"This DVD is intended for sale only."
Today, I received Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse: Death Proof from Netflix. Unlike Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse: Planet Terror (which I received yesterday), this DVD floats the above-quoted phrase on the screen after the usual copyright warning.
I do not think that that holds any legal oomph: Dimension (/ Weinstein) wouldn't have let Netflix buy and distribute the DVD if they weren't actually okay with the DVD's being lent / rented (and it's not like Netflix is fly-by-night here; also, they've listed the DVDs as save-but-not-queueable roughly since the theatrical release), and I doubt they'll refuse sale to Blockbuster either, but it indicates an interesting new plausible trend in the MPAA's assault on their consumers. It's possible that an overly broad interpretation of trademark/copyright law could determine, in court, that Netflix's use runs counter to the mark-holder's intentions and, thus, is illegal.
I wonder if this is the reason that the DVDs have been distributed separately, rather than together, as the films were presented theatrically. I think that technical constraints (getting both of these and all the fake previews, and all the extra doo-dads that consumers have come to expect of DVDs onto even a double-layer DVD or two would be rough) and financial avarice (far more money can be made selling two two-DVD sets than can be made selling a single four- or five-DVD set) are probably the more compelling reasons, but the notice's presence on Tarantino's film and absence (Unless I missed it? Please do correct me if so!) on Rodriguez's is, at least, Intriguing.
I do not think that that holds any legal oomph: Dimension (/ Weinstein) wouldn't have let Netflix buy and distribute the DVD if they weren't actually okay with the DVD's being lent / rented (and it's not like Netflix is fly-by-night here; also, they've listed the DVDs as save-but-not-queueable roughly since the theatrical release), and I doubt they'll refuse sale to Blockbuster either, but it indicates an interesting new plausible trend in the MPAA's assault on their consumers. It's possible that an overly broad interpretation of trademark/copyright law could determine, in court, that Netflix's use runs counter to the mark-holder's intentions and, thus, is illegal.
I wonder if this is the reason that the DVDs have been distributed separately, rather than together, as the films were presented theatrically. I think that technical constraints (getting both of these and all the fake previews, and all the extra doo-dads that consumers have come to expect of DVDs onto even a double-layer DVD or two would be rough) and financial avarice (far more money can be made selling two two-DVD sets than can be made selling a single four- or five-DVD set) are probably the more compelling reasons, but the notice's presence on Tarantino's film and absence (Unless I missed it? Please do correct me if so!) on Rodriguez's is, at least, Intriguing.