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."

7 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Common by scrotch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. I think you're confused by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism. by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?.. by killercoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Who _deserves_ quality music?.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · 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? 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.
    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. Re:The problem is our present-day exceptionalism. by JoeCommodore · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield