I'm sure their graduate lawyer can sort out any legal stoushes they find themselves in...

Could you iscsi over the internet to a remote dvd drive? That would probably be legal, right?

Lending movies isnt illegal long as its not for public consumption etc, but converting them to digital format is the area that gets messy...... add in $$$ and it gets worse....

MPAA will be all over that quicker than cable TV on Aereo!

Cease and Desist/DMCA orders along with Gucci clad lawyers arriving at their (and kickstarter's) offices in 3...2...1..... 

Sounds like a great idea... an NZMCA member was recently suggesting this for our campsites. put any DVDs in the window you want to swap and we'll come visit with the ones we'd like to swap back...

Second hand bookstores have been doing this for years too, though again only in 'hardcopy' format. 

another issue would be if they got more recent videos... how could/would they manage to lend it to only one person at a time? (and manage the million deep queue that would soon form too!)

PhantomNVD:

 

How could/would they manage to lend it to only one person at a time? (and manage the million deep queue that would soon form too!)

 

Thats the kicker, you need one physical copy for every concurrent lending that occurs to even claim this is legal,

But given that ripping DVDs for personal use (let along for this) is still technically illegal in the US ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/its-still-illegal-to-rip-dvd-and-blu-ray-discs-for-personal-use/) the are gonne run into trouble real fast....

xpd:

 

Lending movies isnt illegal long as its not for public consumption etc, but converting them to digital format is the area that gets messy...... add in $$$ and it gets worse....

 

Funny thing was that Kiwi guy who just settled out of court in a *civil* case, having committed massive, active piracy - over 4,500 different movies for download -  yet Kim Dotcom is facing extraditions for not actually pirating a single thing himself - his users did that - and the DMCA specificially offered immunity to people who operated such services provided they responded to copyright claims by rights holders....which he did. 

Something there doesn't add up at all.