posted
My employer gave out movies as Christmas presents. Two of the videos I got are promotional copies that weren't meant for rental,sale, or public ownership. They're loaned out to retailers, theater owners, etc. to build interest in the movie.
The copyright warning at the beginning explicitly states that the tape is the property of the studio.
Can a person get in trouble for having these tapes? Should I contact the studios that released the films?
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to work at a bookstore and on occasion they had books that were promotional and not available to the public, but that book store employees were free to take. I wonder if this is similar. Since your boss gave it to you, that means the studio would find out he didn't return it. If it was supposed to be returned, I imagine that would create a problem. It would be my assumption he wasn't supposed to return it. And if that's the case, I'm not sure there's a problem so long as he isn't selling it.
Note: I have no legal training and my advice should be viewed with that in mind. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This post is not for reading by anyone with a screen name starting with "M." It is property of Will B, and is not for printing, duplication, or reading aloud.
So -- if MightyCow reads this incredibly wise post out loud and then prints a copy to send to Grandma, has a law been broken?
I'm not a copyright lawyer, either, but I do know that there are limits on what copyright gives the copyright owner.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have have been given music CD versions of those before, sometimes with the caveat that "I need this back". If the studio *gave* it to someone as a promotional copy then it is that person's right to give it to someone else (after all, they could certainly throw it away, right?). If the studio *loaned* it, then your boss had no right to give it away as they are expecting it back... it'd be like checking a book out from the library and giving it to someone else.
What would be illegal in either case is *selling* the material.
In all instances, though, I think your boss is much more liable than you are.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who cares if they are promotional copies or not? You did nothing even remotely immoral to obtain them, so whether you should have them or not is the problem of the studio and your boss.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what's tacky or unethical about it. I mean, cheap, yeah -- but this is a work-related gift, and I would guess you work in a video store or book store or something? So your boss probably has limited funds (or no funds) to give you guys gifts. (This is pure conjecture.) But he saw to it that you got something... So he's trying.
In terms of ethics? Studios give out stuff like this because they want people who work in theaters, or video stores, or book stores, etc -- they want those workers to SEE the movies so the workers can speak intelligently about them, and hopefully get excited about the products and promote them to customers. The reason for the "Promotional Materials" warning is to try to prevent the illegal copying and boot-legging that sometimes happens with those kinds of advanced materials. It's not because they really would be upset that the video is anyone's possession. They KNOW it's in someone's possession -- they give these out on purpose.
So no -- your boss did nothing ethically wrong. He did a nice thing, making sure you guys got gifts. Don't call the studio on him.
This is not what they're talking about when they show that warning at the beginning of the tape.
Now, if your boss ever gives you a home-copied dvd of some advance movie (like, for example, Ghost Rider) and you see that warning on the front, then your boss has done something very tacky and very illegal.
That's not the case here.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"copies that weren't meant for rental,sale, or public ownership"
He didn't rent or sell it to you, and in this context you are a store employee, not a member of "the public". I don't see that copyright has been broken, even if the movie resides in your home and not the shop.
Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, I find jokes about prison rape to be in horribly poor taste.
Not to mention completely overdone. Can't we think of something more funny about prisons then prison rape?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting that when the common man is sitting in judgment of a felon, whether the perception is true or not, there is a belief in place that he or she is being sent to life of rape, torture, hazing, racism and humiliation. For child molesters the possibility exists that they will die of this torture, yet we send them to off happily to this assault on dignity.
Personally I find this indirect punishment to be more offensive then a swift death. Sending a man to be Judged by God is mercy. Sending a man to a term of torture and tangential suffering is sly, underhanded and demeaning to those doing the sentencing. If a Jury feels that a child molester should be raped to death they should openly sentence that, not sentence it under the table.
Meanwhile a murderer goes into the Big House with a certain prestige that lets him eat at the top of the food chain, (or so I am given to understand, though not from experience) There is an inequity in this, a failure of control that leans me away from incarceration and the artificial concentration of evil this creates. I think the criminals that come from this system come out with a further warped perception of right and wrong.
Even if they do not want to go back, that deterrent has not reinforced the inhibitions to not break the law, it has added a degree of desperation to do whatever it takes to not get caught and added a resource pool of criminal consultants and lore to the their criminal resume.
It is past time to look at the concept of prison reform in a systematic way and either change the situation or acknowledge that we find it acceptable and publish the conditions.
The current situation seems to embrace "Out of Sight, Out of mind" when we have, as a society deemed that these criminals are "Under our absolute authority" with the corollary condition "We are absolutely responsible" for their welfare. The imbalance is unjust.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*peers suspiciously at the previous post* Who are you, and what have you done with General Sax?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have risked my life for freedom, it is surprising that I consider loss of it to be worse then loss of life? I also believe in taking responsibility for my actions, and I believe this to be true for anyone, so it can hardly be surprising that I am concerned about the conditions people nominally under my care endure.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
