regional coding hypocrisie?

[johnhamler1]

I have seen in many shops here in europe, boxes of DVD player covered with a sticker"code free".
I have seen sheets given to customers explaining how to crack regional code with the remote control, (when buying a new DVD player).

I know there is no law about regional coding, and it is totally legal to make your DVD player "free zone". so what's the point to put a code???

[adam]

In any given country modifying your player to make it region free may or may not be illegal. What is almost universally illegal is the selling of one region's DVDs in another country where it is not licensed for sale, AKA importing/exporting. FYI its called parallel importing and is a violation of Customs Law as well as the specific license the product is sold under. Region coding is just meant to limit the demand for illegal parallel importing by locking out those who don't know or want to modify their player. So yes there are laws regarding region coding.

Maybe parts of Europe have an extreme disregard for region coding, but I wonder if you aren't just visiting shady shops. Their pushing and explaining of region free players very well may be illegal.

[theReal]

In Germany I've seen DVD players being advertised "region-free" on national television sale-shows. It can't be illegal then, I guess.
Regional coding has been stupid from the beginning and I think even the movie industry has come to the point where they just don't give a sh**t anymore about region codes...

[shevegen]

I can verify what has been said.
"but I wonder if you aren't just visiting shady shops"
This is an unfair assumption, I saw region free players advertized not only on TV.

Mostly though, they do cost more, so this was not interesting at all for me (i only wanted a cheap player after a rather expensive one which I bought did act all jerky until it refused to do certain tasks. I am tired of sending malfunctioning hardwares back for repair, this takes time and simply shouldnt happen).

[adam]

It was not an assumption it was a suggestion. You can't assume something is legal just because you see people getting away with it. Its a possibility to consider since all we know is that he is somewhere in Europe.

[johnhamler1]

for what Know, there is no law about regional coding.
this is something set by distributor.
but it is so easy to unlock, so why bother to lock them.

many big shops here in europe with good reputation(I mean big shops like best buy in the USA), will tell you, and even do a search on the net to unlock the player.

show me it is illegal to unlock a player...

[adam]

I said in any given country it might be illegal to modify a player to remove region coding, and this is true. You still haven't even said what country you are in so how can I show you anything? You can look up your own national laws regarding this issue but you've obviously already made up your mind what the answer is.

And once again, region coding is targeted at parallel importing which is illegal in virutally all countries. So even though most countries do not have a law one way or the other regarding how regional locks are implemented or broken, such regional protection is authorized by law virtually everywhere and region coding in general is aimed at preventing a form of importing which is almost universally unlawful.

Again, the answer to your question is that most people won't bother or know how to break region protection. THAT's why its used just like with CSS encryption. Anyone can quickly and easily find out how to bypass either protection, but the vast majority of people still don't. The locks/protection doesn't have to stop everyone, it just has to stop enough people that it at least earns them back the money they spent on the protection mechanism. Since regional protection is so engrained in the DVD standard, it basically costs them nothing to include it.

LOTS of money is lost by manufacturers due to parallel importing and I'm not just talking about DVDs, this is the case for all types of goods.

[johnhamler1]

I have seen DVD movies sold in shops in europe(italy, france, switzerland), regional 1 and 2.

so maybe when a shop import movies from the USA for US students coming here in Europe, maybe they have the right to sell unlocked DVD player.

any idea???

[feedback]

You still haven't even said what country you are in so how can I show you anything?
There is no indication of your country either.
Although it is probably the USA by the tone of your post.

Just because something is illegal in the USA or the EU people want to assume that it is illegal the world over, when in fact it is not.

Just making an observation.

Regards,:)

[TheFluff]

And once again, region coding is targeted at parallel importing which is illegal in virutally all countries. So even though most countries do not have a law one way or the other regarding how regional locks are implemented or broken, such regional protection is authorized by law virtually everywhere and region coding in general is aimed at preventing a form of importing which is almost universally unlawful.

Just because it's illegal in the US, don't assume it is illegal everywhere. AFAIK, buying DVD's from other countries (for private use) isn't and hasn't ever been illegal in any sensible European country. Commercial import might or might not be illegal - in my country (Sweden) it isn't. The Swedish Customs' homepage explicitly states that they "cannot take action against goods that is imported in parallel to Sweden". What they DO take action against is importation of pirated goods.

LOTS of money is lost by manufacturers due to parallel importing and I'm not just talking about DVDs, this is the case for all types of goods.
This fails to make sense. As long as the goods gets sold (and I'm assuming similiar prices), where is the lost money? Where it's sold doesn't really matter from the manufacturers point of view (as opposed to that of the distributors, who might not be as tolerant).

Personally, it is my opinion that region coding is a violation of the free trade agreements and nothing else. Breaking that "protection" isn't illegal in the countries of the European Union, AFAIK, not even with the new updated copyright laws.

[adam]

@Feedback: How many times do I have to repeat myself? I told the dude that in ANY given country it MAY be illegal therefore he should check for himself what HIS laws are. Everyone keeps telling me I'm assuming things when all I've told people throughout this thread is that they shouldn't assume things. I swear, it seems that if you say anything other than F*CK the MPAA on this forum you just get attacked. You know its possible to hate the MPAA and region coding (I do!) and still keep an open mind and have a rational discussion without disrespecting me by twisting everything that I say.

@ TheFluff: Well that's awfully hypocritical. You tell me not to assume things based on my country's laws but your challenge is in and of itself nothing more than an assumption by you based on your country's laws. By the way, Sweden has some of the most liberal trade laws in this world due to the fact that they depend so much on imported goods....and even Sweden forbid certain parallel importing not so long ago.

Well I'm not assuming anything. I register with customs boards all around the world to inform them of grey market good shipments that we know are coming in. I've researched parallel importing enough to see the trends. Once again, virtually all countries regulate grey market goods to some extent and most outright forbid the parallel importation of either grey market copyrighted goods or if not those generally, specifically grey market motion picture goods. For that matter, whether the country of import chooses to regulate parallel imports or not doesn't change the fact that the shipment and subsequent sale is still ALWAYS unlawful as to the country of export. This is positively self evident. The very definition of a parallel import requires that it be unlawful as to a "right of use provided by ANOTHER country."

I'm not assuming parallel importing is unlawful everywhere based on American laws, (I have already repeated time and time again that it is NOT unlawful in many countries) I am not telling you these things because I am an American, I am telling you this because it is the truth!

It fails to make sense that parallel importing costs manufacturer's money? I'll try to be cordial but I have to confess that this statement pisses me off because its clear that you are challenging me without even doing any research first. Yes it does cost manufacturer's money, and it hurts alot of other people in the supply chain too as well as the country of import and most of all the consumer.

Take the US or Canada or Europe or China or Japan or Australia, all of which forbid parallel importation of motion pictures... and let's say a movie has been available in another country for a few months before it is ultimately licensed for sale in this new country. Each good unlawfully imported means one less sale through that country's own market. So the local studio, its distributors, and its retailers lose those sales. The country loses those taxes as well as the regulatory control over the good ( content ratings, applicable warranties, product liability law, safety regulations where applicable) and worst of all the scarcity leads to price gouging so the customers pay more for what may be an inferior product (may not have their language and or subs or otherwise may not be customized for their region, ALL warranties and service plans will be null and void, etc.)

Again, I'm not just talking about DVDs here. The most common goods unlawfully traded through parallel importation are blue jeans. I don't see how you can't recognize the fundamental significance of parallel importation on the owner of that product line. A country's laws in some form or fashion grant someone the EXCLUSIVE right to authorize the sale of that good, and someone takes that good and sells it in violation of that right at an artifically inflated price (parallel importing can involve below cost sales too but this isn't really the case with DVDs). Naturally this is going to have some negative effects.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the ills of parallel importing necessarily justify regional lockout mechanisms (region coding), or their pervasive implemenation. I'm simply explaining the rationale for region coding. They are largely used to create artificial demand....absolutely. But they are also aimed at preventing something which is almost universally unlawful.

[setarip_old]

@adam

Hi!

let's say a movie has been available in another country for a few months before it is ultimately licensed for sale in this new country. Each good unlawfully imported means one less sale through that country's own market. So the local studio, its distributors, and its retailers lose those sales.

By doing so (differing release dates), it sure sounds like the studios are actually CREATING the opportunity for inter-regional selling.

It would seem that simply having one universal release date would obviate the justification/reason/explanation for such cross-market activity.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that MOST such DVD sales are of illegally duplicated product - and not simply sales of gray market, legitimate, studio produced product...

[adam]

Well yeah a worldwide simultaneous release would be the best solution to parallel importing, and a strong incentive against bootlegging too, but I imagine the logistics of it may outweigh the benefits. I mean its not like they manufacture them one place and ship them all over. Each region gets its own release which may be very different from another regions. I think a single release date for films would push the initial DVD release date back quite a bit for each movie...which is one of the big reasons for piracy too.... a long wait between theatrical release and DVD release.

I agree, I think parallel importing is much less of a concern for studios than bootlegging and piracy.

[dragongodz]

just a small clarification on Australian law with regard to this.

it is not illegal to import, whether through buying in person or over the net etc, a dvd for personal use.

also the customary excuse of "it will hurt companies and put some out of business" is also wrong. importation of audio cds was legalised here in 1998 and the exact same thing was said. i didnt happen. that is no businesses suddenly went under, instead they realised making Australia wait 6+ months for releases wasnt a bright practice so moved release dates up.
infact we also have laws allowing importation of computer games and books etc etc etc and none of the respective industries have been decimated by it. :)

this is really all about control. that is the companies want to decide who should be able to have/see what when and how and for how much.

[adam]

Yes Aus has an exception for audio cds generally and for motion pictures but only for personal use. Its still illegal to do parallel imports of motion pictures for commercial use and those are really the ones that have the most substantial effect on the market.

Also its not "wrong" to say that parallel importing hurts some businesses or some members of industries. Businesses don't have to go bankrupt to feel the effects of a market change like an influx of imports. Parallel importing undercuts the local economy for that product. That is a simple fact, its the very definition of the practice. Whether this is a reasonable trade-off for more open trade is a matter of perspective. In a country like Australia which imports substantially more intellectual property than it exports, there's no reason why you should expect parallel importing of motion pictures only for personal use to kill off the industry. But if we were talking about agricultural products I bet things would be alot stricter. Customs laws vary substantially from country to country based on their local economies, but like I said virtually all countries regulate parallel importing to a large degree...including Australia.

Your ministy website has extensive information regarding Aus's policy of parallel importing including the study they conducted before changing the policy regarding music CDs and motion pictures. They took into consideration all of the negative effects and determined that the particular market in AUS would have an overall benefit. Obviously other countries have come to the opposite conclusion for their local markets. You can't conclude that parallel importing "doesn't hurt" just because Australia made some exceptions.

[dragongodz]

Also its not "wrong" to say that parallel importing hurts some businesses or some members of industries.
what i said was it was proven wrong as to what parallel imports of audio cds would do. that is the excuse it would severly damage the Australian music industry and distributors etc was proven wrong. it simply did not happen. yes they had to change their strategy of letting Australia wait long periods of time for every big release but this didnt harm them at all. since the same reason is often given for things like dvds you will have to excuse me for being a bit sceptical of its validity. ;)

Customs laws vary substantially from country to country based on their local economies, but like I said virtually all countries regulate parallel importing to a large degree...including Australia.
yes and i was clarifying that atleast here it does not stop a person importing things like dvds for themselves. :)

EDIT:
You can't conclude that parallel importing "doesn't hurt" just because Australia made some exceptions.
i didnt make such a broad sweeping statement for a start. i gave an example where it didnt hurt. i can easily draw from that example that NOT ALL parallel importing will hurt. infact i gave other examples such as games and books where it also has not "hurt" the respective industries.

[adam]

Fair enough. But to be clear I'm really not referring to personal importing....that's such a minor thing. I'm talking about the guy who orders 5,000-10,000 DVDs from region 1 and sells them on a street corner or small shop at 1.5X- 2X its fair market value. That is still illegal in Australia.

My point is that the rationale behind regional protection is to aid in the enforcement of restrictions on parallel importing in those areas where it WOULD hurt...wherever that may be. Of course that doesn't stop them from sticking it on every DVD even if the movie is 20 years old and already released 10x over around the world. I don't like region coding, but I do recognize the legal justifications for it...that's all. I thought that's what the original poster was asking...how the motion picture industry can justify region coding. Maybe I'm mistaken.

[johnhamler1]

I guess in Europe is less a problem than the Regional coding for USA vs Australia, simply because here, most people do not speak english(I am not talking about UK).

the number of R1 DVD sold here represent less than 1-2%. I am talking about switzerland, but I have seen the same in france and italy.
Sweden and Switzerland have pretty much the same idea about "tolerances".

I surfed the net some time ago, to know what was the fuss with these regional coding, and I remember to have seen somewhere, that It was stricly a problem between DVD producers, and based on freedom of speech and based on human rights, no country can stop you to buy a DVD or import a DVD.So in my point of view it is totally legal to break regional coding.

If it was not, why can you buy a newspaper in a foreign airport and not a DVD?.
The new EU law about the interdiction to remove protections is in this case against the "freedom of speech"and I guess that European shops selling DVD players and giving the codes are in this case totally in their right.

the idea to install codes everywhere in your home come from the USA(even genetic products have their own DNA code), just to protect the US interests(mondialisation?).Here we play the good boys by setting laws(to make US people happy) and at the end nobody really care .

[bern]

Why bother with region code anyway if it's illegal in your country just buy another player they're so cheap these days cheaper in fact than a new DVD. It will set to the region of the first dvd you play in it. You can just buy a player for each region and thats perfectly legal anywhere in the world.

[adam]

johnhamler you can always buy goods while traveling abroad and you are usually allowed to bring them back into your country so long as they do not exceed a certain dollar amount. That is not parallel importing. At the time of transaction it was sold in the country it was licensed to be sold in. But when you are not in that licensed country and you order it then it can constitute parallel importing and yes your country can and may ceize the good. It happens all the time except they simply won't know unless its a bulk order which is why personal importing largely goes unchecked. Most countries do in fact actively ceize grey market goods.

[dragongodz]

But to be clear I'm really not referring to personal importing....that's such a minor thing. I'm talking about the guy who orders 5,000-10,000 DVDs from region 1 and sells them on a street corner or small shop
yes but the fact i was trying to make was that even though number 2 may be illegal in a country it doesnt mean number 1 is. as such they may still be able to get overseas dvds legally.

you can always buy goods while traveling abroad and you are usually allowed to bring them back into your country so long as they do not exceed a certain dollar amount. That is not parallel importing. At the time of transaction it was sold in the country it was licensed to be sold in. But when you are not in that licensed country and you order it then it can constitute parallel importing and yes your country can and may ceize the good.
this was what i was trying to also draw the distiction about. the above is true for some countries and not for others. as i said i can import a dvd for personal use and it is not considered parallel importing. people really need to check their own countries laws to see exactly what they can and cant do.

My point is that the rationale behind regional protection is to aid in the enforcement of restrictions on parallel importing in those areas where it WOULD hurt...wherever that may be.
I do recognize the legal justifications for it...that's all
and thats fair enough. i however also look at what related(personal entertainment) industries such as audio cds and games have experience when parallel importing was allowed here. not only are they related by the nature of the business but by the fact they used the exact same arguments as to why parallel importing should not be allowed. if the justification used for audio cds has proven false here then why should anyone honestly believe that it would be any different for dvds ? this is not to say there may be countries/markets where it may do damage of course but i am interested in why it should be considered justified here and they continue to keep wanting to infact make it even worse for the consumer.

[TonyMo]

As far as I am aware, it's also legal to grey import in the UK... It happens with many goods...

However, it cannot be done with DVD simply because you cannot sell any movie without it being approved by the censorship board and given a UK rating... That's why you don't see Region 1 for sale in the shops, nothing to do with a grey import law per se...

You can however, buy Region 1 through mail order direct from the USA no problem.

[Mug Funky]

it is not illegal to import, whether through buying in person or over the net etc, a dvd for personal use.

(we're talking about australia here)

that's true enough, but selling imported stuff here can have it's problems...

take Minotaur for example. they were selling american and japanese imported anime (at comic-book geek prices... up to 60-80 bucks a disc). they got pwned hard for something like $100,000... by none other than the OFLC. it's okay to import stuff that hasn't got a release here, but if you want to sell it, it must be rated (you, know, G, PG, M, MA, R, X...). they've only started cracking down recently though... a few of the asian VCD shops on Russell St got hit as well. personally i think it's extremely stupid and acts against culture. perhaps viewer/purchaser discretion is a better idea? considering the OFLC get things wrong so often (IMHO) and charge stupid amounts for re-classification (after all, they just have to watch a movie).

also their new rating system (the old one with different colours) is naff - takes up as much space on the cover as a tobacco warning. seriously hurts the collector's appeal, believe me! good thing so much stuff comes with a reversible slick now.

[dragongodz]

that's true enough, but selling imported stuff here can have it's problems...
yes i already tried to make clear the distinction several times now so people understood what i was saying. ;)

[adam]

if the justification used for audio cds has proven false here then why should anyone honestly believe that it would be any different for dvds ? this is not to say there may be countries/markets where it may do damage of course but i am interested in why it should be considered justified here [Australia] and they continue to keep wanting to infact make it even worse for the consumer.

I'm sure I don't know. It may be as simple as that your motion picture industry lobbyists have more money and/or influence than your music industry lobbyists. It may just be a matter of time....or there may be some practical reason why parallel importing would have a more substantial effect as to DVDs than as to CDs. (sounds like a good research project.) I read the entire parallel importing section on your country's website but I confess I forgot most of what it said already. But I do remember alot of talk about the music scene in New Zealand and how opening up CD importing would help it in certain ways, and how that would offset the general undercut of Australia's economy. I also remember that the primary reason that Australia opened up its borders in this way was because New Zealand retained its relatively strict laws regarding parallel importing and that also offset alot of the negative effects.