EFF Wins Promo CD Resale Case 252
DJMajah writes "Universal Music Group's case against Troy Augusto, fought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has been dismissed by a federal judge. UMG sued Augusto, the owner of Roast Beast Music, over 26 eBay listings of promotional CDs. UMG argued that promo CDs distributed for free to radio stations, DJs and other industry insiders could not be resold; the discs usually carry a label reading 'For promotional use only, not for resale.' UMG asserted the doctrine of first sale does not apply, as the discs were not actually sold and therefore remained UMG's property. The judge ruled that the doctrine does apply because the discs were gifts. The labels indicate no expectation of their return."
And books? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The EFF sure taught the industry a lesson! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sheesh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wish in one hand...and you'll soon be washing them both
you're forgetting option 3, of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Yay!
Re:Please return this post ... or I'll sue you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Because they need someone to pay for all the free copies they send to the stores. It's not that strange really, it gets put in the 'marketing' budget, probably costs more money than they give to the actual artists (if it isnt just outright deducted from the artists part of the revenue), and then they can whine about how expensive it is to produce and distribute music.
Of course, this kind of waste only makes sense when you have monopoly rights; if there was actual competition they'd get undersold in a heartbeat and the practice would disappear or at the very least get minimized. But when you dont have significant pricing pressure then spending like this is useful. And with music it also has several further effects; if cd's get sent to dj's and stores will be reluctant to pay for music to play. If dj's, radios and stores expect to get their music for free then unsigned artists cant afford to compete.
So you get the consumers to pay for the limiting of their choices. Way to go for the promotion of the arts, eh.
Re:ok, this one's idiotic for a change (Score:3, Interesting)
As for "it's the world we live in now" I disagree. We've only had there DRM problems for a few years, we're not locked into this situation yet. I don't want to see us wind up in exactly the situation that you're describing, but as a long-term problem.
In general, I think that's the solution to 95% of consumer-level legal problems -- to simply have a collection of well-publicized legal agreements, also for small business-to-business relationships, with very standard phrases, interests, causes, and solutions. Along with that comes very standard ways of enforcing them. Basically expanding the concepts of "small claims court" into something that covers basic contract agreements.
Re:Exactly Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine the law was built in a time where you spent months or years developing something, a few days with the agreement, and a few days with the transmission. So if the agreement took one day or five days, it was inconsequential to the entire multi-month process.
Today, we're talking about days or weeks to develop something, a few weeks with the agreement, and a few seconds with the transmission. Now the agreement being one versus five days is a huge ordeal, and weeks makes it the most substantial portion of the process. That's why the law, or the way that the law is followed, needs to be adjusted. Perhaps with nothing more than highly-publicised standardized agreements, that are accepted or declined upon delivery. I don't know.
For example, my corporation is developing a kiosk -- whatever a copmuter in a box. We have to meet, among other things, electrical safety laws. One of which is that no one even close to human should be able to stick a finger through an opening and reach anything of any decent voltage -- we actually have to stop people from intentionally commiting suicide by breaking the box open with any reasonable amount of force. That's all fine.
But we can't even use standard computer fans -- because they aren't impedence protected. That means that where Dell gets to use $3.00 fans, we have to use $25.00 fans. Dell gets to certify their million dollar factory. We have to have individual units evaluated (because our quantities are not anywhere near high enough to warrant destructive testing).
The law is from 1976.
2008 represents an interesting age in human history. We're at that point where industries evolve and turn over faster than laws can be matured to meet those industries. As a result, my kiosk industry is actually built on the basis of companies not following the law. For example, your CSA-certified Dell computer is no longer CSA-certified when you replace a fan, or a power supply. That's fine when you do it. But when Future Shop does it for you, it's illegal unless they have a government inspector evaluate the machine in its entirety after the repair. Do you think they do it? If they don't, it's entirely illegal for you to even plug it into the city power grid, and it's also illegal for Future Shop to give it back to you.
1976.
Re:If I were to donate to any tech foundation (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I know this from personal experience from a few years back.
Re:And books? (Score:2, Interesting)
So if there is a printed copyright notice on the disc stating "unauthorized reproduction, distribution, adaptation, public performance is prohibited" then obviously that is a contract to which the radio station owner is not bound according to this ruling because he received the phonorecord as a gift.
Does that suggest that the radio station owner obtains the intellectual property rights to the sound recording and the musical work, as well as all of the printed materials, including lyrics and images, not to mention the trademarks of the record company and the publisher which are imprinted on the disc? Admittedly, those are not "material assets," but they were technically included as an integral part of the gift, and ownership of the item was clearly transfered in whole not in part.
--Randall
Re:And books? (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL, etc., etc.
Re:The EFF sure taught the industry a lesson! (Score:3, Interesting)
Requiring me to properly dispose of something I received in the mail, unordered, is also not something that a sender can do.
For that matter, requiring people to do anything at all, ever, is pretty much a non-starter unless you're collecting taxes, serving a warrant, or issuing a summons.
It costs me money to get rid of trash, and it takes time for me to throw it away. (Yes, yes. Not very bloody much money, and not very much time. But an infinite multiple of zero, nonetheless.)
Imagine, if you will: Suppose I send you a package in the mail. It has a label on the outside with several paragraphs of terms and conditions, followed by "If you don't agree to these terms, you must properly dispose of this package immediately or face a fine of up to $250,000 and 5 years in jail."
Hazardous waste disposal just got a lot easier...