Contact information needed

[Guest]

So has anyone managed to do anything about this company yet?

As for his name, Richard Koch, I think Dick knows exactly what he's doing judging by the nom de plume he's chosen to use...

[Guest]

The Google Phone Book returns the following for the phone number listed by Rick.

Residential Phonebook Results 1 - 3 of 3 for 484-494-3385.

Jennifer Vitello (484) 494-3385
2315 Macdade Blvd,Holmes, PA 19043

Michael Stinger (484) 494-3385
739 Bennington Rd,Folcroft, PA 19032

Richard W Koch (484) 494-3385
317 E South Ave,Glenolden, PA 19036

[Guest]

I'm still confused about the first sale issue and what that means for magic videos.

And though uncomfortable with a publicly accessible video rental process for magic videos, even less comfortable with this public trial of a company which may not even exist.

Has anyone joined and obtained a video yet?

[Guest]

I'm not really worried about a public trial on a company that may not exist. All sanctions against any fictitious company are themselves fictitious. They have no teeth. Although real names have been brought into the fold, a couple posts ago we saw that the information we have may not be accurate because Google relates that phone number to more than one person.

The deal a publisher of content makes is that anyone using or making money off of his/her content will pay for that right. Moviehouses pay for the right to show it. Moviegoers pay for the right to watch it. Blockbuster pays the publisher of a movie for the right to repeatedly rent the movie out (otherwise you'd never hear stats about how the movie did in rental). And you pay for the right to buy it.

When someone inserts themselves in the middle of that market and says "I'll buy this movie, but pay no one for the right to repeatedly rent out this movie" they are violating the law. That's a fact.

So, I find no harm in looking for those that are doing harm. No one has been tried. No one has been convicted. And certainly, the offender has not been stopped. (as of this posting)

Mike Squires

[Richard Kaufman]

There are lots of people with the last name of Koch, like the former mayor of New York City.
There is no reason to think the name Richard Koch is a pseudonym.

[Guest]

The deal a publisher of content makes is that anyone using or making money off of his/her content will pay for that right. Moviehouses pay for the right to show it. Moviegoers pay for the right to watch it. Blockbuster pays the publisher of a movie for the right to repeatedly rent the movie out (otherwise you'd never hear stats about how the movie did in rental). And you pay for the right to buy it.

This is part of my confusion. In the article linked via earlier post I put up some context for that agreement between Blockbuster and the studios where they traded ongoing rental fee payments for lower up-front prices for purchased videos. Is this standard practice? Is this a full royalty agreement which closes the exception in the first use laws as passed which exempts videos from rental royalties?

Anyone have some clarification on the underlying basic legal issue(s)?

[Joe Pecore]

From what I've been able to find out, Video rental stores in the US do not pay any extra fees for their movies because they intend to rent them.

They do not have to pay any royalties with each rental because of the "first sale" issue mentioned above.

But some of the large chains (like Blockbuster) do pay an amount on each rental, but that's part of individual agreements they negotiate with the vendors in return for paying nothing up front to get a copy of the video.

[jerry lazar]

Gents, it's a complicated two-tiered system, and you almost have it correct -- but it's a conversation more worthy of a legal forum... Yes, in short, video chains pay a LOW price to buy certain titles in exchange for sharing revenue with wholesaler/producer (who may or may not be contractually bound to share revenues with other participants -- e.g. actors, directors, writers, etc.)... It's an accounting nightmare... And they pay a slightly HIGHER price for certain titles, in which case they share ZERO revenue, own it outright, and can rent or re-sell it (in original package -- NOT a duplicate) til the cows come home... If you're talking international revenues, it gets exponentially more complex; every country has its own levy system!...

However, you or I can buy books and videos and LEGALLY rent/lease/lend the actual physical thing we purchased all we want and pocket every dime... That's completely above board, and protected by law, provided we don't sell a DUPLICATE (e.g. photocopy, digital reproduction) of the material... That would be pirating...

From a legal perspective, all you guys who sell your copies of other magicians' books, tapes, DVDs, marketed effects on this forum (frequently at a "profit" -- especially if it's an OOP title or item) are doing exactly whatever it is that bothers you about some guy "renting" them to others... How much money are YOU sending to the authors (or their estates)???... And by buying a "used" copy from another customer, aren't you cutting into the profits of a magician/creator who could have sold TWO copies (one to the guy you're buying it from, and one to you)?...

So my seemingly unpopular (and minority) message to one and all is this, and it pains me to have to deliver it to superb magicians like Eric, Tim, Jim, Bob and others whose work I purchase, admire, respect, and have benefitted from (tho, no, I've never rented or re-sold to others!)... You may feel that the Netflix system (in which creators are NOT profit participants in rentals) is unethical or immoral or disadvantageous to the art, but it is NOT illegal, and I hate to see good people's time/energy/financial resources frittered away tilting at legal windmills...

(FYI, the "Not For Rental" warning on box is no more enforceable than a coatcheck or parking garage posting a sign saying they're not liable for your property -- if you have to pay them to take care of your overcoat or auto, the law says they ARE responsible, disclaimers be damned... Consider them a deterrent -- not legally binding.) ...

The solution, it seems, is to constructively and creatively devise a system whereby magic entertainment and info CAN be digitally shared in a way that maximum profits accrue to the originators, so that they and their artistry may thrive, and that sufficient profits accrue to those who help distribute/disseminate this data, so that they may be incentivized to help reach the largest possible PAYING target audience...

It's a condundrum -- one that's currently being faced by the largest news corporations, music publishers, Hollywood studios and networks... The entertainment labor unions (WGA, SAG, AFTRA) are currently tussling over these very same issues -- everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie (DVDs, digital downloads, etc.), but nobody knows how big the pie is going to be, or how to measure it, because nobody can project what future technology has in store for us... And the laws are currently unclear as to who is entitled to what...

On positive note, here is a golden opportunity to pioneer a system that will work to everyone's advantage -- but that can only happen after we stop grousing about what is and focus on what can be... Over and out...

[John LeBlanc]

The first sale doctrine in US Copyright law is what allows the owner of a video rental store in the USA to feel free to purchase his rental stock from any source that sells new, legal DVDs. If they want, video rental store owners may shop for rental titles at Walmart -- and some do.

So long as rental store owners stick to the law, they are under no obligation to pay royalties to anyone. That's the law as it stands today. And magic is one of many niche fields of interest suffering from this assault.

When Blockbuster made a deal with the Weinstein's, all that did was guarantee Blockbuster would have more than enough stock of Weinstein releases to rent. Everyone else had to seek more traditional channels to stock the shelves. This pays off for Blockbuster in the short run, when rental income from a new release is highest.

As for the subject "business" of this thread, aside from the snubbing he deserves for violating a moral principal involved in this relatively tiny cottage industry that is magic, he will have to deal with an inevitable lawsuit from Netflix, who currently has -- and, as Blockbuster learned recently, has demonstrated an interest in defending -- patents that cover this online rental process.

As the old saying goes, what the US Copyright Office giveth, the US Patent and Trademark Office taketh away.

John

[Guest]

The USPTO and the LOC cover different things, so that saying is baloney.

Regarding libraries and lending of DVD's -- the entity that owns the library -- university, city, county or whatever -- pays for the DVD, just as it does a book. The people who borrow the DVD have some kind of membership or residence in the area, so they basically are sharing the cost of the item.

On the surface, the presence of books in a library cuts down on sales, and the presence of DVD's does the same thing. However, there isn't a novelist in the country who doesn't want the libraries to purchase his books. Why? It's an immense sure sale.

Forget about the issues regarding knowledge here for a moment and think of what DVD's are. They are "widgets." If people decided that magic was not fun any more, most publishers would find a different kind of widget to sell. That's what they are in business for. If you could be guaranteed a sale of 10,000 units up front, would you turn it down? Random House won't. Neither will SONY. Ahd neither will Jim Steinmeyer.

It takes just as much effort to write a best-selling novel as it does to write a scholarly magic book. So if you want to make money, that's what you should write.

When Earl Scruggs and the 5-string Banjo was published in 1968, there were about 4,000 5-string banjo players in the country, possibly fewer than that. He sold 15,000 copies right off the bat. Why? EVERY library in the country had to have a copy because of its historical significance.

So, what happens when someone checks a book out? They read it, and in the case of an instruction book, if they feel they need a copy, they buy it.

The same thing is true of magic videos. A friend of mine in Houston used to rent magic videos. He does the same with DVD's. He runs a costume rental service.

He told me that 90% of the time, when someone rents a DVD or a video from him, they come back and purchase it. Then they can keep it.

This said, it doesn't justify this preview service at all.

[Guest]

Richard Koch from PA is also Richard Wayne. If this is the same person. Shame on him.

[J Bright]

They are now selling on ebay. Here's the info:

Joshua Jay Talk about Tricks (magic DVD rental) Item number: 230177514611
Seller: previewmagicdvds( 0 )

Please note you are NOT bidding to own Talk About Tricks, the winning bidder will receive a one month membership to www.PreviewMagicDVDs.com where they can rent Talk about Tricks.

The website is just like Netflix with magic DVDs. They will mail you the DVD along with a postage paid envelope to return it. They have over 1000 different magic DVDs in their catalog and you can rent as many as youd like in the month you sign up. After your first month if you dont cancel your account you can continue using the service indefinitely and your credit card will be billed the standard price of the plan you signed up for ($19.95-$29.95).

Some things to keep in mind:
-You must have a valid credit card to sign up for the service and take advantage of this auction.
-Only your first month is paid for if you win this auction.
-Your month will start once you sign up for an account with PreviewMagicDVDs.com
-There are no shipping costs associated with this auction
-You are not required to rent the DVD that is listed in this auction
-You are not required to maintain your membership after your first month but it is encouraged.

After looking over the website the winning bidder will decide which single DVD plan they want to sign up for and will receive a coupon code to enter upon signing up which will allow them free membership for the first month (since they already paid through ebay).

This 30 day membership is not valid for existing customers of previewmagicdvds.com and cannot be combined with any other coupons/promotions including but not limited to other ebay auctions similar to this one.

[Guest]

lets find out who this guy is shall we?
we only need to make a phone call

Domains by Proxy is an Internet company owned by Go Daddy CEO Bob Parsons, that offers private domain registration to its users. Ordinarily, the domain owner's contact information is listed in the WHOIS database. Using one of their partner registrars such as Go Daddy or Wild West Domains, Domains by Proxy leaves their information instead, guaranteeing some amount of privacy to the domain owner. This means that it is impossible for spammers to harvest your email address from the WHOIS database. It also means that domain owners have, in theory, a lot more privacy.

On the other hand, it could mean a longer process to trace the activities back to the responsible owner if the domain is used for illegal or unwanted activities, such as spamming.

However, this is not true anonymity. Personal information is collected by these registrars to provide the service. By some accounts, registrars like Domains by Proxy take little persuasion to release so-called 'private' information to the world, requiring only a phone request or cease and desist letter.

[Guest]

This started in June 2007 - it's now December 2007. Has anyone here at the genii BBS signed up and found out

1) what comes in the mail (original or dupe?)
2) timely service?
3) hidden fees?
4) accurate offering/selection?
5) issues returning rented DVDs?

etc?

[RV9]

I apologize for reviving a dead thread, but I'd like to chime in with some information. I am involved in renting instructional videos (not magic videos, though) and have some insight into this topic.

The attorneys quoted above (lawguru link) are incorrect. I'm not sure where they are getting their information, but they certainly shouldn't be dabbling in intellectual property law if they don't understand something so fundamental.

Generally speaking, royalties are not due on the rental of DVDs and permission is not needed from the DVD creator.

Blockbuster, Netflix, etc... do not necessarily have to pay royalties on the rental of videos. Any video legally purchased at wholesale or retail, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, can be rented royalty-free. A unilateral "Not for Rental" notice does not constitute a contract.

That said, a video producer could enter into a contract with a rental house that, for example, gives the rental house a favorable price for the media or access to DVDs earlier than the public (i.e., Wal-Mart) release of the titles - in return for royalties.

As for the ethics angle... A DVD is a piece of personal property that belongs to the purchaser. It does not belong to its creator. The purchaser can sell it, lend it, rent it, destroy it, whatever. The only rights the creator retains regard copying the work and publicly playing/displaying the work. There is no ethical issue: Everyone knows (or should know) that these are "the rules" before getting into DVD production. To call it unethical simply because you happen to disagree with "the rules" is a little dishonest.

If you want to try to prevent renting of your video, then make every buyer sign a contract agreeing not to rent OR SELL their copy of the video. Put a permanent, unique serial number on every DVD. If one ends up in the rental stream, you can sue the original purchaser for breach of contract. You can't sue anyone other than the original purchaser though. So for example, if I buy your video and sell it to a rental house on eBay, you can sue me, but the rental house can now rent it out because they have no agreement with you not to.

[John LeBlanc]

You revived a dead thread to repeat points I made one page back.

[RV9]

...and sure enough, I did. I apologize.