Slashdot Mirror
Universal Attacks First Sale Doctrine
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "In Universal Music Group v. Augusto, UMG is attacking the first sale doctrine. The issue concerns some promotional CDs that were mailed out, and later found their way to eBay. According to UMG, the stickers on the discs claiming that they still own the CD give them a legal right to control what the recipients do with them, and thus, UMG should be able to dictate terms. The EFF has filed an amicus brief countering that claim, saying that because they were sent by US mail, unrequested by the recipient, they are in fact gifts, no matter what the sticker claims. If UMG somehow wins this, I plan to send them CD of copyrighted expletives with a sticker informing them of the contractually required storage location. We discussed a similar issue with e-books a couple weeks ago."
When would they learn that these actions are just harming them in the long run.
How much money did they 'lose' versus the amount of bad publicity they are getting in the meantime. And let us not forget all the lawyer fees.
I don't think this is a First Sale issues, since, clearly, the discs are at no time sold. They send them promotionally to people in the recording, film, and media industries for review, evaluation etc. I get them all the time because some random label hopes I'll tell a director to put in these "hot new tracks" (or not). They got a big sticker on them that says, essentially, "NFR". I don't think they're the property of the label, strictly, but the labels and the media endpoints that consume the NFR discs both benefit from having them. Maybe selling them is de jure legal, but it's really dickish.
Any developers wanna opine on how they'd feel if some software reviewer at cnet started selling their NFR copies of pre-release software?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Wasn't there some stupid company 6-7 years sending unsolicited barcode scanners called the "cat-something-or-other"? They had some hare brained scheme of money by having people scan bar codes of products and transmit them back to the company.
Unfortunately for the company, people had better ideas what to do with the product. The company tried to sue and they were laughed out of court.
Dear record companies:
When your own VP of content protection admits in a deposition that he has bought some of your promo CDs on the second hand market, your case that someone selling them on eBay is infringing your copyrights starts to look, well, ridiculous.
(EFF Brief, page 18.)
In the case where there was a pre-existing contract to even receive the promo disks, it is a completely different story.
This is a case of promos being sent out unsolicited, with restrictions stickered onto the cover.
Yes, I just RTFA. I learned my lesson.
No, you couldn't copy it, but if they just give you the book, they can't attach a contractual obligation not to resell after the fact. You could sell the copy you received, not make more copies.
Unsolicited packages are gifts, as long as you're the intended recipient (and yes "The Occupier" counts). (Unsolicited Goods Act, Consumer Protection [Distance Selling] Act).
I would say "I can't believe the US doesn't have similar laws", but I can, because I recognise a country where Corporations have a massively disproportionate sway on legislators.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
They're not doing whatever they want with it. They're selling the physical copy. This is a different.
There was no contract. Therefore, there's no "Well IF they had a contract..." That's totally besides the point. IF they get a contract, then they can expect it to be followed. No one is arguing this.
But if they just send someone a CD -- for free -- then they can't dictate that the person not resell that CD. And since it's for free, I don't know that "first sale" applies.
I totally agree about this case.
I was just asking about a more difficult case that implicates a lot of the same ideas.
Pretty soon we'll have implants in our heads that will debit our accounts every time we recall a song from memory. Got that Shakira piece stuck in your head again? Boy, you are going to pay....dearly. Shakira-Sha--SHIT!!!
any attorney associated with this should not be allowed to practice law. any law 101 student can tell you this is pure BS. you have to have a contract before you can enforce one. A contract requires compensation by both parties (both get something) you can't enforce any limits on something you give away for free. This is why often when property is given to charity etc its actually sold for one dollar. You learn this in the first 5 minutes of contract law!!
I don't know Mr. 741N, you sound a little biased.
You got some evidence that vinyl is growing?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Next step? Should be obvious, that sticker will be part of every CD sold. You may buy it, but it remains our property.
Impossible? Don't think so. The CD already somehow changed from a necessary evil as a carrier for intangible stuff (you can't simply carry the bits in your hand, so there has to be some sort of place where you put them) to 'the' product. At least that's what the content industry tries to do, and so far quite successfully so. Media shifting is becoming more and more difficult, distributing tools that enable you to media shift easily have been outlawed, and generally the content industry is pushing towards making the medium and the content interchangeable concepts, tying the content to its carrying medium.
This trend does not take into account that I have a valid license to the content (and if it's not, tell me what it is. I certainly don't get to own the content, so please tell me what I get when I purchase the CD). In other words, since that license contract is not limited in time, I should have the right to request the content I bought in case the carrying medium fails for some reason, since moving the content away from its carrier is being made impossible. Do I have the right to get a replacement copy? I wouldn't bet on it. And certainly I would not put any money on being able to get a fresh CD in 10 or 20 years.
If that sticker trick works, soon the only right we'll have around content is paying for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
except that they did nothing of the sort. you're trying to shift the argument to one that is completely irrelevant in this case. an existing legal contract that is binding is not the same as mailing our media that is intended as advertising verging on SPAM.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
It's not a copyright issue because no copies were made.
In your example, if they send you the book, the book is yours. You can give it to a friend, sell it to a friend, donate it to a library, burn it, toss it in the ocean, and do just about anything you want with it as if you had purchased it. It's a gift, which means you own it, you do whatever the hell you want with it.
Cynical Idealist
I not only read the ARStech article, but the EFF article and the actual motion by the EFF. Assuming that they're quoting relevant cases (I'm not that much of a sucker for that kind of stuff), Universal is talking out their ass and trying to squash first sale rights.
To summarize, they sent out the CDs unsolicited, which according to the law, makes them gifts. That means it's as if the recipient bought the CD, and hence triggered first sale doctrine. So the eBay reseller is in no way whatsoever violating copyright. Especially since the guy in charge of copyright at Universal admits that he has, in the past, bought promo CDs from record shop.
Cynical Idealist
First sale absolutely applies, as there is plenty of legal precedent that gifts count as sales for purposes of the first sale doctrine. The EFF brief has all the detailed arguments, and plenty of references. It's also quite readable, and quite thorough about dismantling UMG's arguments.
The way to deal with reviewers who doesn't treat your unsolicited promo material with proper discretion, is to stop sending unsolicited promo material to those reviewers. It's not an easy issue and there are arguments on both sides. Yes, on one side there is respect for the fundamentals of contract law. On the other side, there is the slight inconvenience of labels to have to maintain a list of trusted reviewers (rather than just maintain a list of reviews).
It does say something about how the labels have gotten adjusted to having the law formed for their convenience, that they now want to change how the legal system works, just to avoid the inconvenience of making some minor changes to their internal procedures.
That is entirely a straw man argument; genuinely incurred contractual obligations are an entirely separate matter.
...how on Earth could that possibly justify the notion that a person can be contractually bound by the unasked-for appearance of an inanimate object bearing arbitrary terms? You're right that there's more than just this case---but it is an easy issue and there are not legitimate arguments on both sides.
No one is arguing that if a DJ signs an NDA, he can then turn around and cry, "First Sale, hahahaha!" What we are in fact arguing is that the fact that a disc, sent unrequested, has some words physically printed on it does not constitute a contract.
Consider it this way: The discs, according to TFA, said, "Not for Resale." With whom has the recipient signed a contract? An inanimate object that appeared in his mailbox? What consideration does the recipient gain by this contract that would render it legally supportable?
Remember that contracts require both parties to receive some benefit, even if it's inherently unequal. What benefit does the recipient get by agreeing that the disc is, in fact, not for resale?
Suppose, for a moment, that the recipient does not wish to be a party to the contract in the first place. If he does not agree to it, then doesn't the disc---which was mailed to him without any prior agreement---simply exist as his property? Why shouldn't he be able to sell it, regardless of what's printed on it?
The basic consideration is this: even if we assume that UMG is so incompetent and lazy that they cannot be bothered to arrange even oral agreements with potential reviewers AND we are absolutely desperate to ensure that UMG keeps sending out discs...
If you can look me in the eye and tell me that you're okay with the notion that I can write "You must give me all your money" on a baseball, hurl it at your head, and thusly legally obligate you to obey my baseball---all to save UMG the trouble of asking DJ's to agree in advance not to share promo discs; then I can look you in the eye and call you an idiot.
This happened to my pal who owns a record shop. He found a *5* year old madonna promo in the back shop. Stuck it on ebay to see what he'd get and the auction got pulled.if it was a pre-release, fair enough. But it was 5 years old...
Acid House saves Souls
By reading this comment, you agree that 10% of your gross income belongs to Twitter. I know that you did not ask for this but you will be one of the first few to read it and that, by your own argument, is worth more than your freedom. Be glad I don't ask for more, but Moses once argued that a happy slave is more productive than a hungry one so this works out for both of us.
Seriously, it's that bad. If the MAFIAA was not happy with people selling their crappy little promo copy, they could simply strike those people off the promo list. That's easier and cheaper than filing a laughably stupid lawsuit. The only explanation for the suit is that the MAFIAA needs the DJs more than the DJs need the MAFIAA and the only way to make the DJs do as they are told is to harass them with lawsuits. Let's hope the MAFIAA loses this one and has to pay cost and damages.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What I really want to know is what do they expect us
to do with these cds (bought or given).
Should we even be listening to them really?
Can you listen to your copy with a friend?
Can you listen to your copy with a group of friends?
Can you lend out the cd to a friend?
Can you lend out the cd a stranger?
Can you lend out the cd to a group of strangers?
So why not sell it to a group of stangers?
Where is the line drawn?
---
Music is freedom - the medium is not.
Idiot or not, baseballs and markers are damn cheap cheap.
Despite what the snippet claims, this is NOT about first sale at all.
First off, even in a world without copyright law, UMG would argue that they had a contract with whoever got the CD to never redistribute it. If this contract was in fact made (offer and acceptance for consideration) then BOOM, contract law does the rest. This issue is complicated because while the items were unrequested, they were subsequently used by those who received them (which normally is enough since there was clearly some pre-existing contact here), and is further complicated because they were sent through the mail (which makes it almost surely a gift).
So, either it's not a gift and there's a contract, or it's a gift and there's no contract.
Then fair use / copyright comes into play. Normally 17 USC 106(3) makes it a violation to publicly distribute (including sell) protected material. However, 109 says you can do what you want to it (this is first sale) so long as you meet some requirements:
* Copy must have been made lawfully
* Seller must be an owner
The first of these doesn't seem to be a problem. The second is the issue. If these aren't gifts, and they didn't accept the contract, then they aren't owners--they are tortfeasors who have converted--and don't get protection from 109. That's how this would play out.
There's a lot of FUD going on out there. Feel free to correct me, but let's keep the analytical structure in mind here. (Note: I'm going off of the brief snippet; I haven't read the extensive briefs/filings)
...if it succeeds, then you can surely be held responsible for all those AOL CDs! ;)
I hope you kept them in a safe place
The question isn't about copying the CD, it is about selling the physical CD.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
not being an American I don't have any special interest in how this case turns out from the social realities of living with laws like this, but if this does go through then people could cause serious problems for the record labels. For example 100,000 people could get together and send riaa companies CDs through the post with stickers saying they have to be stored at the central lobby of head office. Under their rules they would have accepted the contract by opening the package - the best they could do would be to return them at their own massive cost.
They might even have to listen to them if they often get CDs through for business - according to the that's certainly enough to have accepted a contract
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Where would they be contractually required to stick said CD, then? ...
I don't know Mr. 741N, you sound a little biased.
That would be the resistor between pin 6 and pin 2.
Surely the raison d'être for a promo CD is to promote the freakin' content: i.e. the more people hear the CD the better. On-selling the CD is extending its reach further than UMG's original gift of it did. UMG should realise this, STFU, and let someone else promote their product at no cost.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
If the record companies are claiming they still own all of these millions of CDs out there it seems the states should haul there asses into court for not paying the proper property Tax on them. Wouldn't be any different then leased/rental equipment. Oh and the SEC might be interested in why they don't show up on there balance sheets as assets.
Wow, that is crazy they pulled it even though it was 5 years old! Do you know if it was pulled by an automated system or not? If it was something like a computer program that checks the auctions for "CD" and "Promo" and then pulls the auction if both of those are found then that would not be as bad but that still would be horrible to have happen. If it was a human screener on the other hand then this is just crazy and probably the result of some draconian standard operating procedures being in place.
On another note, what effect would this have on collectors if Universal wins? Collectors usually want EVERYTHING and rare things such as this CD are worth even more to them. I know this is just eBay and collectors can always go to stores/swap meets/etc but it is just hard to me to understand how something sent to you for free and unsolicited cannot be sold.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
Another angle is that UMG put an object into someone's mail box. If they don't want that object to be treated as a gift for the recipient to be done with as they pleased, and if there is no prior agreement for that object to be placed there, they are effectively dumping litter, just as if they had placed an empty coke can in the mail box. I should imagine there's laws on dumping or 'fly tipping' in most states, and UMG must be doing it on a grand scale, so if they win this case they should be prosecuted on those grounds.
these lawyers should really read there own briefs. There is no copyright law in play here. Universal is the copyright holder and Universal made the copies. filing a DMCA is harassment and abuse of process. By there own statements there claiming that they own the cd's ... So its a case of selling stolen property. There saying to original recipients did not have standing to sell the cds to the defendant. But i can guarantee the cds are not listed as assets by the company. So we have a company claiming this guy is selling stolen merchandise that in other legal fillings (read SEC) they don't claim to own. If this guys lawyers are any good he'll retire to a nice island in the bahamas after this.
Fringe groups A,B and C are buying less CD's, so CD's must be dying. Except that not-so-fringe group D (Being the other 95% of the population that are not Audiophiles, DJ'd or Rappers) are simply never going to be interested in Vinyl ever again.
Digital Distribution may kill CD's, vinyl sure as hell won't.
Support the EFF so they can keep stomping stuff like this!
Fine, whatever, let 'em burn. The Internet is orders of magnitude bigger than rock and roll. If the preservation of the music and movies industry means we have to cripple the freedom of the network, to give Hollywood a veto over every new technology, to mandate lockouts in all computers to protect their imaginary property, then it's not worth it. Even if it means there'll never be another international rock superstar.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Then of course they could enforce this contract. The whole point is that they are trying to UNILATERALLY take away legal rights of people WITHOUT any contract. If you allowed this there is no doubt they would be slapping all kinds of restrictions on every CD, book, DVD they produced.
the world would be better off if the person with the physical object gets to resell it, no matter what the contract says. But is the world better off if Universal sees what happens and stops giving out review and promo copies?
Universal is free to try to make contracts with reviewers before sending them CDs. They choose not to, not wanting to annoy them. Their choice. Will the world be better off? Excuse me while I snicker.
And Universal is going to quite logically not send out promo copies
No, quite logically they will. They NEED promotion. They spend more on promotion than any other single expense. If promotional items turn up on eBay months later, so what? There are only a relative handful of these. If people reproduced them that's another case entirely. Only rabid collectors want this kind of thing, and they buy every release of their favoured artist anyway.
I've got a bunch of prepublication copies of books, various people in the trade have donated to a local thrift shop. Publishers have been sending these out to reviewers and purchasing managers for CENTURIES, and for centuries, the reviewers have given them away or sold them later. It's been going om in music ever since 78 RPM records. There is demonstrably no damage to the music publishers. The only reason it's an issue now is that it's more visible, being on eBay. But the actual number of discs on offer is the same as ever.
I think that is possibly the first op-amp joke I've ever seen/heard. Congratulations.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Yes, I had misread the scenario. Thanks for the corrections. I guess I deserved that "(Score:-1, Offtopic)". :)
Does AOL own the 10 billion discs they mailed-out?
Maybe we should all unite and send them back..... them videotape the scene as the AOL office finds itself buried under a massive mound of discs.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
"There was no contract."
Bugger, I've just mailed them photo with a EULA that takes effect when they open the envelope, and a bill for...(cue: pinky)...ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you're going to ask questions just to see an answer, that is.
How about: what about if the CD sticker said that by reading the sticker you agree to deep throat the VP of marketing? Would that be legally binding?
I mean, if we're going to be making shit up and all, just to ask hypothetical questions, why not go for the gusto?
Does that mean If I throw a heap of the CDs into hte street and a cop comes along and asks who is littering, I can tell them the CDs belong to AOL and he will send them a fine?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
If the record companies still own the CDs and have been sending them out unsolicited, then I recommend that everyone they've sent them to starts billing them for storage charges.
Let's see if they decide that they still own them then.
-Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
eff universal
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Does that mean If I throw a heap of the CDs into hte street and a cop comes along and asks who is littering, I can tell them the CDs belong to AOL and he will send them a fine?
Replace CD's with hazardous waste and AOL w/ producer of said waste, and yes they(the producer) would be on the hook for the waste.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
I remember when I was in college, many of the textbooks that I bought used were in perfect condition, and underneath the "used" stickers the book was stamped "promotional copy, not for resale." The textbook publishers send out free copies to professors, hoping that they will select the book for their class. The professors often sell them to used book companies.
And the rarely if ever do you get a CD before the street date. Maybe a week or two. But good artists? Nope never happens. What they typically do is invite you to a listening party to review it (while at the same time showering you with food and drink to bribe a good review out of you.)
And the REAL truth is the CDs ARE paid for. They charge the artist for "promo" copies as part of advertising. Universal claiming these are their CDs is about as big a joke as the RIAA in general. They where bought by the artist... if anyone has the right to tell people what to do with them, its the guy who's salary was raped by the suits.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
It might also come in handy during your yearly review - it would give you useful feedback.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
But what if Universal had signed a contract with each and every DJ and reviewer that got a promo copy that said "in exchange for getting this CD a week early, you have to keep it secret."
What if pigs could fly? What if I won the lottery? What if CowboyNeil got laid? What if Sony's Ceo's wife was a crack whore? (oh wait...) What if water was undrinkable?
What if your post got modded "-1, troll"?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The "unrequested" word is the hole in EFF's argument. Many radio stations and music publications have websites with some language of the effect: Send promotional materials to this address. That's a request as far as I'm concerned. My wife is an independent recording artist, and at first it pained her to see the promo copies on eBay and Amazon marketplace competing with the real product, but at least the music is out there. We don't sue anybody; we just ink the name of the station or publication onto the face of the CD. The descriptions of the used product for sale let us know where not to send promo CDs in the future. As an aside: Surprisingly few radio stations and publications will accept any digital form of promotional materials!
"Not For Resale" was probably put there by one of their lawyers in the first place to avoid some retail tax or artist royalty.
"If you can look me in the eye and tell me that you're okay with the notion that I can write "You must give me all your money" on a baseball, hurl it at your head, and thusly legally obligate you to obey my baseball--"
I laughed at the silliness of this when I read it, but I did take the time to test this thesis. Here's the thing: it worked! Admittedly, I used a small statistical sample, but I'm heading out to Boston Commons right now to conduct further tests. I am carrying several other baseballs as well, some read "You must provide oral sex" and "You cannot arrest me under any circumstances". I'll let you know how that works out.
The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to it's pig latin heritage!
Presumably, the benefit of having it a week before everyone else.
Everything else you said is dead on, of course.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think if someone gives you a "gift" and asks you not to sell it, legally binding label or not, you're not being particularly good-mannered by selling it. I know the RIAA has lost all respect, but don't forget the intent, whether you think it's legal or not. You're all beginning to sound like lawyers -- knowing full well what the people meant to do, but looking for any loopholes to get you way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Postal_Service#Governance_and_organization
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Universal Collides With First Sale Dactrine" seems more accurate (and I don't that it will be the First Sale Doctrine that will get dented).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Look at it this way: if they agree with the sticker terms, what instantly becomes different in the situation other than the loss of resale rights? Nothing.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
The recipient gets the service of Universal uploading the content to his CD as he plays it. You see, a CD is just a piece of plastic. When you play it, what in fact happens is that you "stream" the music from the copyright holder (Universal) to your CD player. If you start streaming without upholding YOUR end of the contract, it's called theft of services.
Can you sell that piece of plastic? Of course. There's nothing stopping you, you just can't sell the music being streamed, since that would be theft of services.
Whoever you sell the piece of plastic to can make their own contract with Universal, should THEY want to stream music from Universal's servers....
So you see, ladies and gentleman, even the most absurd misinterpretation of how technology works leaves the reseller in the right!
But the DMCA also has a provision to punish fraudulent use of its provisions, and the punishment is rather severe.
So what does the awful UMG argue? Hey that wasn't an official DMCA notice. We only happened to coincidentally meet all the requirements listed in it. But because it wasn't an "official DMCA takedown request", we're not bound by the DMCA at all. You can't punish us under it!
I hope the court is not so stupid as to let them get away with this fraud, lie, and abuse of the DMCA process.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Replace CD's with hazardous waste and AOL w/ producer of said waste, and yes they(the producer) would be on the hook for the waste. I thought AOL CDs were hazardous waste.
Ah, OK. I see the point being made. Even before, I wasn't disagreeing that this whole this is preposterous.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I don't know if Macthorpe posted that AC, though I doubt it. I'm genuinely curious though - you object to someone pointing out that twitter has created a little army of sockpuppets that shill each other's posts, but the fact that he's gaming the moderation system is perfectly OK with you?
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
At what point does UMG qualify as a "vexatious litigant"?
That law that states that unsolisited material mailed to you is "yours". Is very, very importent. If it was not there I could mail anything to your house and then demand payment or that you pay postage to return the item.
And the recipients signed the stickers (agreed to the terms) and sent the stickers back to Universal, right? If so, then that's pretty solid evidence of a meeting-of-the-minds. Once Universal introduces those signed stickers in court as evidence that the contract really exists, the recipients are fuc--- what? Wait, what do you mean they didn't sign 'em and mail 'em back?! And Universal sent kept sending CDs?!
I hope Universal wins. I have some contracts (that they'll agree to by default) that I want to mail to them.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Just make sure that your aim is good and that you don't switch the baseballs by mistake!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I think that speaks for how ridiculous eBay can be about removing items. Did he get the auction reinstated?
That's just the thing. This is not just eBay, it's an argument that a copyright holder has the power to send any item through the mail, then dictate a recipient's use of that item, and all further recipients' use down the line. This case would, if decided in UMG's favor, set a precedent that would also apply to stores/swap meets/etc.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
I assume by 'raped' you mean 'signed a legally binding document of there own free will'?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Twitter's not my type - he has a wife and child and I prefer honest guys.
Anyway, Slashdot doesn't seem to give a shit that someone is lying to their faces, so what's the point in me telling you? Hence why I haven't bothered posting a response to anything he's said in a week, and it's highly unlikely that I will in future. You can sort it out yourselves, not that people here seem to have the wherewithal to do so.
Peace out.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Artists rarely know the ins and outs of industry contracts, and they make particular efforts to prevent them from knowing since unless your a industry lawyer (who are all owned by the RIAA) a regular lawyer would hardly know where to begin on reading one of these contracts.
And even then, they might know. A good friend of mine whos band broke up before the album was made found out all of their recordings where turned into a album and sold without the bands permission, which contractually WAS required.
How did the company get around this? They sold them in Japan, the contract fine print specified that their rights only extended to the US.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."