Streaming Bought Movies

[Urbana]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

If I rent a movie on Youtube (legally, with my own money) and then stream it with a website like rabb.it , is this illegal?

I know that pirating a movie and then streaming the infringed content then it would be illegal, but if you have ownership of it for a period of time, is it?

 

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

If I rent a movie (legally, with my own money) and then stream it with a website like rabb.it , is this illegal?

I know that pirating a movie and then streaming the infringed content then it would be illegal, but if you have ownership of it for a period of time, is it?

Yes it is still illegal.

 

[FlyingRon]

Ownership of a copy of the movie does not imply either copying authorization nor public performance. One or both would certainly apply to any streaming scenario you could conceive of.

 

[Zigner]

Ownership of a copy of the movie does not imply either copying authorization nor public performance. One or both would certainly apply to any streaming scenario you could conceive of.

Further to this...one doesn't "own" a copy of a movie on their computer (generally speaking). One simply has been given the right to watch said movie within the parameters of the license.

 

[FlyingRon]

Further to this...one doesn't "own" a copy of a movie on their computer (generally speaking). One simply has been given the right to watch said movie within the parameters of the license.

Nonsense. You own the copy. You're not allowed to make copies or publicly perform it. While some publishers would like to assume otherwise, they've been pretty roundly trashed in the court. If it looks like a sale of a copy, even a shrink wrap license won't override the first sale doctrine. You can watch it, sell it to someone else, etc... just as long as you don't make copies or use it in public performances.

 

[Zigner]

Nonsense. You own the copy. You're not allowed to make copies or publicly perform it. While some publishers would like to assume otherwise, they've been pretty roundly trashed in the court. If it looks like a sale of a copy, even a shrink wrap license won't override the first sale doctrine. You can watch it, sell it to someone else, etc... just as long as you don't make copies or use it in public performances.

You are confusing the physical media with the content.

 

[quincy]

Nonsense. You own the copy. You're not allowed to make copies or publicly perform it. While some publishers would like to assume otherwise, they've been pretty roundly trashed in the court. If it looks like a sale of a copy, even a shrink wrap license won't override the first sale doctrine. You can watch it, sell it to someone else, etc... just as long as you don't make copies or use it in public performances.

Urbana rented the movie, so the first sale doctrine does not apply here anyway.

Shrinkwrap licenses and clickwrap agreements have consistently been found valid in court as legal and binding contracts. These licenses and agreements can restrict uses and prohibit the resale of the purchased products, effectively waiving the purchasers' rights under the Copyright Act's first sale doctrine. For one case, you can look at iLaw Systems Inc. v. Netscourt Service Level Corp., 183 F.Supp 2d 328 (D. Mass., 2002).

Where the shrinkwrap licenses or clickwrap agreements have not held up in court has been due to the language of the agreements or when the notices of agreement have not been conspicuous and the user has not affirmatively acknowledged the agreement (which is less likely with clickwrap agreements and more likely, perhaps, with "shrinkwrap" or "browsewrap" agreements - see the recent Barnes and Noble browsewrap case out of California: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/18/12-56628.pdf).

As a sidenote: Music that has been purchased from the iTunes music store can be legally streamed via iTunes according to their terms of use. I am not seeing any similar terms of use for YouTube purchases - but, again, even if such terms existed (and I don't think they do), the movie Urbana is talking about has been rented and not purchased. With rented movies, you are allowed to watch the rental and that is pretty much it.

 

[FlyingRon]

You are confusing the physical media with the content.

No, I am NOT. But I did miss that this wasn't a purchase but a rental.

I must also disagree with Quincy. Try Vernon vs. Autodesk. Nguyen doesn't really address this.

 

[quincy]

No, I am NOT. But I did miss that this wasn't a purchase but a rental.

I must also disagree with Quincy. Try Vernon vs. Autodesk. Nguyen doesn't really address this.

The Vernor v. Autodesk case appears to support exactly what I said, FlyingRon, so I don't see where you disagree. Autodesk distributed the software under a licensing agreement, which waived the first sale doctrine. Am I missing something?

The Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble case was provided to show how browsewraps differ from clickwrap and shrinkwrap agreements and where they can fail as legal and binding contracts. For an agreement to be valid, there must be a clear and conspicuous notice of the terms of use and clear user assent to the terms, and the Court determined that the Barnes & Noble browsewrap provided neither.

Here is a link to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in the Vernor case:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/database/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf

From Vernor: "We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy ... and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine ..."

From Vernor: "We determine that Autodesk's direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners ... Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assent an essential step defense on behalf of his customers."

 

[Urbana]

Would I be allowed to stream it if I had bought it, Quincy?

 

[Zigner]

Would I be allowed to stream it if I had bought it, Quincy?

Again, you do not own the movie. You own the media the movie is on and you own the right to watch the movie. As such, streaming is illegal.

 

[Just Blue]

Would I be allowed to stream it if I had bought it, Quincy?

Do you have a LOT of money? Like 10 million? If so feel free to spend a LOT of that towards Attorney fees. Or save the expence and not stream the movie. Up to you Sport...

 

[quincy]

Would I be allowed to stream it if I had bought it, Quincy?

Would you be legally allowed to stream a movie you purchase? It depends on what movie you purchased and, possibly, under what terms of use you purchased it.

Movies that are in the public domain, for example, can be legally used by anyone for any purpose, including streaming.

Generally, though, if you purchase a movie and copy it or stream it, it will be illegal.

As others have said, the purchase of a movie does not confer upon the purchaser of the movie any of the copyrights that exist in the film.

The purchaser of a movie is sold only the single copy of the movie and is granted the right to view the film, sell the film, give away the film, throw away the film. All rights to copy the film, distribute copies of the film, create derivatives of the film, or display or show the film to others, remain the exclusive rights of the copyright holder - unless or until the copyright holder expressly signs away some or all of these rights (through a license or a transfer).