Slashdot Mirror
Australia Rules DVD's are Films, Not Software
divereigh writes: "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that an Australian Federal court has decided this case in favour of the Australian Video Rental Association. The Association had taken Warner Home Video to court for trying to classify DVD's as software and thus double the price for those sold into the rental market."
So it's really consumers 1, video rental stores 1, giant corporation 0.
That's missing the whole point. Of course DVDs are better than VHS, and the companies put more work into a DVD release than a VHS release. So they should cost more--I'm willing to pay it. But all DVDs should cost the same--the cost of a buying DVD shouldn't depend on who you are, and that's exactly what they were trying to do. If you're a regular guy, you pay X amount, but if you're a video rental guy, you have to pay twice as much for the SAME thing in a different color package.
This ruling probably won't benefit consumers because, as someone else has already pointed out, DVD's will cost more to rent than VHS tapes regardless of how expensive it is for the rental chains to purchase them. However, I think it's gratifying anytime someone manages to beat the film industry in court.
Do people actually rent DVD's? Because of the higher cost of renting them, I've found that it's usually best just to buy the movie outright. In most cases, I find that a movie worth watching is worth watching again. So I think it would be kind of nice to have a movie library.
I think the main difference between a piece of software and a game is how much interactivity is offered. The first CD-ROM games that I played, back in the early 1990's, were "Spaceship Warlock" and "Hell Cab". While these were computer games and as such would be classified as software, they interactive experience entailed essentially clicking on things every once in a while and the rest of the time watching the story unfold.
The main difference between "playing" these games and watching a movie was the fact that they had a "choose your own adventure" style of playback; i.e. you could dictate the basic actions of the main character. So I would conclude that most DVD movies are indeed movies and not pieces of software, because they are mostly non-interactive, and for the most part, people by them to watch the movie and not play the silly little games included.
I think my sig has never been more appropriate than now. Check out my site if you want to know about backing up DVD's.
The future isn't what it used to be.
I was involved in this case as an expert witness, so, if anyone has questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Its called the "doctrine of first sale". Essencially it says that once you buy a copy of a work (book, video, etc), the seller can not stop you from lending, renting, or reselling the copy to someone else.
What was happening in this case was that Warner Home Video was selling two versions of DVDs... one that was not for rental and the other that was for rental. The for rental version was, of course, more expensive. The difference? A little sticker on the disc. The Australian video rental industry took Warner Home Video to court over this and won. Warner can not dictate what the purcahser does with the video disc. Warner was claiming that DVDs were software and could have use restrictions placed on them, ala a EULA. The court ruled that Warner can not claim DVDs as such.
First sale in the US came from a case (early 20th century?) between Macy's department store and a book publisher. The publisher indicated that on the book that it could not be sold lower than a certain price. Macy's sold it from a lower price and the publisher took them to court. The court decided that once the publisher sells the copies of the works, they have no say over what is done with them.
As far as I know, the fist sale doctrine has never been applied to software. I don't think that any of the "no resale" clauses of many EULAs has been contested in court. Presumably, there aren't many EULA violations claims made by publishers because they probablly aren't enforceable and the whole might of groups like the SPA and BSA are built unpon these unenforcable claims. Not bringing them to court allows they claims to continue because most people threatended with them will cave before any real legal action is made.
Incidentally, this is probablly what Warner's claims were based upon--the assumption that no one would challenge them.