Even Century Old Records Had Restrictive Licensing

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."

Common

[scrotch]

It was probably necessary to make a clear distinction at that early point that when you bought the record, you did not buy the copyright to the recorded sound.

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.

Who _deserves_ quality music?..

[mi]

if we want to give out grandchildren the music quality they deserve...

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?

I think you're confused

[spun]

Patents and copyright are not the same thing. It's a generic rendition of Ave Maria, how much you want to bet it was a work for hire? That's 120 years, man. Even if not, it's 90 years after the death of the author. It's more than likely still under copyright.

Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism.

[CastrTroy]

I find it odd that with all the talk of patents on Slashdot that I had never heard of this case before. We all complain about the RIAA/MPAA and others, but they are just doing the same thing that has been done by everybody else for ages. It's kind of funny when you look at a "lift-the-flap" book for 1 year olds, and they have some legal jargon on it saying how you can't photocopy or duplicate the product in whole or in part in any way. Even though photocopying books for personal use is legal, and photocopying is a somewhat useless duplication method for a book which is "lift-the-flap".

I call fake!

[CrazyTalk]

That so-called license agreement on the back looks too similar to modern day EULA. Granted, modern copyright agreements have had their roots in older laws, but what the article presents seems like too much of a joke.

Huh?

[iknownuttin]

The reason that Hollywood was set up in southern California is that Edison was unable to pursue his royalty and usage claims against movies there.

That's a new one. The history I've always heard basically says that the movie industry started there because of the sunshine. Don't forget, back then, hey didn't have these lights they have now. Of course, here's Wiki for more:

After hearing about this wonderful place, in 1913 many movie-makers headed west. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?..

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is it coming from? It's right in the bargain that copyright represents. The creator of the work gets the exclusive rights for a period of time, protected by the law, and after a period of time the work falls into the public domain.

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.

Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?..

[killercoder]

Ignoring the commercial aspects of music for a moment. Music, especially popular music, is a product of a culture. The descendants of that culture (our children, and children's children) have a right to experience the original culture that spawned them Music as a property is a relatively new concept. In old times, professional singers would adapt and extend the material they heard from their competititors - they would adapt it enhance it, and sell it. I totally agree that CD's or any other physical item of music is a item of property - something for which the music industry can sue for counterfeiting. I draw the line at making the sheer act of listening to music from an unauthorized source illegal. Intellectual property is an oxymoron.

Re:I think you're confused

[CastrTroy]

I can't remember, but weren't all the copyright extensions retroactive. I thought this was the reason even a lot of the original Disney/Mickey Mouse stuff was still under copyright.

special pricing

[192939495969798999]

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. Why can't the RIAA just enjoy sales as well? Oh yeah, because no one buys an entire record to listen to one track? How is that piracy's fault?

Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?..

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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?

Do you deserve history? If you think society's history needs to be locked up and served out on a pay-per-view basis, then at least you would be consistent. Meanwhile, to address your last question, it's freedom of expression that guarantees the right to copy. Nothing completely new is ever created nowadays, every phrase, every sketch, every melody all use what has come before in varying degrees.

Re:Bah!

[Undertaker43017]

"Monopolies are the "natural" mature state of markets because some asshat sees the opportunity in doing things like, owning the entire supply of some good or coordinating prices and supply with their nearest competitors, or legislating barriers to market."

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 more non-RIAA members producing high quality music and using the Internet to distribute what they produce at a reasonable cost. With the cost of hardware dropping and the quality of home studio software rising, more and more acts have taken to doing everything themselves, or finding cheap local alternatives to RIAA members. It is only the no talent "Britney's", "Idol's" and "Boy bands" that need the RIAA to make them successful.

If anything the actions of the RIAA resemble a monopoly that is desperately trying anything it can to hold on to it's once powerful position.
 

Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism.

[JoeCommodore]

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.

Re:Bah!

[dada21]

Monopolies are the "natural" mature state of markets because some asshat sees the opportunity in doing things like, owning the entire supply of some good or coordinating prices and supply with their nearest competitors, or legislating barriers to market.

Ridiculous and proven wrong by many economists and by actual market proofs. First of all, if someone legislates a barrier to a market, then it isn't a free market to begin with, so you can't say that a monopoly comes from a free market, but from a State-regulated one. Monopolies ONLY exist when they're regulated INTO existance. The Enron Fiasco happened because of the State, not because of the market. Even the so-called monopoly of Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly!

Rockefeller would buy competitors and merge them into his company. By becoming more efficient, his prices fell. Then those same competitors would turn around and re-enter the market, competing with Rockefeller with NEWER efficiencies, which he then bought, merged, and lowered prices more. Guess what? Those competitors started new companies, rinse, repeat. When Esso started, oil was 30 cents a gallon (1869). By 1897, it was 0.29 cents per gallon (yes, about 4 gallons per cent!). The only reason Standard Oil was "broken up" was because competition was killing it by 1911 (Associated Oil, Texaco, Gulf, and the hundred other companies), and one competitor that failed in competing had a idiot daughter muckraker who wrote a book-of-lies. Her name was Ida M. Tarbell.

Markets do not create monopolies, in fact the only thing that stops a competitor from competing is THE artificial barrier to compete that we call State regulation. Even if YOU think some market is cost-prohibitive to enter, others will take a risk, en masse, to try to compete if they can. Every market with big complaints is a market with big regulations. Every market with minimal complaints is a market with minimal regulations.

If you try to buy up all the goods of a given market, you will have to have the money to do so, and no individual can. This means other individuals must invest in a company to buy all the raw materials. Once you buy all the raw materials, you need the warehouses to store them (temporarily, because once you've manufactured them, you won't need the warehouses, right?), distribute them to retail, sell them, and wonder what to do once you run out of raw materials. Ain't gonna happ'n.

If you try to collude with competitors, you'll fail because more competition will come into the market. Only States can keep cartels alive and profitable.

It doesn't and it hasn't.

Sure it has. Look at restaurants in the US. They're relatively unregulated, and you get a HUGE choice and selection of foods at various prices and qualities and speeds. That's a relatively unregulated market. Restaurants open and close constantly which is how the market operates to keep efficient and high-demand suppliers in business. Unfortunately, State regulations are slowly killing even the restaurant business.

Look at cell phones. Any single person of any credit score can go out and get a free cell phone with no contract today. Even though the communications back-end is highly regulated, we still have intense competition. Imagine where prices would fall to and service levels would bloom to if regulations were reduced (or removed) in this market?

Look at PCs, another relatively unregulated market. Even with patents and copyright, it is still highly competitive, because of the relatively open market of production and distribution and sales.

Re:Lockout chip business model

[MindStalker]

No it really isn't different. Nintendo cartridges today are very similar legally to Records of old. Its a new technology, coupled with a special player. People just got used to open ended video and audio. So companies can't get away with it anymore.

Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism.

[bky1701]

Or Mac OS.

Re:Lockout chip business model

[TheoMurpse]

Which of Nintendo's, Sony's, or Microsoft's video game consoles doesn't have terms like these attached to it?

I call bullshit. You can play Sega (or Turbografx or something) games on the Wii, Capcom games on the Xbox, and SquareEnix games on the PlayStation 2.

Besides that, show me the console license with those restrictions. There is a difference between license restrictions and technological limitations. That's like getting pissed at Apple that their computers can't play Halo 2 and blaming licensing restrictions instead of the fact that, oh, THEY RUN DIFFERENT OPERATING SYSTEMS (and Apple can't run DirectX 10 stuff).

Or how about complaining that my iPod can't play the latest CD I bought? Maybe because THERE'S NO CD DRIVE TO PUT THE MEDIA IN?!?! Sheesh.

Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism.

[MorpheousMarty]

Although it is true that RIAA is using an age old tactic to hold onto rights, the real issue is that as everything moves to the digital age the physical limitations associated with such rights start to melt away. I think most of us here actually approve of copyright and patents (this is not an invitation to flame me), but simply find the RIAA to be approaching the problem in useless way. File sharing is impossible to stop. Digital media has no limits on duplication. We complain about the RIAA because we know that all the legal trouble they are causing will net them nothing, seeing as they aren't adapting to the landscape.

Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism.

[westlake]

What's even worse, is the EULA on an actual victrola. Yes.. I do actually own an RCA victrola and the EULA on it says that you can only play RCA records on it.

Uniform standards for phonograph records and players all evolved very late. Disk size. Speed. Composition. The shape of the needle. The Columbia disk - might - be playable on the Victrola. But that did not mean that what you heard would bear listening. The acoustic Victrola was impressive - and expensive - tech for it's day. The Victor-Victrola Page [victor-victrola.com]

Re:Lockout chip business model

[tepples]

You can play Sega (or Turbografx or something) games on the Wii

You mean Sega games picked by Nintendo on the Wii.

Capcom games on the Xbox

You mean Capcom games picked by Microsoft on the Xbox and Xbox 360.

and SquareEnix games on the PlayStation 2.

You mean Square Enix games picked by Sony Computer Entertainment on the PlayStation 2.

Besides that, show me the console license with those restrictions.

Several new consoles' manuals include wording in the manual along the lines of "You agree not to add a modchip to this console." Should I dig out my PS2's manual to find the exact wording?

That's like getting pissed at Apple that their computers can't play Halo 2 and blaming licensing restrictions instead of the fact that, oh, THEY RUN DIFFERENT OPERATING SYSTEMS (and Apple can't run DirectX 10 stuff).

There's a big difference between a console not being able to run games due to architectural differences and a console not being able to run games due to a lack of the console maker's digital signature. The first can be overcome by hobbyists (i.e. cross-GCC); the second cannot without a modchip.

Or how about complaining that my iPod can't play the latest CD I bought? Maybe because THERE'S NO CD DRIVE TO PUT THE MEDIA IN?!?!

But at least iTunes software for Mac OS X and Windows doesn't have a whitelist of Apple-approved CDs that can be copied to the iPod player.