Slashdot Mirror
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."
While the Victrola "EULA" described in TFA is a new one to me, damaging intellectual property disputes are definitely not something that's unique to our time.
Every time an article on IT patents comes up, I immediately think about the Selden 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.)
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And the RIAA still hasn't been overthrown? We seriously need to get off our computers and do something if we want to give out grandchildren the music quality they deserve...
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
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.
The license restricts ripping to wax cylinders or whistling of said tune.
I don't think that phrase means what you think it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
It wasn't until in 1908 that Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus established the first sale doctrine, which ruled that copyright does not give the holder the right to control re-sale of items once sold.
darn all these pesky different formats!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
That should be 'our,' not 'out.' Please forgive me just this once...
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
That happened on the inside cover of books too, before the days of 17 U.S.C. 109 (AKA First Sale).
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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. Of course, with eventual financial success came the inevitable incentive to get together to sock it to the customer.
I see your point.
But if you put a hat on, it may hide it.
...will be treated as infringers of said patents...
Is it possible to infringe on an expired patent?
I believe some disambiguation/declarations of rights is okay.
But there is NO moderating force in capitalism, much less in our current political climate.
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.
I could go on, but the point is you mistakenly follow the politically expedient rationale that capitalism/privatization is some kind of silver bullet that solves all problems. It doesn't and it hasn't.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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.
This is wrong. In fact, you can copy all you want since the copyright for the song has expired. The song is now in public domain and RIAA can;t sue a person for copying a song which is in public domain.
Some angry fists were shaken that day, I'll bet.
I hope you paid at least $23.36 for that record, else you're in violation!
(That's actually not too bad for 107 years or so...)
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Look! Not a single paid advertisement on the site. The entire article even fits on one page.
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.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
on the inside covers of books from that period (ca. 1905).
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"it's interesting to note that similar tactics have been in use by record companies for over a century."
A revelation no doubt common in people who think the media are biased cesspools of sensationalist crap designed entirely to manipulate the population out of quasi-fascist capitalist greed...until they pick up an 1890's edition of the San Francisco Examiner and realize contrary to their previous perception, things have actually markedly improved.
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)
Just like many modern EULAs that text is a bunch of unenforceable nonsense. At the time that record was pressed there was no copyright protectin for recorded sound... so they made a hand-waving argument that somehow a couple of patents on the phonograph hardware protected their recording. It's a load of rubbish and would never have been enforceable, but it probably caused enough pause to be worth the cost of printing the warning.
So did you rip them?
Torrent link plz?
Patents issued to Emilie Jelly Donut?
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Don't you mean 1900 to 1901? Remember the hype? Y2K was not the new century. New centuries always start on the xx01 year.
You stand corrected. No need to thank me.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Emile: Ich bin ein Berliner
(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!)
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Well that was only 7 years ago. What were you expecting?
http://www.conestogac.on.ca/eet/museum/museum.htm
Of course, RCA was quick to assert its rights while ripping off the IP of others; Edwin Howard Armstrong in particular. Armstrong invented and patented several important (FM and Super Hetrodyne for instance). RCA literally lawyered him to death. Once he was dead, RCA gave his widow what they had offered him about thirty years previously. Plus ca change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Armstrong
I wrote my senior thesis in College on a related topic - in part, the development of the 1909 copyright law, which had a big impact on records, phonographs, etc. Prior to 1909, records, piano rolls, and so on actually had no copyright at all. Piano roll and talking machine companies (which is what record companies were known as back then) actually fought to keep records and rolls uncopyright-able as a way of preventing them from having to pay royalties to composers. The idea that composers - the writers of music - would get royalties from records or piano rolls (in addition to sheet music, which is what they traditionally got royalties for) was established in law in 1909 too.
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.
Restrictive licensing had even century old records.
Another slow news day?
P.S. To Slashdotteurs: Please don't respond with "if you don't like it leave". This is the United Gulags of America. I know I have
no rights because of this despot.
The EULA only allows "producing sound directly from the record". I don't think that would allow playing it on a record player, as the player is a device that indirectly produces sound.
You could probably wave the record in the air and listen to the wind whistling through the hole.
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?
stuff |
You would only need a license for public performance or copying, not for listening to it.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
After all it was just pushed into their home via radio waves, and they have the right to record this song for their own personal use, so why can't they copy it from someone else? It appears that a significant portion of the population doesn't see anything wrong with copying music, and I have a feeling that we're just around the corner from a paradigm shift in the way copyrights are handled.
...except it shifted the other way. Back in the seventies they had cassette tapes and eight track tapes. Friends would bring albums over and we would tape them. Nobody thought twice about it, and although never illegal, the practice was completely legalized with the Audio Home Recording Act of 1978.
The paradigm has already shifted!
The paradigm shift was the record companies purchase of the US Government and the outlawing of this very same practice when done digitally.
Curiously, some of my best sounding CDs are the ones I sampled from vinyl. If I want to show off my twelve inch three way JBLs, or my six speaker car stereo, I play a CD I made from vinyl. Also interesting is the fact that I have never ever heard a CD I would confuse with a live recording, but when played on a turntable you can close your eyes and Van Halen I sounds like the band is in the living room. Neither the store-bought CD nor the sampled from vinyl CD will fool you like that. Also interesting is that I bought Led Zepplin's presence on CD (before I learned the truth), thinking that the vinyl sounded so good it would be killer. Sadly, my sampled from vinyl version sounds better than the one I bought at the store!
The labels have always lied on their covers, with things like "duplication of this phonorecord is strictly forbidden" when in fact the 1978 AHRA had specifically put the lie to it, or the "this CD was originally recorded in analog media. Although every effort was made to preserve the original sound, digital recording's superior nature" bla bla bla. The fact is that a CD of a work that was originally recorded analog will have the worst of both worlds; each has strengths and weaknesses. E.g. You cannot reproduce an undistorted 15khz wave at a CD's 44k sampling rate, but digital introduces no new noise. Digital's superior dynamic range is often cited as an improvement over analog, but though that's true it's seldom if ever used. In fact, many reissued CDs of works originally on vinyl have inferior dynamics, an artifact of the remastering process (bad engineers).
RIAA labels lie like rugs. In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead and the sun rises in the east.
-mcgrew
No way! Everybody knows you're supposed to get your cat to click on those.
Getting the Friskies treats out from between the keys is a bitch, though.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
One dollar a century ago, mut have been some serious coin.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
but more like price fixing. There's been a lot of that in the industry recently, and even more outside the technology field.
What calls my particular attention is this little piece of info: "Attorney General Investigates Music price fixing." Hmmmm...
I collect 78s, so I know of this 'EULA'
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.
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.
I expect that this recording is out of copyright now, no thanks to Sonny Bono, who left an ugly legacy with his copyright extension act.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Under current law no license is needed to play an analog recording. Playing an analog record on typical analog equipment doesn't create any tangible copies (not even a RAM copy). Ephemeral mechanical and air bound vibrations are not copies. Playing the record even without a license would not be copyright infringement.
Instead what's really happening here is a a cartel trying to fix prices and putting evidence of their illegal activity in writing. Not sure if this analysis fits the law at the time the record were released.
If you were to put your ear close the the needle while the record was playing, you would hear -- very faintly -- the sound of the recording. The record player performs two functions: spins the platter at a steady speed, and amplifies the sound emanating from the spinning plastic. In fact, the original record players amplified the sound using a specially designed megaphone (a great big cone-shaped piece of paper or cardboard), and not an electrical amplifier at all. These first record players spun the platter by use of a wound spring, and none of the belts or direct drives that were used later. No electricity, and no batteries required. Remember that the next time you forget to recharge your ipod.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Deaf_Dumb_Technophobe that is.. it's 5am ... It's about culture & the advancement of civilisation, it's about feeling & discovering new musical horizons & emotions - not everything can be monetised - RIAA are a bunch of obsessed penny pinching morons, who have long forgotten what music is about
To liken an mp3 copy, of a CD copy, which is a distant rendition of the performance is akin to accusing a photocopy to be equal to the theft of original Picasso or Renbrandt works.... wehn was the last time anyone here listen to an acoustic performance ?
no doubt the parent is enjoying a somewhat rhetorical moment but regardless what a manufacturer stamps on his wares any such statement must ultimately be deemed legally enforcible.
i have no idea how many one-way user agreements like this were tested in the courts in the intervening 100 years but my guess is that many were, and many were found wanting. if not we'd still see something similar on today's discs, like the old marca registrada that only rca seemed to use right through the end of the last century.
might as well enjoy it, it's one of the last of it's kind. rca dumped thousands of old masters in the river when they demolished a warehouse in the states and torched the contents of another in south america.
so go ahead and spin it. turn the damn thing up to 11.
- js.
The second cave painting was quickly followed by the invention of the "cease and desist" club.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Yes you can. The Nyquist theorem demonstrates that any signal containing waves from DC to 20000 Hz* can be perfectly reconstructed from a 44100 Hz sampled wave. The only difference is a faint hiss at around -93 dB, caused by 16-bit quantization of the samples.
* In theory, 44100 Hz sample is good for up to a 22049 Hz signal, but practical low-pass reconstruction filters need a few percents of rolloff.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Its easier to add a function trigger to an event table than to take a function out of a piece of software.
Why on earth wouldn't it work?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
to have paid before any staff begins working on your breakfast.
Man, that sucked...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You bought the media, not the song. You never own the song. You own vinyl, tape or, a digital file. Nothing more.
A little research turns up that this was recorded by the Russian soprano Maria Alexandrovna Michailova. I'm not sure what the personal after-death copyright on performances is, but if she kept it the base date is 1943, the year she died. That's only 64 years ago. Depending on various grandfathering with the laws over time, the copyright could still be in effect.
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:
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.
Too bad the creators of the works don't get the exclusive rights. Those usually go to the distributors, who have attempted to classify the musicians' music as "work for hire," to avoid paying them for anything at all.
Oh, well. Those with money get to fuck those without. I guess we're all whores, in the end.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
or at least the slip therein.
if you look under the bases on molded plastic tube bases (4, 5, and 6 prong types) you'll see a condensed version. deForest ceramic base tubes had the license stamped on the tube base's side.
the most common license in RCA/Cuningham/deForest tubes was that the tube was licensed only for replacement use in radio receivers and amateur uses.
which raises the question, was every broadcaster in operation at the time in the 20s and 30s operating in violation of patent license??? they were certainly not able to use the popular records of the time, for almost all of them prohibited broadcast use.. and the 16 inch transcription programs all were licensed for one-time use. the program distributors varied as to whether the program was to be destroyed after the broadcast date, or whether the acetates were to be returned for destruction (most common.)
pull one of those UX-201As out of your prehistoric "ourPod" and check it yourself.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I've looked at a number of online stores, and I actually liked the way allofmp3.com worked. So, MP3s that I can use of any of MY devices (read: treating the records like a book only that they don't go on loan) at a sensible price, and I'd buy. Just wished someone figured out that 20 secs of a quiet record throws you out before you have any idea..
Having said that, at the moment I don't pirate either because I think it's fundamentally wrong. I just don't buy any CDs anymore and the iTunes shop sees nothing of me either. I listen to the radio or go to some free locations and sponsor the artists directly (and the iPod is more busy with language courses than music these days).
With respect to a dislike of having my name inside any of the records I buy: I have no desire to have those RIAA morons after me and ruining my life just because someone else gets access to my collection. Unfortunately, I occasionally have to run Windows, so there's always the chance of infection.
And how long do you think it's going to take before that too gets falsified to protect the guilty? No thanks - I rather ensure I can prove I didn't go there in the first place.
Remember - with the RIAA you have to prove your innocence.
Insert
So much for my planned Edison/hip hop mashup... I always thought 'Mary had a little lamb' had potential as 'geezer-rap'....
Two of your points are not correct.
1. "The extensions aren't retroactive."
While the 1978/1998 extensions were not retroactive to re-copyright public-domain works, They were applied retroactively to cancel and extend the expiration of the original term.
The implied contract when a work was written between 1923 and 1975 was that a publishing monopoly was granted for 56 years (the last 28 years with renewal). The implied contact with the public was that after the 56 years, the work would enter the public domain.
The copyright extensions of 1976/1978, 1996 and 1998 should have only applied to future works, not past works. But they did, and works that were agreed in 1923 to go into the public domain in 1979, now do not go into the public domain until 2018.
2. "you can't take something out of the public domain once it's there"
I thought the same until reading about URAA. "Metropolis"(1925-1927) was public domain starting in 1955. In 1996, it came out of the public domain.
The Edison cylinders or wax cylinders from that era or earlier also contain a EULA similar to what we see even today. The concept is not new.
The US Supreme Court invalidate the EULA mentioned in the article in 1917. While it was held in 1908 (the doctrine of "first sale", articulated in Bobbs-Merrill v. Straus) that copyright did not extend to the restriction of resale price, the Courts until then held that patent did grant such a monopoly. But this specific license was challenged in Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co. [243 U.S. 490 (1917)], and the Supreme Court's opinion was that licenses of this type were "mere shams to evade the general law governing sale of personal property."
Interesting piece of history there, I never heard of that. Didn't the SCOTUS effectively throw this type of license out since then, and I mean a long time ago. I thought there was a ruling related to property rights that said once you owned something the seller had no more say in the matter of what you did with it. That's why, for example, you can dress up Barbie dolls in strange outfits and post the pictures on the web and Mattel can't do anything about it, unless you're pretending they originated from Mattel, and so on.
Bobbs-Merrill was a copyright case, and this was a patent license. Patent licenses that included resale price fixing were not held to be unlawful restraint of trade until Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917); the case at issue was a violation of this very license on the part of the Straus brothers d/b/a Macy's.
is a book , a very good book
it touches on a lot of tyhis..
namely how rock was trying to move away from the 'tin pan alley'
order it read it
back in the day we didnt have no old school
As I understand it, patents are monopolies on the right to produce/manufacture/sell products utilizing particular techniques, not the right to use products which operates by or were manufactured using those particular techniques? E.g. if my lawnmower uses various patented methods of mowing lawns, those patents merely restrict me from making ripoff lawnmowers; they can't restrict my right to use the lawnmower I've bought (from the patent owner) on whatever lawn I want, can they?
Because that sounds like what the "EULA" on these old albums are trying to use as justification: "We own patents on methods used in playing and recording records; this is a record, made using those patented methods; therefore we can dictate whatever terms of use we want, and if you don't obey, you're violating our patents." Can patents really restrict personal use of purchased items like this? I was under the impression that if I'm not trying to manufacture, market, or copy anything, then "intellectual property" laws (patent, trademark and copyright law, respectively) held no say over how I used items that I own.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Victor introduced these licenses on their records and record players in March 1902 as a measure against price scalping. If the goods were sold at a lower price this would lead to lower patent royalties, something that Victor didn't want. Therefore this license message appeared to enforce this licensing system. The licensing applied to record players also allowed Victor to repossess them if the license was violated.
There are several instances of Victor revoking licenses from dealers for pricing violations, but none of Victor repossessing players.
The license system was ended in 1917. Immediately afterwards Macy's sued Victor (the original reason for the suit was being unable to sell shop-worn records at a discount) under Anti-Trust laws, and were eventually rewarded damages.
Nothing completely new is ever created nowadays, every phrase, every sketch, every melody all use what has come before in varying degrees.
Virtually every phrase, sketch, and melody is "intellectual property" of its relevant owner.
You sir have confessed to heinous acts which are in violation of both state & federal, civil & criminal laws.
(Alternatively, it's somewhat amusing how many people drink while under-age. Nevertheless, it's still a crime).
Try not to have an interesting day...
I have here an Edison "Gold Moulded Record" aka a wax drum. I don't have a date on it, but it's presumably older than the record... Label on the bottom reads: "This record is sold by the National Phonograph Company Limited upon the condition as a license to use the patent record that it shall not be sold retail to the public in the British Isles for less than 1/6 nett". That last notation, btw, means "1 shilling and sixpence" in old money, since replaced around 1970. In new money that's 7.5p, or approximately 15c US.
Just pay a buck for it, tight ass.
Not only was the sham license (like the one in this picture) on records and books invalidated. The Supreme Court also invalidated restrictive licenses on the machines (see MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., at 243 U.S. 502 (1917) http://supreme.justia.com/us/243/502/case.html ) These types of restrictive licenses were tried by industry after industry in the 20th century. The courts repeatedly tossed them out as incompatible with the First Sale Doctrine (copyright) or the Doctrine of Alienation (same thing, for patent) or as abuse/misuse of the copyright or patent, or as incompatible with the Fair Use Doctrine (copyright). (Google the terms for more details on these doctrines...) It wasn't until 1995 that the courts accepted the idea of a binding mass-market copyright license (ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) at http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.h tml ) The primary statute written to validate this judicial stretch was the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which got a lot of press but was rejected in 48/50 states (Virginia and Maryland passed it, everyone else bounced it). A replacement approach is being drafted by the American Law Institute (Principles of the Law of Software Contracts) (contact information at http://www.ali.org/ali/PP16.asp) and these Principles are unlikely to provide a blanket acceptance of all terms in the typical EULA.
Cem Kaner, Professor of Software Engineering, Florida Institute of Technology
You pay in advance at most fast food places in the USA too.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Sony officially supports homebrew application through their Linux offering, although only a limited subset of the PS3's capabilities are available to such homebrew software.
A lot of less known consoles did have or have complete or limited support for homebrew :
- GP32 and its successors were built from the ground up with the idea of letting the user freely run whatever he wants.
- Tapwave's Zodiac could run anything the user freely decided from all Palm-compatible softwares (Although producing software that uses the special hardware required registering as a developper and signing the code)
But yes, the majority of console maker implement complex DRM schemes to restrict what you can run and what you can't to only software that they have licensed (for exemple : although the Wii has cool emulation capabilities, you can only run
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This is a big surprise, why? Because geeks and nerds don't realize that establishing historical bias is what lawyers do for a living. There is no question that the *AA's lawyers have researched case law all the way back to the beginning of recorded and duplicated media. There is very little shock or surprise that these century-old assets, long since passed down through generations of corporate accounting to the modern era, have been a model for decades and now generations of lawyers.
..
Unless, of course, you are ignorant of the fact that lawyers pass this historical legacy down through the ages in the arena of the courts. Modern strategies and tactics are derived from a historical corporate perspective spanning centuries. Where us individual nerds may have too much stigma occluding our view of the scene to contemplate this reality, corporations have their archives, their teams working on the historical precedence, and long-term awareness of markets.
Life as it was, as it is, and as it shall be, outside the realm of a single life-time, is de jour for certain factions in society. Outside the realm of video games and computer code, people do actually focus on such depths. Geeks and nerds attempting to make political reality would do well to make themselves much more aware of this level of responsibility, in my opinion
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
That's exactly the point. Patents protect "new" businesses to give them time (17 years) to produce a marketplace for their products. I wouldn't have a beef with the RIAA/MPAA if they had actually come up with something useful. All their "technology" is DRM, the definition of anti-useful. Plus, they aren't satisfied with the time limits for real products, they want copyrights that last FOREVER. In the patent world, patents expire and generics flood the market. That's why real companies always have to introduce innovations to their products. You can't milk one good idea forever, unless it's a recording deal.
Great catch, natch!
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As of June 2007, Apple's Mac mini set-top computer is much more capable than a PLAYSTATION 3 Open Platform for the same price. At least the Mac mini offers some hardware acceleration of OpenGL API, while any Linux game ported to PS3 Open Platform will run like molasses due to its dog-slow frame buffer. So doesn't that make the PS3 Open Platform just a token effort, given that I took the discussion to be about games, not slideshows?
German Donut:_ berliner.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/jfk
Some commenters seem to misunderstand that point: the license grants rights under several patents. Sound recordings weren't eligible for copyright at the time.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The Patent for those records would have expired right around 1933. The resulting destabilizeation of the economy is what really caused the Black Friday market crash and the 'dirty thirties'. My friend from the RIAA just told me so.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.