|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Magic BoyMagic Boy Date: Aug 3, 2007 01:53
Check out www.previewmagicdvds.com It's an online company that rents magic
DVD's. They have over 1000 titles and mail them directly to your house.
It's like Netflix, for magicians. They are currently offering a 10 day free
trial, so if you want to check it out, now's the time to do it.
I saw their ad in last months Magic Magazine...so I tried it out...and I
LOVED IT!!!! In fact, I loved it so much, I joined. I've been a member
for about a month now, and am still 100%% satisfied with the service. In
fact, as soon as my one month membership runs out, I'm going to upgrade to
the one year plan.
Hope you love it. If you do, please help spread the word.
|
| Show full article (0.95Kb) |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: BigOleBadAssBobBigOleBadAssBob Date: Aug 4, 2007 00:30
Magic Boy wrote:
> Check out www.previewmagicdvds.com It's an online company that rents magic
> DVD's. They have over 1000 titles and mail them directly to your house.
> It's like Netflix, for magicians. They are currently offering a 10 day free
> trial, so if you want to check it out, now's the time to do it.
>
> I saw their ad in last months Magic Magazine...so I tried it out...and I
> LOVED IT!!!! In fact, I loved it so much, I joined. I've been a member
> for about a month now, and am still 100%% satisfied with the service. In
> fact, as soon as my one month membership runs out, I'm going to upgrade to
> the one year plan.
They seem to have L+L Publishing titles on their site, which are all
sold with a "NOT FOR RENTAL" note on them.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: randwillrandwill Date: Aug 4, 2007 08:53
"BigOleBadAssBob" kunt.com> wrote in message
news:f919r6$gub$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...> They seem to have L+L Publishing titles on their site, which are all sold
> with a "NOT FOR RENTAL" note on them.
Is there a legal reason why L & L Videos can't be legally rented? I'm not
sure that printing "NOT FOR RENTAL" on the box is legally binding unless
there is some law to that effect that I don't know about.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: WhodatWhodat Date: Aug 4, 2007 10:06
>
> "BigOleBadAssBob" kunt.com> wrote in message
> news:f919r6$gub$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...>> They seem to have L+L Publishing titles on their site, which are all sold
>> with a "NOT FOR RENTAL" note on them.
>
> Is there a legal reason why L & L Videos can't be legally rented? I'm not
> sure that printing "NOT FOR RENTAL" on the box is legally binding unless
> there is some law to that effect that I don't know about.
>
There is a magic shop in town that has rented videos for many years in spite
of the not for rental label. The owner was warned by L&L and others but he
maintained there was no statute that could prevent him. L&L finally quit
selling videos to him but he bought them through other sources and continued
renting them.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Eric H.Eric H. Date: Aug 4, 2007 11:31
Whodat wrote:
> There is a magic shop in town that has rented videos for many years in spite
> of the not for rental label. The owner was warned by L&L and others but he
> maintained there was no statute that could prevent him. L&L finally quit
> selling videos to him but he bought them through other sources and continued
> renting them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and...
Well I would love to side with the magic shop but the truth is that with
today's current attitude toward intellectual property rights, the DMCA,
and the fact that we are currently given a *license* to view the content
on videos instead of ownership of the media the video comes on(biiig
difference), they're doomed if L&L decides they are worth pursuring.
Ever read those "you may not make any derivative works and all
manufacturing rights are reserved by the author" clauses? Most of those
are air tight and you can be sued for everything you're worth. The same
goes with stating that a video is not for rental unfortunately since you
are given a license to view the content and you must agree to the terms
of the license to remain in good standing with the law.
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: randwillrandwill Date: Aug 4, 2007 11:34
> Well I would love to side with the magic shop but the truth is that with
> today's current attitude toward intellectual property rights, the DMCA,
> and the fact that we are currently given a *license* to view the content
> on videos instead of ownership of the media the video comes on(biiig
> difference), they're doomed if L&L decides they are worth pursuring.
How does this square with companies that rent other types of videos?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: WhodatWhodat Date: Aug 4, 2007 11:45
> Whodat wrote:
>
>> There is a magic shop in town that has rented videos for many years in
>> spite
>> of the not for rental label. The owner was warned by L&L and others but
>> he
>> maintained there was no statute that could prevent him. L&L finally quit
>> selling videos to him but he bought them through other sources and
>> continued
>> renting them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and...
>
> Well I would love to side with the magic shop but the truth is that with
> today's current attitude toward intellectual property rights, the DMCA,
> and the fact that we are currently given a *license* to view the content
> on videos instead of ownership of the media the video comes on(biiig
> difference), they're doomed if L&L decides they are worth pursuring. ...
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Eric H.Eric H. Date: Aug 4, 2007 12:01
randwill wrote:
>> Well I would love to side with the magic shop but the truth is that with
>> today's current attitude toward intellectual property rights, the DMCA,
>> and the fact that we are currently given a *license* to view the content
>> on videos instead of ownership of the media the video comes on(biiig
>> difference), they're doomed if L&L decides they are worth pursuring.
>
> How does this square with companies that rent other types of videos?
>
>
They have a licensing agreement with distributors where they pay an
extra fee per video. I think in the range of an extra $30 per video.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DavidDavid Date: Aug 15, 2007 15:14
On Aug 4, 3:01 pm, "Eric H." sEtMdAiIoL.com>
wrote:> randwill wrote:
>> "Eric H." sEtMdAiIoL.com> wrote in message
>>news:13b9hf3duejb78a@news.supernews.com...>>> Well I would love to side with the magic shop but the truth is that with
>>> today's current attitude toward intellectual property rights, the DMCA,
>>> and the fact that we are currently given a *license* to view the content
>>> on videos instead of ownership of the media the video comes on(biiig
>>> difference), they're doomed if L&L decides they are worth pursuring.
>
>> How does this square with companies that rent other types of videos?
>
> They have a licensing agreement with distributors where they pay an
> extra fee per video. I think in the range of an extra $30 per...
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Eric H.Eric H. Date: Aug 16, 2007 06:48
David wrote:
> One other thing that I noticed ( can't recall if it is on their site
> or somewhere else while I was researching this because there was
> another I came across) is that there might be a subtle loophole in it
> all where they are "lending DVDs to club members" and not "renting"
> them. You pay to join a club, and you are then borrowing the
> material.
Ahh, yeah that is a loophole but typically the club would want to offer
other benefits because a group of people who basically undermine the
system could potentially be charged with racketeering or conspiracy to
commit. If there were other perks to join said club(cheap tickets,
raffles, or whatever) then it doesn't *look* like you're just joining to
get out of paying for the video.
The hypnotists guild in my area does this with their hypnosis vids but
since it's a guild there are many other benefits to joining.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
