sure the Universal (et al) folks thought they had some pretty bright lawyers working for them (as did A&M, Leslie Kelly, The Nation, and the very bright people defending Grokster who certainly thought they were just going to be able to hide behind the work from the bright people at Sony).

I usually don't give legal advice on the intertubes, but sometimes I do and there is no reason I shouldn't -- the only risk in doing so is to myself.

Is there a corollary to the "lawyer who represents himself" mantra :)?

Here, I thought it was a limitation on the exclusive right of a copyright holder. Of course, I may be parsing 17 U.S.C. § 107 incorrectly.Unless you are a lawyer, you cannot parse 17 U.S.C. § 107 and, from what you've written, I gather you are not. Notwithstanding its codification, fair use is an equitable doctrine, i.e. "judge made law," that is applied in the context of defending a copyright infringement action.

Which is nicely codified as 17 U.S.C. § 107 (and probably a whole bunch of places in various states for which I'm too lazy to look).You won't find any. Federal copyright law preempts all state law and the federal courts are the only ones with subject matter jurisdiction over copyright matters.

But your point is well taken that as a practical matter, it's probably only ever used as a defense.Not as a "practical matter" -- as a matter of law, it's only application is as a defense to infringement.

As a practical matter, with anything lacking a clear precedent (and maybe even things that seem clear) an appellate judge is going to decide the whole shebang anyway.Also incorrect. You don't, I think, understand what constitutes a, "clear precedent." It doesn't mean, "having identical facts."

But it's not like IP lawyers have a lock on "right" and/or "wrong" on fair use--No, they just have a lock on understanding its meaning and application.

I'm sure the Universal (et al) folks thought they had some pretty bright lawyers working for them (as did A&M, Leslie Kelly, The Nation, and the very bright people defending Grokster who certainly thought they were just going to be able to hide behind the work from the bright people at Sony).Indeed, wherein lies the "equitable" element of fair use, as well as the necessity of being completely familiar with the entire body of fair use decisional law.

Don't you guys have a lawyer chat forum somewhere? :D :D :D

went online...not too many title available but free shipping....I think that this is worth it if shipping stays free and there is no sales tax.

So if y'all done playing lawyers, maybe let's look at the technology and economical benefits again, yes?

went online...not too many title available but free shipping....I think that this is worth it if shipping stays free and there is no sales tax.

I don't quite see why I'd want to go with this system vs. renting the DVDs I want from Netflix or Blockbuster or my neighborhood grocery store rental machine ($1/day, I think?). Maybe there are cases where I see a particular movie that I want *right now* at a store (airport stores would make sense, but Staples??), but otherwise?

Finally, with a lot of content moving online (iTunes, ...), what is the long-term business model for this company?

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 3.02; Windows CE; PPC; 240x320) BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Quite poor, I'd say.

I don't know if they have improved the formula any, but the last crack at disposable DVD's were still playable in a great many DVD players long after the intended expiry.

Finally, with a lot of content moving online (iTunes, ...), what is the long-term business model for this company?Maybe it's just me, or my generation, but I don't see iTunes and other on-line content as competition for this business model. I watch movies on a big HDTV. When I want portable video, I'll put movies on my laptop. I'm not interested in over-compressed low-resolution video, and certainly wouldn't want to watch new film releases on a small screen. Until the bandwidth of the internet increases to the point where I can download hi-res movies in the same time as I can now download music, I don't see on-line video as being competition for DVDs, much less Blu-Ray.

I don't know if they have improved the formula any, but the last crack at disposable DVD's were still playable in a great many DVD players long after the intended expiry.Interesting that you mention it. I haven't tried the two that I bought, but one is a deep red color (it was when I opened it), but the other looks a shiny silver, indistinguishable from standard DVDs. I'll have to try them this weekend.

I asked about it a while back and the consensus seemed to be that many laser diodes saw right through the oxidization layer supposed to make them disposable. Nobody had one to test with but apparently Blu-ray and HD-DVD players can also see through the oxidization.

The only reason I bought these was to "medium switch".

I have an RT to SIN coming up (daytime flight ...ugggg) and need to do something for the time.

If the disc and packaging were cheap enough, I could see the argument that consumers should prefer it over all product-return DVD rentals.

Then again, I could see significant hurdles to acceptance by traditional rental outlets. I remember reading somewhere that they make all their money off of late fees.

If the disc and packaging were cheap enough, I could see the argument that consumers should prefer it over all product-return DVD rentals.

Then again, I could see significant hurdles to acceptance by traditional rental outlets. I remember reading somewhere that they make all their money off of late fees.BlockBusters doesn't really charge late fees anymore. The rental period is still 2 or 3 days, but if you don't return the DVD within a week, you get charged a replacement fee. If you bring it back after that, the fee is reversed.

I asked about it a while back and the consensus seemed to be that many laser diodes saw right through the oxidization layer supposed to make them disposable. Nobody had one to test with but apparently Blu-ray and HD-DVD players can also see through the oxidization.I've got a collection of DVD players here -- a Blu-Ray, an HD DVD, and a standard DVD from China that is billed as a "universal" player (we bought the latter so Mrs. PTravel could watch Chinese-language DVDs we get when visit China). I'll give them a try this weekend.

Maybe it's just me, or my generation, but I don't see iTunes and other on-line content as competition for this business model. I watch movies on a big HDTV. When I want portable video, I'll put movies on my laptop. I'm not interested in over-compressed low-resolution video, and certainly wouldn't want to watch new film releases on a small screen.

There are several services and devices available today that let you stream/download and watch movies in DVD quality or higher on your big TV. For instance take a look at the Roku box (http://www.roku.com/netflixplayer). iTunes does offer downloads for small devices, but that's not all (heard of the Apple TV box?).

Also note that I am not necessarily talking of today... I said "long term business plan" (though really I don't think it's that far off that physical disks will be for many people an outdated medium).

As the founder of Netflix keeps saying, he knew when he started from the beginning that mailing out DVDs was not a business model that would last forever, so he chose not to name the company "DVDs by Mail".

There are several services and devices available today that let you stream/download and watch movies in DVD quality or higher on your big TV. For instance take a look at the Roku box (http://www.roku.com/netflixplayer). iTunes does offer downloads for small devices, but that's not all (heard of the Apple TV box?).Sorry, but it's simply not possible. DVDs require a data bandwidth of 10 mpbs. Blu-Ray requires a bandwidth of 25 mpbs. Most people don't have this kind of bandwidth, and anything less will require less resolution or more digital artifacts.

Also note that I am not necessarily talking of today... I said "long term business plan" (though really I don't think it's that far off that physical disks will be for many people an outdated medium).Oh, that's probably true. I suspect, though, that they're not looking very long term with this business model.

"No return rental" is an oxymoron.

It is a purchase. MPAA can come sue me.