No, no. The first question is whether there is a prima face infringement at all. Some conduct doesn't violate 106 to begin with. Only if it does, do courts then check to see if exceptions to 106 apply.
There's no real ranking of importance most of the time, as the system of broad rights and exceptions is just the means by which the actual, slightly less broad rights, are defined. There is some attention paid to policy in fair use cases, but I don't think it's as strong as you appear to be thinking.
There are very few cases involving importation, so I suspect you're talking about Quality King. But you're wrong. The copyrighted works in that case were made in the US, exported, and then re-imported. That was what made them subject to first sale, and I covered that in an earlier part of that post.
First sale does not, however, apply to all imports. Only those imported copies where the copies are lawfully made under US law.
(And the first sale doctrine itself was created wholly domestically, in the Bobbs-Merril case, IIRC. Importation was not a factor.)
No, you're being misleading. I'm not talking about prosecution, I'm talking about infringement civilly.
17 USC 501(a) clearly states that Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
It does not require any specific mens rea.
Compare it, however, to the provisions for criminal copyright infringement at 506: Any person who infringes a copyright willfully... shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
There, willfullness is required; merely doing the deed isn't enough. As no mental state is expressly required for civil infringement, however, and since Congress clearly knows what it intends and how to state that it is requiring some mental state or not, it is clear that none is required to be a civil infringer.
Indeed -- if you look at the statutory damages in 504, you'll find this: In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.
So even if you had no idea you were breaking the law, and had no reason to believe you were breaking the law, you can still end up breaking the law and having to pay a few hundred dollars per work infringed upon to the copyright holder.
Now, remember, there are some limited exceptions to the very broad prohibitions of section 106. The main thing is that every exception has limitations on what circumstances permit it to be used, so as to make otherwise illegal conduct legal. They are not big blanket exceptions, however!
So for example, it's facially illegal to record a TV broadcast as that would infringe on the reproduction right. However, in some circumstances, it might be a fair use, if the four-factor analysis in section 107 was favorable. This will likely not be the case for all recordings of broadcasts, but some might qualify if you go through the analysis.
When no exception applies to make some infringing conduct noninfringing, or at least nonactionable, you're breaking the law by engaging in that conduct.
While people can make some predictions (of varying accuracy depending on the specific exception) as to whether it will apply or not, in the end only the courts can answer for sure, and even they frequently have trouble deciding. It's not easy.
No, in the US, copyright as a civil action is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter what your intent or mental state was. You could have thought in good faith, and reasonably, that you were not infringing, and it doesn't matter. It might matter in determining just how large the damages you pay are, but you still end up liable for it.
Google for 17 USC 501, 17 USC 106, and for good measure, 17 USC 101, which contains special definitions of the terms used in the other sections. Pay special attention to the exclusive right of reproduction (17 USC 106(1)).
You may also wish to look at the Napster case in the 9th circuit, which discusses the liability of downloaders and uploaders as a necessary step in finding Napster liable for the users' illegal actions. I'm afraid I don't have the cite handy, but it's easy to find.
Actually, downloading copyrighted music without permission or an applicable exception is always illegal in the US.
Downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Uploading is a form of distribution, and distribution is another exclusive right of the copyright holder. So really, you can't do either.
This is all well-settled. For example, Napster was sued on the basis that it helped users download and upload, both being illegal, and that suit was successful, remember.
Current lawsuits have been concentrating on uploaders purely for tactical reasons: they're easier to find, and since they are closer to the head of the snake, as it were, taking down one uploader can take out several leeching downloaders as a bonus, or at least make life more difficult for downloaders as there are fewer sources to download from.
This is exactly why the industry's original attacks were against the people involved in the networks themselves; taking out the network was easier than tracking down users, and it had been hoped that without a network, the users would've been unable to infringe. Only the rise of alternative networks has kept this strategy from working very well, and the upcoming Grokster case may yet result in the remaining networks being taken down.
First is that downloading is not importation, it is reproduction, and that therefore any exception permitting for importation is inapplicable. Importation only occurs where a work is fixed in a tangible object (such objects are called copies), and the object itself is brought across a border. Where instead a work is transmitted across a border, and is fixed into a new tangible object at the end -- such as RAM or a hard drive -- reproduction (the act of fixing a work into a copy) has occurred.
Second, note that while some importation as described above is allowed -- not that any occurs in conjunction with allofmp3 -- it is still generally illegal unless certain conditions are met. For example, if the copy sought to be imported was made in the US, then it could be re-imported. Or if it is imported with the permission of the US rightsholder. Or if it is imported for personal use AND was made in a way that, had it been made where US law applied, it would not have infringed against the US rightsholder (i.e. making whatever oddities of Russian law it was made under irrelevant).
So actually, obvious bootlegs generally cannot be lawfully imported. They may slip through, US borders not being all that tightly controlled. But again, no one is really importing anything from allofmp3, so this is a moot point.
Well, lots of libraries have free net access. It's the size of their collection that's really impressive, and I would suspect that a lot has to do with the tax base in the area.
When I lived in Bellevue I never had to rent movies or buy books, since I could set up a gigantic pull list and just drop by weekly to drop off the old and pick up whatever had come in. But in other places I've lived, the library has no movies, no CDs, and maybe just a few thousand rather bad books.
All that happened was that the oral argument was held. The court has not issued a ruling; that'll probably take months.
Nor should anything be read into the statements of the judges, by and large. It's entirely common for judges to ask questions that make it sound as though he's already friendly to the other side. It results in hard questions that elicit strong answers from whichever side is arguing at the time. It's merely a method of holding the argument, and doesn't generally indicate anything as to what the judge thinks.
It was pretty foolish for the Ultracade guys to have filed for the mark since they clearly knew there was a prior user.
Here's what will likely happen, assuming that neither side just gives up:
Eventually the mark will be published for opposition, unless the examiner at the PTO has a problem with it first. Since the PTO doesn't perform exhaustive searches (relying on the fact that people rarely invest the time and money to get a federal registration without themselves searching thoroughly and taking pains to avoid conflicts with others) it could easily get to this point. MAME will then have a brief window to file a notice of opposition, claiming that they were using the mark in commerce first, and that it is confusingly similar. This'll result in some discovery on both sides, and evidence and briefs being sumbitted to the TTAB, which will make a decision. I have a hard time seeing that MAME could lose this, but it costs money.
Meanwhile, the MAME folks should really be thinking about just getting a federal registration for their mark to make it easier to deter this sort of thing in the future, but again, it costs money for the initial registration, and for periodic affidavits and renewals that would need to be filed every so often for as long as they wanted to keep the federal registration.
Regarding the copyright issue, it's actually less clear. Ordinarily just because some piece of art is a logo, that doesn't make it uncopyrightable. However, you cannot copyright a name, and you cannot copyright mere variations of typography. Since the MAME logo is basically the stylized word 'MAME' it would have a tough time with copyright. A fancier logo would work better. Still, MAME could always try to register and see what happens. It also costs money, but not much.
As for people talking about prior art, that's patents. There's no such thing for trademark or copyright. Try again.
Florida is a big place. There are plenty of good places to eat, both in the cities and on the coast. But I have found, having grown up there, that the tourists usually stay in a fairly small area: Orlando, parts of Miami, maybe the Keys if they're daring. Since the locals and the tourists really don't mix all that much, it's no wonder that the former find out and go to the really good places, and the latter probably just go to the strip near their hotel and theme park.
Accept the fact that people have the right to record their television shows
Yes, they do - that's specifically allowed for in copyright law.
Mind that it's not specifically allowed for in US copyright law.
Also, what people seem to forget is that while you are allowed to time-shift broadcasts, you're not actually allowed to keep them indefinitely (at least under UK copyright law).
Over here, if it would be a fair use to record it, it likely wouldn't matter if you keep it indefinitely. Keeping it doesn't infringe; it merely has an affect (probably not a great one) on the fair use analysis regarding whether you could record it at all.
If you don't like that, don't moan about the studios, moan about the law that allows them to do it, and work to get it changed. You can't really blame them for acting within their rights.
That's okay for musicians, but what about movies which can cost millions of times more to make?
There's no significant difference. I mean, without copyright being massively expanded, I'll never be able to finance my project of moving various star systems into creative new constellation art. Just because there are always going to be ways that people can spend vast fortunes creating works, does that mean we should pander to them?
Of course it doesn't. Let them economize, or let those art forms die out as being as unsupportable as carving giant heads was to the now-dead people of Easter Island.
Copyright exists in order to satisfy the equal public interests in the creation of original works, the creation of derivative works, and having works exist in the public domain. We can essentially 'pay' with the degree of satisfaction of the last two in order to subsidize the satisfaction of the first. I.e. if we remove a work from the portion of the public domain concerning reproduction for one year, this can result in more works being created.
The idea is that the benefit lost by reducing the satisfaction of the latter interests will be less than the benefit gained by increasing the satisfaction of the former, particularly when you take into account that the new original works will enter the public domain, and be fodder for new derivative works.
Where the benefit lost by reducing the satisfaction of the latter interests is greater than the benefit gained by increasing the satisfaction of the former, copyright is not serving its purpose, and must be reduced until it once again is more beneficial than harmful, in sum.
So if it takes a certain degree of copyright in order for movies to be economically viable, but that degree of copyright is not maximally socially beneficial, then I say to hell with movies. Why should we be subsidizing them with our liberty when we do not get any benefit from it?
OTOH, if we can have a viable movie industry, then that's great. But the overall social benefit as described above needs to be greater than the harm incurred by propping it up with copyright law.
It's very likely that we could have an appropriate level of copyright for modest movies, and not for summer blockbusters. If that's the case, then I'd change the laws, and to hell with the impractical multi-hundred-million dollar movies, and up with the ones that don't harm our society with regards to the laws needed for them to be viable.
The important thing though is that we NEVER take into account the desire of the artist, other than how his predictable actions can cause him to essentially do our bidding -- creating a valuable work for the least reward that will cause him to do it. Society is what's important here, as it is what is footing the bill in the end.
I agree that quality loss has nothing to do with fair use, however, in the Diamond and IIRC Napster cases, there is dicta endorsing the concept of space shifting as a fair use, and certainly it's popular enough.
17 USC 106(3) sets as one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder the right to distribute copies of his work.
But 109(a) says that it is nevertheless not infringing for the owner of a lawfully made copy to dispose of it in any way.
Except that 109(b)(1)(A) says that subsection (a) doesn't apply to renting computer software (except for a few things such as console games) or sound recordings of musical works.
So it has nothing to do with what's on the shelves normally. It's just the law (as bought and paid for, basically). Of course, since the copyright holder retains the right to rent CDs, you could seek permission to do so, and might have to pay a lot, but it appears that it's not viable, or else we probably would have seen it by now.
Interestingly, that amendment to 109 is quite recent, indicating that there probably weren't many vinyl or tape rental stores even when it was legal, or else they might have had a more established presence. It was only with CDs and other more durable media that the record industry got worried. Movies, OTOH, had a thriving rental industry even with Beta and VHS.
Anyway, I would imagine that mom and pop video stores, particularly with regards to the catalog of works that they'd want to rent but which aren't new releases, just look for whatever ordinary place offers the best deal. This could be some specialist wholesaler, or it could be Amazon.
Are you buying the rights to the intellectual property when you buy a dvd or are you just buying a perishable disk with the intellectual property on it?
Okay, that's a good example of why the term 'intellectual property' should not be used. Aside from that it doesn't make sense, and that there's really no such thing, if it refers to anything, it does not refer to the creative work, it refers to the copyright itself.
At any rate, when you buy a DVD, it is just like buying a book or a pocketknife or basically anything -- you own the media, and can do anything you want with it, other than that which is restricted by law or which you have bindingly agreed not to do.
Since no one can own the creative work, and you have access to the instance of that work that is in the copy you bought, you can do stuff with it.
Some stuff -- such as reproducing it -- is illegal during the term of the copyright, but that's no different from it being illegal to speed on the highway or to stab people with your pocketknife.
But when the term expires, those things are no longer illegal, so there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no. The first question is whether there is a prima face infringement at all. Some conduct doesn't violate 106 to begin with. Only if it does, do courts then check to see if exceptions to 106 apply.
There's no real ranking of importance most of the time, as the system of broad rights and exceptions is just the means by which the actual, slightly less broad rights, are defined. There is some attention paid to policy in fair use cases, but I don't think it's as strong as you appear to be thinking.
There are very few cases involving importation, so I suspect you're talking about Quality King. But you're wrong. The copyrighted works in that case were made in the US, exported, and then re-imported. That was what made them subject to first sale, and I covered that in an earlier part of that post.
First sale does not, however, apply to all imports. Only those imported copies where the copies are lawfully made under US law.
(And the first sale doctrine itself was created wholly domestically, in the Bobbs-Merril case, IIRC. Importation was not a factor.)
No, you're being misleading. I'm not talking about prosecution, I'm talking about infringement civilly.
...
17 USC 501(a) clearly states that Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
It does not require any specific mens rea.
Compare it, however, to the provisions for criminal copyright infringement at 506: Any person who infringes a copyright willfully
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
There, willfullness is required; merely doing the deed isn't enough. As no mental state is expressly required for civil infringement, however, and since Congress clearly knows what it intends and how to state that it is requiring some mental state or not, it is clear that none is required to be a civil infringer.
Indeed -- if you look at the statutory damages in 504, you'll find this: In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.
So even if you had no idea you were breaking the law, and had no reason to believe you were breaking the law, you can still end up breaking the law and having to pay a few hundred dollars per work infringed upon to the copyright holder.
Facially, yes, it does prohibit those things.
Now, remember, there are some limited exceptions to the very broad prohibitions of section 106. The main thing is that every exception has limitations on what circumstances permit it to be used, so as to make otherwise illegal conduct legal. They are not big blanket exceptions, however!
So for example, it's facially illegal to record a TV broadcast as that would infringe on the reproduction right. However, in some circumstances, it might be a fair use, if the four-factor analysis in section 107 was favorable. This will likely not be the case for all recordings of broadcasts, but some might qualify if you go through the analysis.
When no exception applies to make some infringing conduct noninfringing, or at least nonactionable, you're breaking the law by engaging in that conduct.
While people can make some predictions (of varying accuracy depending on the specific exception) as to whether it will apply or not, in the end only the courts can answer for sure, and even they frequently have trouble deciding. It's not easy.
No, in the US, copyright as a civil action is a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter what your intent or mental state was. You could have thought in good faith, and reasonably, that you were not infringing, and it doesn't matter. It might matter in determining just how large the damages you pay are, but you still end up liable for it.
Google for 17 USC 501, 17 USC 106, and for good measure, 17 USC 101, which contains special definitions of the terms used in the other sections. Pay special attention to the exclusive right of reproduction (17 USC 106(1)).
You may also wish to look at the Napster case in the 9th circuit, which discusses the liability of downloaders and uploaders as a necessary step in finding Napster liable for the users' illegal actions. I'm afraid I don't have the cite handy, but it's easy to find.
Actually, downloading copyrighted music without permission or an applicable exception is always illegal in the US.
Downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Uploading is a form of distribution, and distribution is another exclusive right of the copyright holder. So really, you can't do either.
This is all well-settled. For example, Napster was sued on the basis that it helped users download and upload, both being illegal, and that suit was successful, remember.
Current lawsuits have been concentrating on uploaders purely for tactical reasons: they're easier to find, and since they are closer to the head of the snake, as it were, taking down one uploader can take out several leeching downloaders as a bonus, or at least make life more difficult for downloaders as there are fewer sources to download from.
This is exactly why the industry's original attacks were against the people involved in the networks themselves; taking out the network was easier than tracking down users, and it had been hoped that without a network, the users would've been unable to infringe. Only the rise of alternative networks has kept this strategy from working very well, and the upcoming Grokster case may yet result in the remaining networks being taken down.
However, two problems remain with US law.
First is that downloading is not importation, it is reproduction, and that therefore any exception permitting for importation is inapplicable. Importation only occurs where a work is fixed in a tangible object (such objects are called copies), and the object itself is brought across a border. Where instead a work is transmitted across a border, and is fixed into a new tangible object at the end -- such as RAM or a hard drive -- reproduction (the act of fixing a work into a copy) has occurred.
Second, note that while some importation as described above is allowed -- not that any occurs in conjunction with allofmp3 -- it is still generally illegal unless certain conditions are met. For example, if the copy sought to be imported was made in the US, then it could be re-imported. Or if it is imported with the permission of the US rightsholder. Or if it is imported for personal use AND was made in a way that, had it been made where US law applied, it would not have infringed against the US rightsholder (i.e. making whatever oddities of Russian law it was made under irrelevant).
So actually, obvious bootlegs generally cannot be lawfully imported. They may slip through, US borders not being all that tightly controlled. But again, no one is really importing anything from allofmp3, so this is a moot point.
Well, lots of libraries have free net access. It's the size of their collection that's really impressive, and I would suspect that a lot has to do with the tax base in the area.
When I lived in Bellevue I never had to rent movies or buy books, since I could set up a gigantic pull list and just drop by weekly to drop off the old and pick up whatever had come in. But in other places I've lived, the library has no movies, no CDs, and maybe just a few thousand rather bad books.
Yeah, but the King County Library is unusually good. Most people don't have that sort of resource available to them.
All that happened was that the oral argument was held. The court has not issued a ruling; that'll probably take months.
Nor should anything be read into the statements of the judges, by and large. It's entirely common for judges to ask questions that make it sound as though he's already friendly to the other side. It results in hard questions that elicit strong answers from whichever side is arguing at the time. It's merely a method of holding the argument, and doesn't generally indicate anything as to what the judge thinks.
Someone is actually relying on the Tallahassee Democrat for news reporting? That's below even /.'s standards. It's truly a crappy newspaper.
It was pretty foolish for the Ultracade guys to have filed for the mark since they clearly knew there was a prior user.
Here's what will likely happen, assuming that neither side just gives up:
Eventually the mark will be published for opposition, unless the examiner at the PTO has a problem with it first. Since the PTO doesn't perform exhaustive searches (relying on the fact that people rarely invest the time and money to get a federal registration without themselves searching thoroughly and taking pains to avoid conflicts with others) it could easily get to this point. MAME will then have a brief window to file a notice of opposition, claiming that they were using the mark in commerce first, and that it is confusingly similar. This'll result in some discovery on both sides, and evidence and briefs being sumbitted to the TTAB, which will make a decision. I have a hard time seeing that MAME could lose this, but it costs money.
Meanwhile, the MAME folks should really be thinking about just getting a federal registration for their mark to make it easier to deter this sort of thing in the future, but again, it costs money for the initial registration, and for periodic affidavits and renewals that would need to be filed every so often for as long as they wanted to keep the federal registration.
Regarding the copyright issue, it's actually less clear. Ordinarily just because some piece of art is a logo, that doesn't make it uncopyrightable. However, you cannot copyright a name, and you cannot copyright mere variations of typography. Since the MAME logo is basically the stylized word 'MAME' it would have a tough time with copyright. A fancier logo would work better. Still, MAME could always try to register and see what happens. It also costs money, but not much.
As for people talking about prior art, that's patents. There's no such thing for trademark or copyright. Try again.
Florida is a big place. There are plenty of good places to eat, both in the cities and on the coast. But I have found, having grown up there, that the tourists usually stay in a fairly small area: Orlando, parts of Miami, maybe the Keys if they're daring. Since the locals and the tourists really don't mix all that much, it's no wonder that the former find out and go to the really good places, and the latter probably just go to the strip near their hotel and theme park.
1701? The OED shows it as far back as the 1660's. Both predate copyright, incidentally.
Yes, they do - that's specifically allowed for in copyright law.
Mind that it's not specifically allowed for in US copyright law.
Also, what people seem to forget is that while you are allowed to time-shift broadcasts, you're not actually allowed to keep them indefinitely (at least under UK copyright law).
Over here, if it would be a fair use to record it, it likely wouldn't matter if you keep it indefinitely. Keeping it doesn't infringe; it merely has an affect (probably not a great one) on the fair use analysis regarding whether you could record it at all.
If you don't like that, don't moan about the studios, moan about the law that allows them to do it, and work to get it changed. You can't really blame them for acting within their rights.
What's wrong with both?
Except that you shouldn't say 'exit,' you should say 'quit.'
That's true; in Russia, credit card information uses you.
I also keep thinking of it as Pantera Bread. And actually, I'd be willing to try out a Pantera-themed bakery.
That's okay for musicians, but what about movies which can cost millions of times more to make?
There's no significant difference. I mean, without copyright being massively expanded, I'll never be able to finance my project of moving various star systems into creative new constellation art. Just because there are always going to be ways that people can spend vast fortunes creating works, does that mean we should pander to them?
Of course it doesn't. Let them economize, or let those art forms die out as being as unsupportable as carving giant heads was to the now-dead people of Easter Island.
Copyright exists in order to satisfy the equal public interests in the creation of original works, the creation of derivative works, and having works exist in the public domain. We can essentially 'pay' with the degree of satisfaction of the last two in order to subsidize the satisfaction of the first. I.e. if we remove a work from the portion of the public domain concerning reproduction for one year, this can result in more works being created.
The idea is that the benefit lost by reducing the satisfaction of the latter interests will be less than the benefit gained by increasing the satisfaction of the former, particularly when you take into account that the new original works will enter the public domain, and be fodder for new derivative works.
Where the benefit lost by reducing the satisfaction of the latter interests is greater than the benefit gained by increasing the satisfaction of the former, copyright is not serving its purpose, and must be reduced until it once again is more beneficial than harmful, in sum.
So if it takes a certain degree of copyright in order for movies to be economically viable, but that degree of copyright is not maximally socially beneficial, then I say to hell with movies. Why should we be subsidizing them with our liberty when we do not get any benefit from it?
OTOH, if we can have a viable movie industry, then that's great. But the overall social benefit as described above needs to be greater than the harm incurred by propping it up with copyright law.
It's very likely that we could have an appropriate level of copyright for modest movies, and not for summer blockbusters. If that's the case, then I'd change the laws, and to hell with the impractical multi-hundred-million dollar movies, and up with the ones that don't harm our society with regards to the laws needed for them to be viable.
The important thing though is that we NEVER take into account the desire of the artist, other than how his predictable actions can cause him to essentially do our bidding -- creating a valuable work for the least reward that will cause him to do it. Society is what's important here, as it is what is footing the bill in the end.
I agree that quality loss has nothing to do with fair use, however, in the Diamond and IIRC Napster cases, there is dicta endorsing the concept of space shifting as a fair use, and certainly it's popular enough.
1) It's not legal to do so.
2) It's pretty shady to be giving credit card information to.
No.
Rental is a form of distribution.
17 USC 106(3) sets as one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder the right to distribute copies of his work.
But 109(a) says that it is nevertheless not infringing for the owner of a lawfully made copy to dispose of it in any way.
Except that 109(b)(1)(A) says that subsection (a) doesn't apply to renting computer software (except for a few things such as console games) or sound recordings of musical works.
So it has nothing to do with what's on the shelves normally. It's just the law (as bought and paid for, basically). Of course, since the copyright holder retains the right to rent CDs, you could seek permission to do so, and might have to pay a lot, but it appears that it's not viable, or else we probably would have seen it by now.
Interestingly, that amendment to 109 is quite recent, indicating that there probably weren't many vinyl or tape rental stores even when it was legal, or else they might have had a more established presence. It was only with CDs and other more durable media that the record industry got worried. Movies, OTOH, had a thriving rental industry even with Beta and VHS.
Anyway, I would imagine that mom and pop video stores, particularly with regards to the catalog of works that they'd want to rent but which aren't new releases, just look for whatever ordinary place offers the best deal. This could be some specialist wholesaler, or it could be Amazon.
Not a bad suggestion, but no longer practical; I moved from Collingswood to New Hampshire, and it'd be a long way to go just for a movie.
Are you buying the rights to the intellectual property when you buy a dvd or are you just buying a perishable disk with the intellectual property on it?
Okay, that's a good example of why the term 'intellectual property' should not be used. Aside from that it doesn't make sense, and that there's really no such thing, if it refers to anything, it does not refer to the creative work, it refers to the copyright itself.
At any rate, when you buy a DVD, it is just like buying a book or a pocketknife or basically anything -- you own the media, and can do anything you want with it, other than that which is restricted by law or which you have bindingly agreed not to do.
Since no one can own the creative work, and you have access to the instance of that work that is in the copy you bought, you can do stuff with it.
Some stuff -- such as reproducing it -- is illegal during the term of the copyright, but that's no different from it being illegal to speed on the highway or to stab people with your pocketknife.
But when the term expires, those things are no longer illegal, so there you go.