Does the copyright blurb at the beginning of DVDs have any basis in law? Specifically, the bit that forbids the rental of the DVD.

My feeling is that it means bollocks, and that if I bought the DVD legitimately I can do what the hell I want with it (short of making copies etc), including offering it for rental at, hypothetically, £1000/day.

Yes it is Illegal

If it wasn't don't you think the likes of blockbuster would have figured it out and not paid 5x the price for rental ones.

If you own a car it doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.

The copyright still has restrictions on it about what you can do same as books. So no as they have exclusive rights they transfer some to you at sale BUT restict some such as renting. For rental you need another version – a rental one.
You can do what you like with you car as that is covered by patents not copyright so you can rent your car if you want but not sell [some] parts for it

With the car i ment just becuase you own it you can't do "anything" you want with it.

What parts of your car can you not sell??

When you buy a DVD you buy the physical medium – the disk, and the right to play the film on the disk in certain situations. The movie companies deny you the right to rent out the disk for profit or to play it to an audience.

what do the makers prevent me from doing with a car?

You can do whatever you want with your car ( as far as the manufacturers are concerned ), but some parts are patented which means that you cannot go off and manufacture and sell identical parts or other items which use the technology covered by the patents.

I ment anything in regards to use, Ie driving without insurance.

You may own an item but laws are set in place with what you do with it

Car is probally not the best example.

yes what I meant when I said not sell parts as you can sell them from your car but not make them and sell them. My post was not clear.

Which contract do I sign when I buy a DVD that removes the right for me to rent it on? That's only made clear once it's been opened and removed from the box (and hence non-returnable).

The "NOT FOR RENTAL" on the back usually gives it away

Flaperon – Member

Which contract do I sign when I buy a DVD that removes the right for me to rent it on? That's only made clear once it's been opened and removed from the box (and hence non-returnable).

This might be a law rather than a clause, therefore ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Also copyright does not have to be expressed, it is assumed that the author of a work automatically has the copyright.

Finally, you may have paid for it, but you do not have the right to do what you want with it.

Basis in UK law:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb1-l1g19

Section 18 – Infringement by issue of copies to the public

(1) The issue to the public of copies of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work.

(2) References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work are to the act of putting into circulation copies not previously put into circulation, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and not to—
(a)any subsequent distribution, sale, hiring or loan of those copies, or
(b)any subsequent importation of those copies into the United Kingdom;
except that in relation to sound recordings, films and computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public.

So if I sell you a chocolate bar and you eat it, I can sue you for £xx million because you didn't read the size 5 notice on the back of the packet saying "EATING OF THIS PRODUCT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN". Do you honestly reckon ANYONE would labor under the assumption that's a fair contract?

DJC – my copy was already in circulation 'cos I bought it. Isn't that paragraph referring to the making of and redistributing new copies?

Take the overriding objective of the copyright infringement provisions as people can't enjoy the benefit of the copyright work without the original rights holder getting paid and you won't go far wrong.

You have a copy of the film that was made by the rights holder, and if you subsequently rent it on you'll be getting paid and not the copyright holder. I can't think of any cases on this section at the mo, but "any" in the final clause I think supports the view that there's no distinction between 'original copies' like you've bought and 'copy copies'.

Actually, our European friends wanted the extent of the copyright holder's position in relation to rentals to be clarified, and in the UK that was done by amending the section I linked to above and adding a section 18A that specifically clarifies that rental of the original is not allowed.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19962967_en_3.htm#mdiv10

Flaper you can argue about the law if you wish and of a chocolate bar argument that makes no sense to me as copright applies to intellectual property ONLY.
whatever you cant OK?

…something about oil rigs….

Ah. Just read the "education pack" from the UK copyright service (clearly, teaching the 3 R's in my day wasn't enough) and it's quite clear there that you can't rent out DVDs without the copyright owner's permission.

Proven wrong. *Throws tiny tantrum*

As I understand it when you purchase a DVD what you are actually purchasing is a license. If you purchase a home-viewing copy then you've got a license to view that film as often as you like within a domestic setting. Its a bit like buying a season ticket to a venue. You can visit the venue as may times as you like, what you can't use it for is for other people to visit on your ticket, and more expressly you can't sell visits using your ticket.

Its arguable once you've bought that DVD you have that license in perpetuity, so you could (although I don't know if anyone ever has) ask the rights holder for another disk is you break /scratch / loose the original, as you'd still have that license to view. Taking that principle further if you buy a film on one platform and it becomes redundant, say HD DVD, then there might be a position where you could demand a copy on another platform. However I'm sure most DVDs are sold as a package – the film, the navigation, the extra features – so they would probably argue that a film of one platform is a different 'product' to one on another.

There are licenses you can buy that allow you to show home-licensed DVDs in public settings on the basis that the audience themselves aren't paying to view, so you can screen shop-bought DVDs in a hotel foyer / pub / shop or wherever so long as screening is incidental to your business.

Whats odd to me is what happens if you then sell DVD on second hand. By handing the disk over to another owner you're seemingly transferring that license but there's no Droit de Suite for the copyright holder, however the new owner is paying a fee to view, but non of that fee is passed to the rights holder.

The non-applicability of droit de suite for mass reproduced works, and indeed the extent of exhaustion of distribution rights in general vary from country to country, may be dependent on the type of work, and on the enforceability of terms in the shrink wrap licence.

In common with lots of copyright law, commercial and political factors that have shaped the law in this area in the past don't seem to me to have produced a system that fits well with current public opinion.

Flaperon – Member

So if I sell you a chocolate bar and you eat it, I can sue you for £xx million because you didn't read the size 5 notice on the back of the packet saying "EATING OF THIS PRODUCT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN". Do you honestly reckon ANYONE would labor under the assumption that's a fair contract?

no – as per Parker v South Eastern Railway.

as has been mentioned, this is something prohibited by law not a contractual term.

Taking that principle further if you buy a film on one platform and it becomes redundant, say HD DVD, then there might be a position where you could demand a copy on another platform

This has been my justification for torrenting a load of music that I used to have on vinyl. I've already bought it once.