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."
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.
Interestingly, the flip side of the 78 rpm vinyl was a recording by Snoop Doggy Dog's grandfather, "I Gots Yo Bling Bling, Now Ride Wit Me in Mah Model T. Uhuh Uhuh."
What, and not be able to hit F5 constantly throughout the day? You must be new here.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
So did you rip them?
Torrent link plz?
(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?
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.
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 |
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Just pay a buck for it, tight ass.