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."

21 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. EULA unenforceable under First Sale Doctrine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  2. That's why we got first sale doctrine by thisissilly · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Books too by underwhelm · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. EULA by secPM_MS · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. couple of error by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 2, Informative
    TFA says:

    The label doesn't provide any information on what I'm supposed to do with an unlicensed copy of Ave Maria. I could contact the Victor Record Company, but they sold assets to RCA, which was acquired by General Electric, which was sold to BMG, which merged with Sony. So do I contact Sony and inform them I have an unlicensed copy of Ave Maria? I'm sure they'd tell me to delete the mp3 off of my hard drive.

    However, admitting I have an unlicensed copy of a record will certainly put me at risk of a lawsuit. Then I'd have to find an "expert" to testify in court that the unlicensed track is indeed embdded into this molded piece of plastic, and not stored on a hard drive. They'd probably drag the case through court, scour my hard drive, then drop the lawsuit and sue the antique junk store that sold me the record. "

    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.

  6. Re:I think you're confused by AnyoneEB · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedia on how long copyright lasts. In short, yes, some were retroactive, but the cutoff date seems to be 1923. Anything copyrighted before then is public domain.

    --
    Centralization breaks the internet.
  7. Turn of the century? by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well that was only 7 years ago. What were you expecting?

  8. Re:I think you're confused by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Basically, everything released after Steamboat Willie is under copyright and will be forever. You can be certain that no matter how much it costs, Disney will never allow anything under their copyright to enter the public domain.

    --
    "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
    End The FED. -
  9. collector of 78s here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:collector of 78s here... by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2, Informative

      78s are very breakable, like a dinner plate. They were actually made from shellac and lampblack. I've seen a couple of furniture refinishing shows on TV where they took old broken 78s and stuck them in a jar with some denatured alcohol and used the results to produce a "classic finish" on some old furniture.
      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  10. Re:Very difficult to listen to this record. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The old phonographs used to play these would have made the sound directly using a needle that scraped over the grooves and made a sound. This was then picked up and directed by a large horn.

    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 stylus is typically connected to a piezoelectric crystal, which emits electricity as the crystal is compressed. This gives an electrical signal which is then amplified using valves or (if you are particularly modern) transistors, giving indirect reproduction.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. sale to PUBLIC by belmolis · · Score: 3, 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.

  12. Re:Huh? by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
    That's a new one. The history I've always heard basically says that the movie industry started there because of the sunshine.

    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 Swiss Alps, the sands of the Sahara, Sherwood Forest, the rugged coast of Spain, the Siberian snows, the Red Sea, the South African veldt, to say nothing of the mighty Mississippi, the cattle ranches of Wyoming, the horse pastures of Kentucky, and the mountain forests of Vermont. Hitchcock on Location

  13. Nyquist theorem by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    You cannot reproduce an undistorted 15khz wave at a CD's 44k sampling rate

    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.

    1. Re:Nyquist theorem by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Informative

      A single pole low pass filter will roll off at 6db/octave. 2 poles at 12db/octave.
      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 elements with RC constants would be
      quite the challenge. Digital filtering tricks however, combined with less complex
      active / rc filters do a good job.

    2. Re:Nyquist theorem by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a gotcha in the Nyquist theorem. The steep, brick wall roll-off filter at around 20KHz that you need for about 44,100 Hz sampling has a large phase shift well down into the upper audio range A windowed sinc brick wall filter is a symmetric FIR filter, and symmetric FIR filters have no phase shift. Only IIR filters need to have phase shift.
  14. Patents and copyrights by operagost · · Score: 3, Informative
    Interestingly, much of what is written on that label is invalid because it is citing patents covering the gramophone and not copyrights covering the recording. That's okay, because the article writer doesn't understand patents or copyrights either:

    According to this sticker on the back of the record, "No license is granted to use this record when sold at a less price." So I purchased this record, but I do not have a license to play it. "All rights revert to the undersigned in the event of any violation."

    The label doesn't provide any information on what I'm supposed to do with an unlicensed copy of Ave Maria. I could contact the Victor Record Company, but they sold assets to RCA, which was acquired by General Electric, which was sold to BMG, which merged with Sony. So do I contact Sony and inform them I have an unlicensed copy of Ave Maria?
    This is absurd. Both the copyrights and the patents expired a long time ago. Patent terms are 17 years now, and may have been even shorter then. Copyrights were something like 25 years at the time, although megacorps have been perpetually lobbying Congress to extend copyright with the result that anything created after 1923 is still under copyright protection.
    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  15. Not the entire story by Tony · · Score: 3, Informative
    Even the so-called monopoly of Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly!

    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:

    In one example of Standard's aggressive practices, a rival oil association decided to build an oil pipeline, hoping to overcome the virtual boycott imposed on Standard's competitors. In response, the railroad company (at Rockefeller's direction) denied the consortium permission to run the pipeline across railway land, forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and then pump the oil manually back into the pipeline on the other side. When he learned of this tactic, Rockefeller then instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property.


    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.
  16. Re:Out of Copyright by zenyu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sonny Bono may have been a bad person, but you can't blame him for the Sonny Bono act. This rape of the American public was done in his name after his death, ostensibly to protect his great-great-great-great-great granddaughter from possibly having to contribute to society if all her ancestors after the late great Sonny Bono had been deadbeats.

  17. Re:I think you're confused by Bent+Mind · · Score: 2, Informative

    Current copyright is: 70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. However, that only applies to anything copyright after March 1, 1989. Before that, details such as notice, renewal of notice, and published vs unpublished all come into play. Cornell has a nice page that lists all of the dates and rules.

    --
    Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
  18. Victrola and Victor Record EULA's were invalidated by kennykb · · Score: 2, Informative

    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."