Is Walmart Allowed?

[HomeTheater911]

I was just wondering if it is legal for Walmart in my town to show DVD's on a TV they have set up a week before the are available for sale? They started this with Spider-Man and now they are doing it for Star Wars: Episode 2.

[Velvet G]

No, it isn't. Paul from my DVD store Digitainment got heavily fined for doing this and he's a little mom and pop business.

If they get caught, they'll get some shit for it.

[Jellodyne]

Walmart is entirely different than a Mom and Pop store. A Mom and Pop store, you can punish in order to make a statement that you are serious about people not breaking street dates. Walmart you try not to piss off. In a lot of ways they're Above The Law, like Steven Segal.

[JDeMartino]

Why would advertising an upcoming DVD before street date cause a store problems? You'd think the studios would be happy to see this happen. As long as they don't have the discs out on the rack for sale, why would the studios object? Are you sure you're friend wasn't also selling discs early, even if only from behind the counter?

AFAIK Blockbuster runs pre-taped excerpts from upcoming DVDs all the time.

Regards,

Joe

[UFO]

I don't think showing it to promote it would get anyone in a bind, especially since standing in an aisle at Wal Mart isn't what I would consider "public exhibition."

BUT, we have a pizza shop (locally owned, not a chain) here in town that has a large digital projector with surround sound and they play DVDs all the time. Now THAT is "public exhibition." They get people to come in, sit down, and eat their pizza by showing them movies. These people should be busted.

[Velvet G]

I misread (happens when one is working and skimming). Showing is one thing I guess. Having them for sale is what got Paul in trouble.

[Cap42086]

Originally posted by Jellodyne
In a lot of ways they're Above The Law, like Steven Segal.

Yes, but look what happened to Steven Segal.

[Taxi]

As long as Wal-Mart isn't breaking street date, there is nothing wrong with showing these movies before street date. It's called advertising, and has been said, I'm sure Fox encourages it.

[Drexl]

Hmmm, where's that eject button? Oh, never mind damnit, it's the full screen version!

Actually, the DVD's I see on those sets are usually stuck at the menu.

BTW, I think with Blockbuster's previews, those are specially prepared for that purpose (and probably by the studios themselves), right?

[kiscealguy]

Movie Trading Company did the same thing.

I walked in last Friday and "Episode II" was playing.

Do they TRY to tease us when they do this??

I think, yes.

[rtcpenguin]

Originally posted by Jellodyne
In a lot of ways they're Above The Law, like Steven Segal.

haha, very good

[sub780lime]

yeah, blockbuster does this all time, is there some wierd reason they would be allowed to

[peterlee]

Originally posted by Taxi
As long as Wal-Mart isn't breaking street date, there is nothing wrong with showing these movies before street date. It's called advertising, and has been said, I'm sure Fox encourages it.

If Fox knows about the practice and encourages it, then there's no question it's legal. The copyright holder has given permission, end of story.

The real question is whether it's legal to show the movie without the studio's consent - or even against the studio's wishes - and the answer is: probably not.

First, the street date is irrelevant. The street date is an embargo on the sale of the movie, not its display.

It's also irrelevant that Walmart shows the movie to advertise it. The copyright law doesn't carve out an statutory exception for the in-store promotional performance of movies. Oddly enough, there is just such an exception for music written into the copyright law.

Finally, there's no question that Walmart's practice is a public display or performance of the movie. Watching a movie with friends in your home is the definition of private exhibition; showing that same movie in a huge store filled with strangers and open to anyone with a shirt and shoes is definitely a public performance (even the screening of a movie for the residents of a retirement home is a public display). And a public performance of a copyrighted work without permission is illegal.

The only question is whether the practice could be defended as a fair use. It would help Walmart if the store only showed short excerpts of the movie instead of the whole thing but even then, all things considered, the store would lose.

[SeanL]

It's not clearly laid out, but when they speak of public exhibition, it usually means paid exhibition.

If I opened up my house to people, and charged them to see Lord of the Rings in my home theater, that would be illegal. But if I ran, say a pizza joint, and I had Harry Potter playing for the kids(but it not be advertised in any way), while they eat their pizza then that's ok.

[Unicorn]

What I hate about the whole concept of a store running a movie in its entirety like that before I've bought it is this:

Spoilers!


I can think of a few films that have been ruined for me, because Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Suncoast or even Radio Shack was running them, and I walked in the store near the end of the film and saw the climax before seeing the rest of the damn thing!

[DVDman70]

I work for the local Wal-mart in the electronics department here and we are not even allowed to play either of these movies. All we can play in ours is rated G movies. At this store we are not allowed to play a title until it hits the store shelves either. I would bring it up to the store manager and see if he/she knows about it or not.

[peterlee]

Originally posted by SeanL
It's not clearly laid out, but when they speak of public exhibition, it usually means paid exhibition.

If I opened up my house to people, and charged them to see Lord of the Rings in my home theater, that would be illegal. But if I ran, say a pizza joint, and I had Harry Potter playing for the kids(but it not be advertised in any way), while they eat their pizza then that's ok.

Actually, money is only one factor and it's certainly not the make-or-break one. Remember Napster? People said all the time that sharing files was OK because it was free. Not true.

Under the law, the key to the private/public distinction is the relationship between the parties. Friends, family, people who are close to one another in some way, that's a private exhibition. But if the movie is shown to a group of people who don't have intimate relationships with each other, then it's public.

The MPAA would shut down your pizza joint in a second. Doesn't matter that you don't charge for the movie or that you don't use it as an advertisement. You'd get in trouble for simply showing it to the public-at-large. Now, if all the kids were your grandchildren, nephews and nieces, you'd be fine. Same goes for the home screening: if it was limited to your friends and family, you'd be OK. You'd probably be fine EVEN IF YOU CHARGED. I say probably because the fee would make a court wonder how close you really are to the folks you're hitting up for cash. But if you can show that everyone is a lifelong friend or family member, a judge is likely to let it pass.

Different story if your screening was open to anyone who showed up at your door. Then, even showing the movie for free would get you in trouble.