-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Redbox sues 20th Century Fox
- Thread starter Will E Worm
- Start date
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
The old analog ruling now comes to a digital fight ...
This will be interesting.
In the early '80s, VHS rental became a staple because copyright holders were unable to push the "we license under a right-to-use (RTU)" and the courts ruled that they were not, but "like a book" that could be lent, rented, etc... And in that regard, the copyright holders couldn't push restrictions on or prevent distribution to, various entities that were abiding by copyright laws.
What copyright holders in the digital age have been trying to do is try to assert rights on digital media that differs from analog prior. This includes the age-old "RTU" attitude again. They are back to saying it's not like a book. And this type of "control" on who can lend or resell comes back to that.
My continuing question is ... "well, if it's a RTU, and not like a book, why do I have to pay a 2nd licensing fee to get it in a different format?" I mean the MPAA and RIAA say I can't make a MP3 or DivX of my legally purchased movies, which would be clearly under "fair use" if it's a "right-to-use" (RTU). At the same time, they say it's "not like a book." They do this because they are trying to open a new profit avenue on selling things more than once.
But in reality, the whole concept of RTU v. book is that the former is for one user, but in any format or fair use, whereas the latter is a fixed medium that can be shared, but by only one, private person/consumer. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to have the "best of both worlds" while pulling this type of crap, at the expense of not just the consumer, but at the expense of the intent of copyrights and licensing.
So I hope the courts strike them down on this. I don't believe in piracy, and take issue with those who pirate, but I really tire of the MPAA and RIAA being "pirates" in their own regard as well. I still don't let it justify the counter, but it is saddening that people on both sides are trying to screw the other, and anyone in between.
This will be interesting.
In the early '80s, VHS rental became a staple because copyright holders were unable to push the "we license under a right-to-use (RTU)" and the courts ruled that they were not, but "like a book" that could be lent, rented, etc... And in that regard, the copyright holders couldn't push restrictions on or prevent distribution to, various entities that were abiding by copyright laws.
What copyright holders in the digital age have been trying to do is try to assert rights on digital media that differs from analog prior. This includes the age-old "RTU" attitude again. They are back to saying it's not like a book. And this type of "control" on who can lend or resell comes back to that.
My continuing question is ... "well, if it's a RTU, and not like a book, why do I have to pay a 2nd licensing fee to get it in a different format?" I mean the MPAA and RIAA say I can't make a MP3 or DivX of my legally purchased movies, which would be clearly under "fair use" if it's a "right-to-use" (RTU). At the same time, they say it's "not like a book." They do this because they are trying to open a new profit avenue on selling things more than once.
But in reality, the whole concept of RTU v. book is that the former is for one user, but in any format or fair use, whereas the latter is a fixed medium that can be shared, but by only one, private person/consumer. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to have the "best of both worlds" while pulling this type of crap, at the expense of not just the consumer, but at the expense of the intent of copyrights and licensing.
So I hope the courts strike them down on this. I don't believe in piracy, and take issue with those who pirate, but I really tire of the MPAA and RIAA being "pirates" in their own regard as well. I still don't let it justify the counter, but it is saddening that people on both sides are trying to screw the other, and anyone in between.
