No Stupid Questions

Yeah it sounds like the general consensus is

"Talk to a copyright lawyer. The idea sounds interesting but legally flimsy if you're doing this in any 'official' capacity (ie: as a business)."

I don't know where you are or what the laws are but this would likely count as a public performance and/or if more than one person accesses the files at a time that would likely be seen as making a copy.

Piracy with extra steps

Insofar as USA law might apply, it may be useful for you to review the legal case involving Internet Archive's CDL program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive

Since the realm of copyright law is inextricably tied to the question, I'm going to try to clarify some points. Firstly, "theft" has never been the correct legal analogy for copyright infringement. That misconception comes from a false equivalency in the late 20th Century to warn would-be infringers of the steep penalties; many Americans will remember the phrase "you wouldn't steal a car", even though the feds cannot charge copyright infringement as theft (which requires a tangible, non-duplicable item, like car theft or wage theft).

In the US at least, it's illegal to stream movies you don't own or don't have the license to stream.

Only the second part is correct: all copyrighted works are used per the license granted from the owner. Such a license may restrict the format that the work is delivered, but not always. The license that accompanies physical media is: 1) irrevocable, and 2) follows the disc's owner (recognized in USA law as the "doctrine of first sale"). So long as the disc is owned and intact, the license is good. Furthermore, under "fair use", it is allowed to make copies of works for either: a) time shifting (ie recording a live broadcast to watch it later) or b) to change the format, aka compatibility. The latter is why it's allowable to rip a DVD into a personal Jellyfin server. It's valid so long as the license is still good, which applies so long as you still own/possess the disc.

By participating in the co-op, when you stream a movie, ownership of that physical media and the digital copy is temporarily transferred to you.

Two counterexamples come to mind, the first being the Internet Archive case that I linked earlier. The second is a Supreme Court ruling against a company that rented miniature TV receivers located in metro areas across the country. In that case, SCOTUS found that although it's fine to rent out a TV receiver, the license for the over-the-air transmission was only valid within physical range of the signal. So conveying the TV content beyond the metro area created a copyright infringement, and the company was actively facilitating that. That company doesn't exist anymore, due to the crushing legal liability.

They are expensive for the library and don't have great selection

Most libraries are funded from a budget, and negotiate e-book and e-movie access based on an approximate estimate of concurrent users, not on a per-user basis. Otherwise, those libraries would have uncontrolled costs if everyone decides to stream Die Hard (1988) at the same time on Christmas Day; it's definitely a Christmas film. Quite frankly, most libraries would be thrilled if more people obtained library cards and used the services, because it justifies the budget for the library and proves its value to the community.

If you aren't finding the content you want at your library, the best thing to do is to request what you want. Libraries are always buying new materials or access to more services. But unless library cardholders voice an opinion, the librarians will just choose generically. Be the change you want to see.

Technologically, creating a co-op is always an possibility. But always remember that the very concept of a public library is "grandfathered" and if we had to reintroduce it, the establishment would never allow it. Cherish libraries as the crucial community resources that they are. The precise form might change, but the library role must always endure.

TL;DR: the idea is legally unsound. Instead, buy discs to form a community library and share the discs, basically a Blockbuster co-op. Or advocate for a better public library.

So sharing your plex library, but you’re paying for access? That’s probably more illegal than just letting your friend access it.

This is a really interesting idea. Seems similar to running a public library but as a private entity.

I’m sure there’s a thousand ways rights holders would invent new bullshit to make this immediately illegal.

This seems like a type of private club, where your admission depends on legally contributing content.

Playing along, what happens if I leave? Are they no longer my materials, as though I donated when I joined or will they be returned and the "club" will no longer have access?

If there's one copy of "Space Wars" contributed, is it unavailable if someone is already streaming/reserving it?

Soooo...like Netflix before streaming?

A: In the US at least, it's illegal to stream movies you don't own or don't have the license to stream. By participating in the co-op, when you stream a movie, ownership of that physical media and the digital copy is temporarily transferred to you.

Is it illegal to stream or is it just illegal to upload files?

Also how does ownership transfer to the user and how are they streaming physical, DRM-protected media? I would think it was the distribution company who determines who gets licenses not a coop that just happens to own a copy of the movie.

I'm not sure I see the difference between this and you just giving your friends and family access to your Plex/Jellyfin server. It seems like the same thing but with more self-imposed hoops to jump through that don't really change the legality of anything, but IANAL.

I’d like this. There’s always some obscure movies you can’t get that someone else may have that aren’t yet on torrent sites.

It took me over a decade to find Who Made the Potatoe Salad until it finally popped up on some torrent site a few years ago. Would have been nice to have this for that and to share some of my obscure movies too. I have a wide collection still just sitting on my shelf since it’s all digital now.

In case if the coop ever gets shut down or I lose my membership, it’d be nice to have a reliable database so I can get my movies back.

In New Zealand, there is a provision in the copyright law that handily makes having a copy legal, while also making it impractical for most people.

Prior to the addition of the format-shifting provision, making a copy was always illegal (eg that recording on your VCR was illegal). Adding the provision made it legal, but subtly also not generally useful.

The format-shifting exception allows the owner of the physical media to make a copy themselves, for their own use. If they transfer ownership of the physical media they must destroy the copy (they can't even pass on the convenience to the next owner).

Since making copies is more technical than is practical for the masses, most cannot take advantage of the provision - and that's the way copyright owners like it.

I'm guessing if there's any leg to stand on here, it'd be local with older content. An 'item library' at first (even if the physical copy is kept safe for archival, with only 1 rented-out copy).

For digital, it'd be local network. I know the PS3 had renting videos, so it could be interesting if stuff like that could be managed in that way (if it can be rebranded as its own distinct entity). I assume the problem would be no capability to rent a copy to 1 user, specifically when it comes to the storefront. Unless custom homebrew was made (waiting lists etc) to handle it properly.

And this would probably only work in an intentional community that has other reasons to exist. (personally I like the idea but don't think it'd ever be an option for me... travel, living costs, lack of info online, etc)

Im intrigued, but I have questions.

How exactly does the buy in work?

Means TV is a streaming service that runs like a co-op, but as far as I know subscribers don't get a share in said co-op.

Your idea is certainly interesting, though.