This relates to a thread in ATMB: Can we discuss the altering of our DVD players. It is not a criticism of this Board’s general policy on copyright, nor really a criticism of the decision. But it is a criticism of the reasoning there, so it belongs here in the Pit, even though the content is more GD material.
This doesn’t make sense. Copyright is all about distribution purposes. The purpose of zoning is to allow greater profits from the ownership of DVD copyrights. Zoning allows the distributor to release an item at different times in different markets. For a holiday movie this means that they can release the DVD in different holiday times in different markets and so get more profits. It allows different versions to be released in different markets, allowing higher average prices.
Yes, these are monopoly practices - but that’s what copyright is all about: the grant of monopoly rights in the hope that this will stimulate artistic enterprise and reward the creators of entertainment.
This doesn’t help your argument at all. If manufacturers do this at a cost to the consumer - particularly if the firms are themselves owners of copyrighted material - this is just part of copyright owners making a buck by price discriminatory practices. And of course artists benefit from zoning - the royalties paid and the number of artists employed depend on the profitability of the companies that organise and distribute their product.
Now, you could argue that the extent of monopoly rights granted to copyright owners is excessive and comes at too great a cost to the consumer; more so given recent technological changes. And you could argue that the current system of copyright encourages a system of production where large companies make off with the loaf leaving most artists with crumbs. And I’d agree. You could even argue that it is a profit-driven strategy of these companies to push some consumers towards practices of dubious legality. But DVD dezoning most surely is a copyright issue.
