Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 21

Starting a Small Rental store (Canadian Regulations?)

Say I start a small rental store in Canada. I buy the movies from amazon.ca. Are there any Regulations in Canada that forces rental stores to pay dividents to the Hollywood corporations? --Eptypes 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be breaking Canadian copyright laws, as Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which protects the works of other parties to that treaty, of which the United States is one. --TotoBaggins 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have friends who own a convienence store and they rent movies. Granted, this is in the U.S., so your milage may vary. They pay a distributor a larger sum for a copy of a movie, something at least around US$30-50 per copy. There is some sort of law preventing them from just going to a store and buying a copy to rent out. I'm not sure of the details or laws that affect this. I'm fairly certain that it would be similar north of the border. Dismas|^(talk) 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friends who own the convienence store, where do they contact the distributors in order to inform them they are going to rent it and to pay extra cash? --Eptypes 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're asking. They bought the business from a couple who were retiring. So when they took ownership, they just kept using the same distributor. I don't know how you'd go about finding a distributor. Their distributor comes once a week or so and has a list of movies that will be coming out the following week. They choose the movies that they are going to want and he comes back the next week with the movies as well as the list of movies that are coming out the following week and so on. It's a small town store, so they generally don't go for any of the more artsy films, they stick to the big name movies that more people will rent because if you buy a movie for $30 and only rent it out twice for $3 then you've just lost over $24. In this example, a movie has to be rented at least 10 times before the profit can start. Dismas|^(talk) 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works doesn't deal with Canada. Which Canadian Law/Regulation? --Eptypes 06:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it "doesn't deal" with Canada? Canada is a signatory to the convention. FiggyBee 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have enough information I mean. --Eptypes 08:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice. The very first DVD cover I looked at has the following text: "WARNING: The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, public performance diffusion and/or broadcast of this DVD, or any part thereof, is strictly prohibited." (Quite appropriately, this Warning was issued by the Warner Bros.) This is standard boilerplate, but my understanding is that this is backed up by law. Specifically, our article United States copyright law lists, among the five basic rights protected by copyright, the exclusive right to authorize others to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. As far as I could discern, the Berne convention has no clauses that are specific to the situation, but it states that authors enjoy, in other signatory countries (like Canada), the rights which the laws of their own country (for movies more often than not the U.S.A.) grant to their nationals. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Eptypes: The terms applied to Wikipedia "articles" apply equally to Reference Desk answers. (See e.g., Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, User:Dreftymac/Docs/RefDeskDisclaimer, etc.) dr.ef.tymac 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase: has there meen any civil lawsuits in Canada, due to illegal renting? --Eptypes 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter would be criminal. Bielle 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buying DVDs from Amazon.ca to rent out would be illegal - end of story. If you do, the DVDs you rent are likely to have a warning on that they are not for rental, and any customers of yours would be liable to report you. TO operate such a business, you'd need to buy them from the relevant distributor, with the appropriate licensing. You should expect to pay significantly more for these DVDs than you would if you were buying them on Amazon.ca for your own private use. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, when you purchase a movie you purchase two things: the a copy of the film itself, and a license to use that particular copy. When you purchase at amazon or any other retainler, you are purchasing a copy of the film that automatically comes with a license for private use. In order to legally rent DVDs, you need to purchase a copy of the film that comes with a license for commercial, for-profit use. There are special distributors of these I am sure, but I have no idea who they are or how to find them. Pastordavid 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-42/ Copyright Act C-42 An Act respecting copyright. --Eptypes 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the distributors have a special website for purchasing "for profit" DVDs i.e for renting? --Eptypes 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this question, and its very long answer, keeping finding itself at the top of the current day's questions? The original question was posted on May 15th. Bielle 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until its answered, I don't want it to be archived. --Eptypes 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you google "DVD Distributors", you will find many sites like this one [1] that appear to answer many of your questions. Bielle 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, like that one which asks you to pay money to download the ebook? --Eptypes 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but I believe First-sale doctrine and the Betamax case say that once you buy the dvd/video you can do with it what you will (including rent, sell, etc., but not copy, of course), excepting public performance, whether for profit or not. Blockbuster and others make special arrangements to have multiple copies available but small video stores can rent purchased copies as they like. I have a neighbor down the street that operates a small video store and I will ask them tomorrow to be sure.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Killing sparrows. :) --Eptypes 05:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of killing sparrows' links are to US law and US cases. Canadian law may well be different. As for paying "money to download the ebook", not everybody follows the Wiki philosophy and gives answers for free. I thought there were some sites in the Google response with lists of DVD distributors; perhaps I was mistaken.Bielle 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infringement generally

27. (1) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.

Secondary infringement

(2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to

(a) sell or rent out,

(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,

(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or

(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),

a copy of a work, sound recording or fixation of a performer’s performance or of a communication signal that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it.

Has any lower courts or the supreme court of canada interpreted this section of the Copyright Act? --Eptypes 06:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eptypes, I actually read the entire Canadian copyright law last night and I have to say that I think you are going to have to get an answer someplace else. Video rental is not specifically addressed in the act in the context you are looking for. The ambiguity of law and the need for professional advice is illustrated by the above list which would seem to prohibit the sale of used books (sections a and c above). Have you thought of simply driving down to your local video store and asking someone, 'Hey, what's the deal on renting these videos, did you have to get a special license?' --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eptypes, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't keep moving your questions to the bottom of the page. I've asked this before, both on the talk page of your previous incarnation and here. I find it disorienting, and it means I have to scroll over more and more to find developments at more recent questions. If more users start doing that, it will create a mess. If you have a specific new or further question, feel free to post it, but don't repost all that went before. You can always link to the prior discussion. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It's annoying and confusing. --TotoBaggins 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I did do research into this for a project I was doing where the warning said "for home use" this means if the person intended to have a private screening for profit of the copyrighted work this would go against copy right laws. But home use is a broad enough term to take into consideration renting out a copy of a video for a persons personal home use. There are no laws governing the rental of a copyrighted material canada has always been kinda lax when it comes to copyrights

U.S. Federal Anti-piracy regulations

When recently viewing a movie at a Regal IMAX theater, the usher stated (I paraphrase from memory) "Federal Anti-piracy regulations require that you turn off all electronic devices." I would like to know if this is true or not. So, does U.S. Federal Law require that all electronic devices be turned off before the start of a motion picture? (I facetiously pointed out that all wristwatches and pacemakers would have to be powered down as well.) thank you. --Rajah 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I crossposted it as well. --Rajah 06:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but I think that this is based on the cinema's own personal interpretation of US Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506, Subsection a(1), which states "Any person who infringes a copyright willfully by for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain...shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code"; the cinema has interpreted the use of recording equipment within a cinmea as an attempt at willfull copyright infringement. As the law specifically states that "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement", by pointing out that cameras etc are not allowed, they can then show that someone deliberately, not accidentally, infringed copyright. As for all electronic devices, the usher was either mistaken or was also making clear that certain other devices (videophones for example), which are not usually thought of as recording devices, should also be turned off. Laïka 11:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was an over-statement by the usher, perhaps under direction from his employer. All "electronic devices" are (according to some) sufficiently annoying in theaters to explain away such overreaching, despite the obvious absurdity when applied to surgically implanted medical devices. In the future, please do not crosspost identical answers in multiple places, a link should be enough. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the usher phrased it incorrectly, anti-piracy should have been copyright; Federal copyright regulations. However the point that you can't record the IMAX movie is accurate according to US Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102 which basically says it's a violation of copyright law to record:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

It also points out that the law applies to current and future technology, so if tomorrow a new type of recorder could capture the experience of the IMAX movie in a new and unknown way it'd still be illegal. Anynobody 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Aryan

What would happen if a Jewish person had blonde hair and blue eyes during Nazi Germany. 213.106.248.77 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make no difference whatsoever. All German Jews were known to the authorities as a result of much legislation, including the Nuremberg laws of 1935. By 1938, their passports were marked as "Juden" and they were given a middle name ("Israel" for men and "Sarah" for women). Blonde hair and blue eyes are not remarkably unusual characteristics of Ashkenazi Jews - it's idle to speculate just how many of the 6,000,000 looked "Aryan". You might also find our article Racial policy of Nazi Germany instructive. --Dweller 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenology? Wheee! "Race?" Wow. Just wow. The Mismeasure of Man, anyone? Utgard Loki 13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, there is absolutly no scientific evidence that skull of individuals of jewish decent are in any way different than those of any other race. If you disagree, please provide a source for your assertions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Nazis believed Jews had smaller skulls. Whatever -- as Hipocrite says, there's no such thing as a Jewish skull size. In the movie Europa Europa, the main character, a Jewish boy passing as an "Aryan," has his skull measured in front of his Hitler Youth group. The protagonist is freaked out he will be discovered, but the Nazi "doctor" declares that he is a Balt, I believe. I think the Nazis also believed Jews had a certain type of earlobe -- either attached or free, I can't remember. It was all pseudoscience. I once met a Stockholm-based rabbi who told me a story about one of his congregants, who escaped from Nazi Germany. She had been a child model and had her picture taken for one of those generic shots used in picture frames. She later learned the Nazis had used the picture as an example of a model Aryan child -- unaware the model was actually Jewish! -- Mwalcoff 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't provide any sources, except my own memory (and I understand why that would not be considered a proper source!). However, this does not change the fact that I still believe that what I said was correct, especially on the former existance of Nazi racial clinics. That point can still stand, even if there is disagreement over whether they were larger or smaller. (At least no concerns of racism have been raised.) There is, I think, little doubt that the Nazis definitely understood how to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews - given Hitler's obsession with removing them. And no, I would not consider removing my opinion: disagree as people may, I still believe what I have said to be correct. Perhaps a wikiarticle could provide more detail? (or, for that matter, a source)martianlostinspace 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make things up on the reference desk. You are, in fact, entirely, 100% wrong, as detailed in The Mismeasure of Man. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what I call consensus to delete. Fact as I believe it is, and slightly annoyed at being told I am making things up, it is not worth continuing or offending. Comment deleted. martianlostinspace 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, a Jew which could "pass for Aryan" would be in far better shape. With some forged papers they could hope to live unmolested. This wasn't as likely for those Jews who "looked Jewish". In the case of other ethnic groups, like Poles, children which looked Aryan were sometimes taken from their parents by Nazis and raised to be German. StuRat 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I don't believe in Phrenology, and I never intend to. Personality is nothing to do with ethnic group.martianlostinspace 10:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now my message has been deleted entirely now. I accept what I said was wrong, offensive and inappropriate to the RD, and hope that anyone offended will accept an apology. Hope this helps.martianlostinspace 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like girls?

Please somebody explain what people mean when they ask this question. It's usually asked by an older man to a younger man, with no clear meaning.
Is it a subtle way of asking if a boy/guy is gay or straight?
Am I right that it is an old-fashioned question? (I've only seen older men or older characters say it).
In popular culture: On the TV show 3rd Rock from the Sun Tommy is with Sally at a car dealership and the car salesman asks "Do you like girls?" and he responds "Yes, sorry".
138.130.23.133

Yes, it is a way to ask "are you gay?" It is a bit nicer than something like, "Do you like movies about gladiators?" or "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?" or "Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?" --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it means "are you gay" at all. I think its just a way to make conversation. Yeah its probably impolite as it could embarrass the person you are asking, whether gay or straight. -- Diletante 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, this statement was used to mean, "Are you straight?" I remember watching a TV show in which they interviewed a guy who had been drummed out of the US military for being gay. He said he never lied about his homosexuality. When he enlisted, he was asked, "Do you like girls?" He replied "yes" -- which was the truth. He liked girls because he likes all children. He just isn't sexually attracted to girls, or to women (or to boys, we hope). -- Mwalcoff 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "or to boys, we hope" - I really wish people would not unwittingly perpetuate the assumption in many uneducated people's minds that a homosexual male is somehow more likely than a straight male to have paedophilic feelings, for which there is no evidence. It would be just as inappropriate for an adult male of any orientation to be sexually attracted to young girls as to young boys. -- JackofOz 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jack. I do not believe gay men have a predilection to pedophilia. I was just trying to further emphasize the difference between "liking" children and being sexually attracted to them. -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wait a sec. It also has to do with determining the maturity of a boy/young man. If you asked me "do you like girls?" when I was 9 or so, I might well have said "ewwww!". They have cooties, y'know! Tommy was pre-teen when the series started, too. So the script writers were playing games with several things - "are you gay", "are you old enough to have discovered girls" -- and then Tommy's usual sort of gag about being an adult in the body of a child. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking when you are talking about adults asking young boys this it is usually pretty obviously about maturity. "Do you like girls?" means, more specifically, "Have you reached a stage in your development where you have developed attractions towards the opposite sex, or are you still in that stage where you think they have cooties?" It's a wholly heteronormative/heterocentric question on the whole, for better or worse, and is not meant to identify sexual preference one way or another. --24.147.86.187 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, if you asked Hannibal Lecter "do you like girls ?" he might well reply "yes, I do, as their higher fat content makes them ideal for self-basting". StuRat 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a TV documentary about WW2 which I saw within the last year, an American veteran said that at his induction exam after receiving the draft notice, the psychologivcal exam consisted of the doctor asking "So, do you like girls?" to determine if he was a heterosexual. Sorry, but I do not have a specific citation fot the TV program. It appears once to have been a standard code for inquiring about a man's sexual orientation. For other refrences to this as a standard question at induction see [2] , [3] , in the movie "The girl he left behind" [4] , [5]. The question was asked in the other sense of a female in the navy in the 1990's (page 13) [6]. [7] "An Army at Dawn: The War in Africa (1942-1943)" By Rick Atkinson (2003) from Google books refers to the question as a standard part of the WW2 draft physical, and says that 2 million Americans were rejected for psychological reasons often on no more basis than their answer to that question. Edison 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]