Slashdot Log In
Even Century Old Records Had Restrictive Licensing
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:11 PM
from the old-dog-same-tricks dept.
from the old-dog-same-tricks dept.
natch writes "While rummaging through some old records at an antique store I found some turn-of-the-century Victor Record Company pressings. The label on the back laid out the terms of use, something similar to an EULA. In today's modern world of RIAA lawsuits and DRM, it's interesting to note that similar tactics have been in use by record companies for over a century, restricting your right to use what you purchased. The label clearly states that unless the record was sold for at least one dollar, there is no license to use it."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The problem is our present-day exceptionalism. (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time an article on IT patents comes up, I immediately think about the Selden [wikipedia.org] Patent, and the effect that dispute had on the development of automobiles at the dawn of the 20th century. It's difficult to say how things would have turned out if the patent hadn't been granted, or if it had been invalidated earlier, but it certainly shaped the landscape dramatically. (Whether for the better or worse is arguable -- probably its biggest effect was the boost it gave one Henry Ford, who challenged the Selden-patent-backed oligopoly [wikipedia.org].)
But you can see many of the same legal arguments and constructs that occur in modern patent wars in the Selden conflict: the cartel of companies who had the patent tried to use it aggressively to stifle competition, first attacking other producers, then trying to end-run them and threatening customers directly to keep them away from competing products. In response, upstart producers (like Ford) who didn't license the patent agreed to indemnify their customers against the cartel's possible suits. It ground forward, both in the courts and in the public eye, for years, and eventually concluded itself when Ford won a around in court and the Selden/ALAM side couldn't afford to continue the fight. The actual utility of the patent to the public was basically never considered.
What is most interesting out of all this is that we really haven't changed anything. It's almost universally agreed that the Selden Patent was a debacle -- regardless of one's feelings of George Selden, his patent did nothing to encourage the development of automobiles, and it almost certainly resulted in a lot of wasted effort on the part of all concerned -- yet virtually no changes were made to the patent system in response. And now we have similar situations repeating themselves, over and over.
But I suppose that shouldn't really come as any surprise. It's been almost 155 years since Dickens published "Bleak House," and, legal details excepted, you could probably set that story -- its bankruptcy-inducing proceedings, with their grinding slowness and vulturous lawyers -- just as easily in 2007 Delaware as you could in 1842 England.
Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
England here. Just thought I'd point out that you could probably set that story just as easily in 2007 England as you could in 2007 Delaware. Except there'd be CCTV cameras outside the courts, inside the courts, on the stree
Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Lockout chip business model (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do actually own an RCA victrola and the EULA on it says that you can only play RCA records on it. Now at least our current licenses aren't that bad...
Yeah, it's not like some PC manufacturer is saying you can only run Windows on thier products in order to receive hardware warranty support... oh.. wait.
Parent
Common (Score:5, Insightful)
Licenses of some type are pretty common to make clear the fact that you did not buy all rights to something. Your apartment lease declares that just because you paid some money, you don't own the building and you can't tear down walls. With a relatively new technology, it was more important to specify what you had actually purchased. And since it was the seller making those declarations, it was naturally as limited as capitalism would allow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Proper way to click an EULA (Score:3, Funny)
Getting the Friskies treats out from between the keys is a bitch, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that markets want to naturally move toward monopolies, the Internet and technology have derailed the RIAA's attempts.
Due to cheaper recording and production costs the RIAA doesn't have nearly the monopoly they did 20 years ago. There are many
Not the entire story (Score:4, Informative)
Smaller oil companies sold out to Standard Oil because they either had to sell, or die. Standard Oil brooked no competition, and had the market power to destroy smaller companies, such as dropping the price of gasoline below cost, to bleed a weaker competitor of money, and then raising the price again once the competitor was destroyed. They would use methods other than competition, if need be.
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Yes, a citation is needed; however, I learned this not from Wikipedia, but during one of my college economics class. Wikipedia was just an easy place to point.
This kind of practice is exactly what maintains a monopoly, once established. Government intervention is a contributor in many cases (such as the current oil cartel), but there comes a point when a corporation has more control over an industry than the government can possibly wield.
For instance, the software industry was unregulated by the government, but it didn't stop Microsoft from becoming a monopoly. Certainly, they didn't start off as a monopoly, but once they achieved market dominance, they pushed their weight about quite effectively. It's at the point where only two operating systems even stand a chance at holding on in the industry, one completely free software (Linux), and the other based on free software (OS X).
Some potential competitors were merely incompetent (IBM, with OS/2; Netscape, with Netscape), but many were perfectly competent, like BeOS and Digital Research, but were cock-blocked by Microsoft, who had the market clout to control the distribution chain.
This is what Rockefeller and Gates both understood: control the distribution chain, and you control the market. This is also the whole point of the ??AAs.
What else are Microsoft's recent "patent" deals about, if not to control the Linux distribution chain? What else might the RIAA's lawsuit rampage be, except an attempt to clamp down on a distribution model it cannot control?
Find the company who controls distribution, and you find the monopoly.
Parent
Even worse on fair use (Score:5, Funny)
That's why we got first sale doctrine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For how much longer I wonder? I think the *AAs are trying very hard to get that taken away from us -- I'm sure someone somewhere is preparing a brief to a judge which says that every time someone buys a second hand CD, they lose money and god kills a kitten.
Cheers
don't care, it won't play on my Edison anyway (Score:5, Funny)
Books too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Books too (Score:4, Interesting)
The "except in the US" is added because first sale in the US prohibits such a condition from being enforced in any way. It is routine here for university libraries to buy trade paperbacks, especially for replacement books, and have them rebound, sometimes even scanning the cover and reprinting it onto a new hardback cover. More power to them, I say. Where this is not legal it results in a premium on books for libraries (since libraries generally will not lend out paperbacks; they do fall apart).
Parent
EULA (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was also because of the land:
Three decades earlier Hollywood had been chosen by the emergent film industry for more than just a balmy climate and abundant sunshine. Within a day's drive from Los Angeles was an astonishing variety of topography. Hitchcock found on a production-office wall a map of California that marked where within the state could be found the Blue Nile, the Swi
I call fake! (Score:3, Insightful)
My great-grandfather was sued for this! (Score:5, Funny)
Some angry fists were shaken that day, I'll bet.
I've seen exactly that kind of license (Score:5, Interesting)
The claims made by the license are that (1) The content of the book is being licensed to the original purchaser and (2) the terms of the license do not allow the purchaser to resell the book.
This sort of thing went out with the recognition of the First Sale Doctrine in 1908. Software appears to be an exception to the First Sale doctrine -- at least depending on which US circuit court district you're in.
Patent, not copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but that reads like a license to the patents, not to copyright of the recording. Those patents would have long since expired.
There was no copyright protection of audio recordings until 1909.
But since you mention the RIAA, there was an organization of a very similar kind of company called the "Motion Picture Patents Company" in the early 20th century that held all rights to movie recording and projection. They sought to keep audience expectations low, marketing uniformly low-quality and cheap movies. They sued anyone who got near. The MPPC's strategy ended up starving itself to death in 1918, as independent movie makers figured ways to make creative and entertaining movies, while getting around the patents. (Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs)
Old magazines (Score:3, Interesting)
(As an adult, I can say with some confidence that the company would honor the coupon, if only for the PR value of having someone redeem 75 year old coupon!)
Turn of the century? (Score:4, Informative)
1909 Copyright Act (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting in the modern copyright debate, because it was the start of the notion that the producers of derivative works (for example, a recording of a composition) owe royalties to the producer of the original work (sheet music). Furthermore, the 1909 law determined that records and so on would be treated nearly exactly like books (minus the statutory license), in terms of duration, etc. There was an opportunity to set up a totally different copyright system for audio works (which are fundamentally different from the written word), but rather than innovate, Congress established the system that is so abused today.
The 1909 (and 1891, which had to do with recognizing international copyright) copyright laws had very interesting impacts on the development of copyright. Did you know that in 1906, the Aeolian Company (the major producers of player pianos and rolls) was working to set up what was essentially a statutory monopoly based on the exclusive property of traditional copyrights? To put it simply (and oversimplify), they attempted to create a situation very similiar to what the RIAA has been enjoying in American for a while now - exclusive control over most/all popular (money-making) music. It's because of their attempted monopoly that statutory licensing was developed in America.
So in relation to the main topic - if those old records were made before 1909, they actually had no copyright at all - you'll see no copyright notice on it anywhere. However, these kinds of things were thought to be covered in some degree by patents, and the 1909 law also established where patent-rights ended and copyrights began in regards to records.
disclaimer - I studied the political, not legal, aspects of copyright development.
Very difficult to listen to this record. (Score:3, Interesting)
You could probably wave the record in the air and listen to the wind whistling through the hole.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't until some decades later that modern record players (which ran at about half the rotational speed, and used vinyl for the records) were introduced, requiring some additional form of amplification. You can listen to a modern record directly if you put your ear close to the stylus, but it's very quiet. The
special pricing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"This is why some stores say "prices too low to print/etc!" in their ads. There is some deal where if you put "acme label" then you have to charge their minimum price. Just like there are clever ways around this, I'm sure that acme label really enjoys the sales no matter how they are generated."
Yup; it's called a MAP program. When Apple and other companies we love do it, it's fine. When Universal does it with Tower Records, it's price fixing. Universal got nailed for this after Best Buy and Wal-Mart com
collector of 78s here... (Score:4, Informative)
When records became double-sided, this was moved to the sleeve, and it was shortened in later years.
What remained on labels for a long time was 'Not licensed for radio braodcast'
What probably happened is the reason this format didn't stay on is because of the wide distribution of records. In 1906, discs were JUST starting to become popular. The record industry probably decided they didn't need it anymore. These records were ruined after a handful of plays on the players back then, anyway. Plus, 78s are very breakable, like a dinner plate. It wasn't oncommon for records to be bought multiple times by the same person due to breakage, wear, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
sale to PUBLIC (Score:4, Informative)
The EULA actually says that there is no license if the record is sold to the public for less than $1. I think that means that the restriction applies only to the first retail sale. Subsequent purchases are not restricted - buying the record used for 50 cents is perfectly alright.
Even Older Than That (Score:3, Funny)
Patents and copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I think you're confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think you're confused (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I think you're confused (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A hundred years... (Score:4, Funny)
What, and not be able to hit F5 constantly throughout the day? You must be new here.
Parent
Who _deserves_ quality music?.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is this sense of entitlement coming from? I deserve free (or low cost) entertainment. My grandchildren deserve music quality... WTF? Is there something in the Constitution, that I missed?
Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the sense of "entitlement" exists in the same sense as if I said "If you pay me first, I'll give you something later", or vice-versa. i.e., it's like a contract, and the public deserves to be paid their half after granting a monopoly for a reasonable period of time, in advance.
The way you're talking, it's as if you walked into a restaurant, ate a nice meal, and then act surprised at the request that you pay up. I suppose if you had to sign a contract to eat it might be more obvious, but the bargain does exist.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3 pole filter at 18db/octave (etc.... get the idea?)
Anyway, if you want to sample at 44100 hz, what is the highest frequency you can
record? While 20049 hz might be the absolute answer, with only a single pole filter
this won't sound very good. So how good a filter DO we need? Given the CD's
dynamic range of about 100db, we'd probably need something like a 16 pole filter to
do the job. Building such a filter using active elem
Re: (Score:3, Informative)