Slashdot Mirror
EFF Wins Promo CD Resale Case
DJMajah writes "Universal Music Group's case against Troy Augusto, fought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has been dismissed by a federal judge. UMG sued Augusto, the owner of Roast Beast Music, over 26 eBay listings of promotional CDs. UMG argued that promo CDs distributed for free to radio stations, DJs and other industry insiders could not be resold; the discs usually carry a label reading 'For promotional use only, not for resale.' UMG asserted the doctrine of first sale does not apply, as the discs were not actually sold and therefore remained UMG's property. The judge ruled that the doctrine does apply because the discs were gifts. The labels indicate no expectation of their return."
Allow me to be the first here to say: It's about fucking time.
Kid-proof tablet..
I'm sure in the future they will modify their labels to require the return of promo materials.
Go go EFF!
it would DEFINITELY be to the EFF. What heroes they are, in today's world!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Will this then apply to books who have had their cover torn off and returned to the publisher? Most of those books carry a "if the cover is missing this book cannot be resold" blurb. Booksellers who can't sell a quantity of trade paperbacks return the front cover in lieu of the entire book for a refund. It saves on shipping and the publisher doesn't want the unsold books back anyway. So would these be considered 'gifts' to the bookseller, and presumably under this ruling also viable for resale?
We can now expect to see them add a little "please return this CD to us when you're finished with it" to each promo disk.
Kevin Smith on Prince
There goes promotional copies of CDs that reviewers keep, I guess.
I'm actually a bit sad that the EFF won on this case. Because if it hadn't of been overturned, you could label "anything" as no-resale and send it to someone. Like, you know, that giant pile of bricks or the entire output of a nuclear reactor and mail it to the RIAA.
Because, with the policy they were trying to establish precedent for, you could do so, mark it as no-sale and no-disposal, and force them to build warehouses to store the random crap you send them.
I used to work at a music store in my youth and selling promo CDs is what got me through college.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"EFF Wins"
I worked at my high school's radio station. We received tons of promo CD's. Very few of them turned out to be hits. We had stockpiles of CD's nobody wanted. They just piled up for years. We were always worried that the record companies were going to ask for them back, so we had to keep them.
Ultimately, we decided that the record companies weren't going to ask for the really old ones, so we gave away as many as we could, and threw the rest away. It was kinda sad to see all of that waste.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
There goes promotional copies of CDs that reviewers keep, I guess.
Not if they want a good review. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The bookstore only returns the cover and they agree by contract to take these in lieu of the entire book. If the bookstore sells the books anyway, the publisher should sue them for breach of contract.
If you buy the book it is yours.
LIVE, Love, die
Will this then apply to books who have had their cover torn off and returned to the publisher? Most of those books carry a "if the cover is missing this book cannot be resold" blurb[?]
Probably not. Promo records are spam. The arrangement between the publishers and the booksellers is contractual. Since the arrangement requires disposition of the remainder of the book in a way that keeps its content out of the market it can be argued that marketing the defaced book is conversion (think "stealing it for your own benefit"), making buying and owning it (knowing, from the missing cover, that it's not what the publisher intended) some variation on "possession of stolen property".
But IANAL so that's a guess.
Good catch!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
- Send unsolicited promotional copies to various parties. But unsolicited merchandise through the mail is presumptively a gift. So the people will then own the promotional copy, and have the right (as this recent ruling affirms) to resell the item. It would be fraudulent to mail things that say "you must pay for this!" or even "you must return this!" (thereby forcing people to pay postage for things they never requested).
- First send out a letter asking the recipient to sign a contract, where they agree that upon receiving the promotional item, they will return it, and agree not to resell or give it to others. This would work, but would be onerous for both parties. In particular, the vast majority of people wouldn't bother with that kind of hassle.
The promoters need to make it easy for the intended recipients to get the promo and to hear it. So I doubt they will use the second option (although I suppose a large company could try to get many outlets to sign a blanket contract that will cover all promos thereafter sent to them). In the end, they will just have to accept the fact that the promotional material can be transferred, bought, and sold, like anything else.There, fixed that Subject for ya.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
They already do. I have a number of promotional CDs which explicitly state "This CD remains the property of MUSICCOMPANY and we can request that you return it at any time." In practical terms, they never actually do ask for it back, but presumably it gives them the option.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06132008/news/nationalnews/tim_russert_dies_from_apparent_heart_att_115384.htm
Now I know what to do with all my dead monkeys!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Get congress to "fix" the law so that they can send promo copies which are not presumed to be gifts.
Yay!
Really, the "contract" isn't as much of a hassle as you make it out to be. All it has to be is a one-liner in any other sort of "sign-up" or agreement saying that you want to sign up for promos but won't sell them.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
OK, so common sense prevailed and the EFF won. That's great, but what is the significance of this case? Is there actually a big problem with people getting hassled for giving/selling promo CDs, or am I missing some other broader implication as a result of this decision?
But such a technical solution doesn't exist. In any case there must be a strict trust relationship from both sides for it to work. Either that, or rabid lawyers threatening each other into submission.
Different, how? It is the world we live in, now. In this world, DRM is inherently a failure, and you can't tell people how to use the CDs you mail them. That's the way it must be.
The law is clear. If you choose to mail something to someone that they did not ask for, it becomes their property. End of discussion. Done. Sending it through the mail, unsolicted makes it a gift.
Whatever idea you had in your head that prompted you to mail it makes no difference to the law. The recepient didn't ask you for it, you sent it anyway for whatever reason. Bing bam boom, it's theirs now. It doesn't matter if they want it or not. It doesn't matter if it's cross-promotional.
There is a way to send something to someone without sending it to the world. You contact them and say "If you agree to my conditions, I will send it to you." Then, if they agree, you send it, if they don't, you can't send it anyway and bind them to your wishes. I can't emphasize how fundamentally important that is... no one can force someone else into a contract.
If the record company wants the information on a disk to remain their property perhaps they shouldn't send it out in unsolicited mailings. If they were only sending the cd's to people who had agreed to not distribute them before hand that would be one thing. Think of the requirements this puts on the recipient if the cd can remain property of the record company, it would be a huge pain in the butt. There is a way for the record company to require that the information remains secret, get the other party to agree to it before hand.
If it's dead, you killed it.
It's called a contract (which has good legal foundation) or DRM (which is easily breakable).
The fact of the matter is, in this case, the samples were sent unsolicited and as such, were gifts. That's old, established precedent.
Even if you sell me something, I can resell it. That's it. If you don't like it, don't sell me anything. It is often the case that I can't copy it, retain the original, and sell the copy (or vice versa), but I *can* sell the original so long as I don't retain a copy. Doctrine of first sale. Deal with it.
You might have a point if there was an agreement between the two parties. However, in this case the CDs were unsolicited.
The fact that the recipient can potentially benefit from receiving them is irrelevant. They weren't asked for, there was no agreement between the parties, and therefore they were an unsolicited gift. The recipient can do as they please with them.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
In lieu of a contract, anything you send someone unsolicited is a gift.
I didn't mean a technical solution, I meant a legal one. Something as simple as a well-publicized phrase that simply entitles the receiver to use it but not sell it. I'm thinking of consumer-level comman legal contracts in the same way that the GPL's brought common legal contracts to software development.
As for "it's the world we live in now" I disagree. We've only had there DRM problems for a few years, we're not locked into this situation yet. I don't want to see us wind up in exactly the situation that you're describing, but as a long-term problem.
In general, I think that's the solution to 95% of consumer-level legal problems -- to simply have a collection of well-publicized legal agreements, also for small business-to-business relationships, with very standard phrases, interests, causes, and solutions. Along with that comes very standard ways of enforcing them. Basically expanding the concepts of "small claims court" into something that covers basic contract agreements.
Some way for me to send my recording to you, without giving you the right to profit from it, or to publicize it. In this case, the radio stations are both profiting from and publicizing the music that was given to them.
And your proposal is that the legal system should recognize Indian giving?
In fact, the legal system does recognize a form of Indian giving. But that requires a contract. Which requires the consent of both parties. Which can't possibly occur via a one-way transmission of goods. So, thankfully, giving something unsolicited to someone else is still considered a gift, and by the most basic logic, always will be.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The reason the discs were sent out was not as a gift. It was sent as cross-promotional material -- something that both the sender and the receiver desires. Radio stations play them to attract listeners to ads. It's cross-promotional always. The radio doesn't have to play it, and by all means destroy it if you like. But selling something that's clearly meant for bi-directional corporate benefit is just plain bad for society.
The reason the discs were sent out is irrelevant. The means in which they were sent is what matters; they were unsolicited and sent via USPS. There are clear cut laws that state sending items in this manner are presumptive gifts. If this is something that both parties truly desire then the sender should have an opt-in method of some form that states the terms and conditions related to receipt of the discs. Allowing anyone to send something to another party and force them into contractual terms without prior consent is bad for society.
The reason the discs weren't marked with instructions for tehir return is because they were on disposable media. The media being nothing more than a conveyance. And in this world of electronic distribution, there is nothing tangible to be returned.
It is not the responsibilty of the recipient of unsolicited materials to divine the intentions of the sender for items regardless of the media they are transported on. Also, the labeling on the disc does not matter, as it is superceded by being a presumptive gift.
There needs to be some way to send something to someone without sending it to the world. I don't care what that technique is, just tell me what it is. Some way for me to send my recording to you, without giving you the right to profit from it, or to publicize it.
That is why we have contracts and solicitation. If you want to send something to someone and define terms of how they will use said item, you need to contact them before hand and enter into an agreement. Or present an option for people to opt-in to the things you wish to send so that they agree to your terms before you send it to them. Otherwise I could, theoretically, send you a CD that has labeling that states by receiving this you are required to pay me $1000.00 US for reading the label.
Is a contract even necessary? Merely requesting a promotional CD means that it is no longer being sent "unsolicited." Therefore, you as the promoter are not entitled to protection under the Postal Reorganization Act. Further, a reasonable legal notice attached stating that no transfer of ownership is taking place would likely be an enforceable contract in and of itself.
--Randall
Yes, but in the legal world, it's easy to convolute things to the point where you need Captain Obvious to point things out. I know for a fact that I've overcomplicated things by thinking too hard, when the answer was right in front of me. And the real issue isn't that their victories are so blindingly obvious, it's that if they lost these issues, we'd live in a world where things were incredibly obscure and difficult to navigate. A spade is a spade, and we need to call it that, especially when there are people calling it a "manual earth removal and placement device". Plugging up these loopholes makes it so that the law can be obvious, especially in the places it needs to be.
Cynical Idealist
It is called "asking the recipient to confirm that they agree to the terms before mailing out the discs".
That's all it takes: The moment the recipient have agreed to abide by certain terms in order to receive the disc, then the sender would have a legal claim if they try to resell it.
To see why this was the RIGHT ruling, consider this: If a sender could enter you into a contract just by sending you an item, people would start just shipping you random items with a "contract" requiring you to purchase the item from them at outrageous prices, and any number of stupid things like that.
That was easy. Where's my prize?
Oh, you mean to send something to someone *unsolicited* and just by the fact of receiving it make them liable for damages for something?
Oh, no thanks.
I'm not saying that doctrine of first sale is a bad thing. I'm saying that there needs to be something else in this day and age. we're in an age where getting that contract agreement in advance takes weeks while developing the product takes only days and transmission takes mere seconds.
I don't know what the solution should be, but I'm thinking something along the lines of GPL-style standardized contracts that can be accepted or denied upon delivery (i.e. with the courier) so that the legal process doesn't take longer than the entire transmission and development processes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
However, you can't mail something to someone with a shrink-wrapped NDA attached, and expect it to have any force. Separate law has already established that unsolicited materials received in the mail are gifts, and that gifts have the first-sale doctrine attached and therefore can be resold. To make the NDA valid, the parties would need to enter into the agreement before the shipments start. Something as simple as a well-publicized phrase that simply entitles the receiver to use it but not sell it. Other than an NDA, no, sorry, we don't want or need this. How can the receiver dispose of the item if he can't sell it?
Can he throw it away? I have to pay a local company to take my garbage away, and as soon as it's placed on my curb it's considered public property. That's no different than me giving it to a friend, who could then resell it or pass it on.
Must he destroy it? In that case, I would like to send you a 200-ton vat of monkey shit, with a requirement that you can use it, but not sell it or give it away, and that you must destroy it to dispose of it. Maybe you'll find that it burns ok, and you can burn monkey shit in your backyard for the next year. Joking, yes, but it's an extreme of the law you propose.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Many others have already said the same thing to me. Please read my replies to them. Otherwise I'm just pasting duplicate replies.
How about a clause that requires any future sale of your house can only occur through the original builder's real estate brokerage arm at 10% commission? Oh, and your house is architecturally copyrighted. Any landscaping, additions, painting, renovation, etc. is derivative work that requires licensing fees. That's nothing less than vendor lock in contractual indentured servitude.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
But remember, those who get air play are those who had their promo heard. Those who had their promo herd, are those who sent it out unsolicited. If they ask for any level of commitment they will lose business to those who don't ask. Thus everyone in the business would like to have the thing singed, but would like everyone else to be doing it before they come on board. It ain't going to happen.
vi +
These are subscription services. Promo Only and ERG Music Traxx are a couple that pop into my head right now. Radio Stations and mobile DJs pay a subscription fee to get these CDs that have all the current music on them rather than having to buy entire CDs for just a single track or two.
Maybe I can put it into geek terms, well almost geek since it involves Microsoft. If you pay a yearly subscription fee to MSDN, they send you CDs with the latest versions of their software. Everything from operating systems to development libraries. These CDs are clearly marked, not for resale.
Now with this court case, one of two things could happen, Promo Only, ERG Music Traxx and similar services increase their fees to keep people from profiting from selling the individual CDs or such services cease doing business. The same thing could end up happening for MSDN and other such services as well.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
You see, that's the carp that I'm talking about. We're discussing a legal system that isn't capable of differentiating between "do not sell this" and "pay me money". That's a defunct system.
Like I've been stating to everyone else, I'm not saying that first sale is a bad thing. I'm saying that we need a way -- like standardized GPL-style agreements upon USPS delivery -- to make the legal agreement proportional in time and effort to the rest of the process. If I take two days to record my music, and ten seconds to send it to you, or two hours to courier it to you, who's going to spend the six weeks to negotiate an agreement before we agree that you can even look at it?
Back when first sale doctrine was devised, we were talking about products that took months to develop, weeks to ship, and days to negotiate agreements. Now is a very different time-trial -- days to develop, hours to ship, and weeks to negotiate. That's got to be fixed. Not for everything, but for many things.
> I could send an RIAA lawyer a cd with "Receiving this cd means that I now own your soul.
"RIAA lawyer's soul", eh? I guess you're looking for something to put on the shelf next to the "square circle", "military intelligence", and "Microsoft Works", right?
Read my other replies. You're a little late to the game. Quick summary:
-- a legal system that can't differentiate between "don't sell this" and "pay me" is defunct
-- it's been hundreds of years since the law was designed
-- it takes two days to record my music, and two hours to ship it to you, but it takes weeks to get that contract negotiated
-- maybe GPL-style standardized agreements that can be accepted or declined upon delivery would be a decent idea
-- I don't know, I'm just saying that the legal issue has become the biggest part of the innovation cycle -- and that's a problem.
There is already technical solution. It's called DRM, and perhaps some future incarnation of copy-protection could prove effective. The record companies could just as easily contrive a means to limit playback of the CD-DA format to prevent any "unauthorized resale or distribution" of their promotional phonorecords (for example a reflective layer that breaks down after a certain frequency of playback).
The U.S. Copyright Act prohibits circumventing DRM with very few exceptions. Therefore any promotional phonorecords using such a device would have a limited use that is protected by law.
--Randall
I'm all for fair use, but I think the judge went a bit too far. After all, the intended purpose of the disks seems pretty clear and promoting disincentives for record labels to distribute music for FREE to radio stations benefits no one except corrupt DJ. Fuck you, Tony.
COOL CONCEPT! Seriously, that's not a terrible idea. For a builder to sell homes that way, at half their market price, and then keep profitting from the same construction over multiple home-owners. Basically like taking the whole land-lord renting concept up a notch to home-owning but with locked-in maintenance and resale. Hey, save me $200'000 on my $400'000 home up-front, and you let younger, poorer people live in nicer places with less money. While true those home-owners would technically "own" less, your city would have nicer neighbourhoods, and land value would be proportional to the builder's success, not the owner's success, and hence your city grows with less dependency on the wealth of its citizens.
That's awesome! I mean I'm sure there are other problems with it, but that's still a great concept.
Back on topic, I've kind of already given replies to others that respond to your actual legitimate argument about forcing someone into a contract.
Everything you've said I've already responded to in other replies, please read them if you care, I'm running out of slashdot-permitted replies here, and I don't want to just paste duplicate replies.
However, I love your point about paying to take your garbage away, that hadn't crossed my mind -- I don't have to here, although that's not entirely true because there is a cap after which I would have to pay. Either way, I've responded elsewhere -- like having that phrase be a GPL-style standardized contract accepted or declined upon delivery.
im gonna put your banners on all my sites and have your children !
Read radical news here
True.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Otherwise, I could mail you a ribbon, with instructions that you had to wrap it around a bundle of $20 bills and mail it back, and you'd be obliged to do so, according to terms thrust upon you without your acceptance. The reason the discs weren't marked with instructions for their return is because they were on disposable media. Again, irrelevant to the argument at hand. They were unsolicited. No contract of any sort existed. If there HAD been instructions for their return, they would have been irrelevant. There needs to be some way to send something to someone without sending it to the world. I don't care what that technique is, just tell me what it is. Copyright laws. Use them. If you're not happy with that, then you're not happy with the Doctrine of First Sale. And if you're not happy with that,
...who's going to spend the six weeks to negotiate an agreement before we agree that you can even look at it?Not necessary. Just call them and make a verbal agreement. Record the call if you want to play it safe.
By doing that, it's no longer unsolicited, and is therefore not a gift. The "not for resale" disclaimer should actually apply in that case.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
By the way, if it only took you two days to record your music, then it clearly sucks and I don't want to hear it.
I'm kidding, of course. But the last album I was involved with took nine months from start of recording to holding the disc in my hand. Sure, Hawksley Workman can slap together an album in a week (playing all the instruments and producing it, too), but he's a pretty rare case.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
As others have noted, there already exists a way. It's called a "contract". Centuries-long basis in law for it. And no, contrary to your protestations down-thread, it's not all that inconvenient. It's called a blanket contract. I deal with it all the time as a software developer. Instead of negotiating one contract for each promo you want to send out, before you even start you negotiate one contract with the recipient covering all the promos you'll send them until they notify you in writing that they no longer want to receive the promos. One contract, one negotiation, then mail away without needing to mess with it again until you get that letter from them.
In general, the legal system doesn't let some arbitrary person impose obligations on someone else without that other party's consent and agreement. This is a good thing.
Not really.
He said that if Dell sends an unsolicited brochure, he can sell the brochure for profit (if he can find someone to buy it), regardless of what logo is on it. Using the Dell logo in his ads is trademark infringement, which applied regardless of where or how he gets the logo. He can do whatever he wants with the actual object that was received, as it now belongs to him, but only if he doesn't break any laws. Breaking any "contracts" or stipulations printed on the unsolicited material does not constitute breaking the law.
If someone sends me a knife unsolicited with a sticker that says "For use with chicken only", I am still within my rights to use the knife on roast beef, but not to use the knife to stab someone, as that is already illegal.
So I can design my ad/product/whatever, and then glue the dell brochure to it, complete with dell logo, and on my ad have a big arrow pointing to it saying "I'm with stupid". I can cut up the brochure, put glue on the back and sell dell-logo stickers and magnets for your fridge. Hey, that's a derivitive product and outside of representing myself as dell -- which is solved by a big red banner saying I am not dell -- I can use their print material because it was sent to me.
See, you've got a law that presents too many boundary conditions. It's trademark infringement to misuse the logo, but it's not any infringement to misuse the product. So if joe sends me his music unsolicited, I can't take joe's logo, but I can take joe's music. the logo is a trademark, but the music isn't.
It's a legal game with slopes and corners and precendents and avenues. What it isn't is justice that makes logical sense. it seems to me that when a a problem exists, and they write a law to solve that problem, that they are worried moreso about how that law can be used elsewhere than about how it gets used in the actual scenario for which it is being written. so you've got a legal system focussing on future problems and not current solutions. and apparently it needs to be that way. and evidently, that just ruins things horribly.
It's a case about an audio CD being resold? Why did the EFF get involved?
Option 3: Send them a one-time-use URL to download a DRMed copy of the album.
UMG has filed a lawsuit against John Does 1-4 over eBay listings reselling promo CDs distributed to radio stations, DJs, and other industry insiders. UMG claims in the suit that the right of first sale does not apply, as the discs were not actually sold and therefore remained UMG's property.
This discussion has taken a turn to the ridiculous. If you don't mind, I'll try to take it to a more reasonable direction.
The current situation is that anything sent unsolicited via USPS is a gift. Period. As far as the stickers and magnets and "I'm with stupid"'s go, they are the domain of the laws that govern what people can do with things in their possession, and I have no idea as to the legality of them. I do know that it's unreasonable for record companies or anybody else to attach stipulations to unsolicited items, and so I agree with the law that it stands, as well as the ruling.
I do like your idea for a widespread, GPL like system by which these things can be worked out, as long as it's opted into voluntarily, rather than assumed, printed on the outside of stuff people didn't want, or legislated. The opt-in part, as well as full disclosure, is important. Those interested in the situation have the responsibility to come up with a solution and implement it; the government does not. Whether that means sending an intern to get sign-off on the contract with every delivery or setting up long-term blanket agreements with the people they hope to send material to or something else is for them to decide, but it must be properly communicated and voluntary, or it's meaningless.
You've also said that if Dell sends you an unsolicited brochure, that you can sell their logo for profit, or use it in your own ads.
You can't use it in your own ads, because that would mean you are making copies of the brochure, and you don't own the copyright on the brochure. You only own the brochure, not the copyright.
You can't sell Dell's logo, because the logo (the trademark, the copyright) does not belong to you, it belongs to Dell.
What you can sell is the unsolicited brochure which came with Dell's logo on it, and you don't owe Dell anything. The brochure belongs to you, because dell sent it to you unsolicited. Note that you cannot sell copies of the brochure, that would be copyright infringement.
You really need to learn about the difference between the owner of the copyright and the owner of a copy. Unless there is a contract between the two of them, the owner of the copyright cannot restrict what the owner of a copy does with their copy.
Instead of telling you what I think, I'll let you make another attempt at reading my replies to others.
Yes, I read them, and you are still missing the fundamental point: the only thing the copyright owner has the right to do is restrict the owner of a copy from making copies. If the copyright owner wants to do something else, they need a contract.
Your idea of standardized contracts is several decades old. Lots of industries have standard contract terms with common boilerplate clauses. The music business has many of these already.
Your GPL quote has no relevance. The GPL gives the owner of a copy ADDITIONAL privileges, ABOVE and BEYOND what the owner of a copy already has, IF THEY AGREE to some terms. If you don't agree with the terms of the GPL, you can still use the copy, because you always have the rights of the owner of a copy, but you DON'T get the ADDITIONAL privileges. Without an additional contract, you only get the default rights.
In the EFF case, the music label wants to TAKE AWAY the rights of the owner of a copy. That requires a contract. Without an additional contract, you only get the default rights.
Copyright stops it. Copyright is distinct from licensing. What has been ruled out here is post sale restraints on use in so called license terms. Copyright would still stop copying and the release of derivative works.
These days they invite you to listen the record at their place because they are afraid that you distribute your copy of promo-CD over the internet, even if its already "leaked" to internet or they are afraid that it will leak before release from you.
lol wow i just thought it was ironic and unfair that the eff dont get credit and i got modded down.
Thank you for the courteous, intelligent and insightful explanation. That certainly makes sense, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain it so thoroughly.
I appreciate your taking the time to explain.
Regarding the exclusive right of public performance, that is superceded by the ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC blanket license agreements. In the case of a digital broadcast (such as satellite radio, cable radio, or Internet radio), the Section 114 and Section 112 statutory licenses also take precedence.
Such a notice applies to only the unauthorized public performance. It is essentially no different than stating "All Rights Reserved," which covers the gamut of the copyright in the sound recording and/or musical work. Radio stations and nightclubs, however, are authorized to publicly perform musical works, and hence are provided the exemption.
--Randall
Consumer protection laws exist for a reason: to protect the consumer from predatory business practices. What you're describing - a contract that someone is forced to accept by receiving something in the public mail - is very anti-consumer in every way.
The same problems happened with Book (or CD) of the Month clubs. You could call them and cancel, but then you still receive the next book/CD. "Oh," you think, "this must have crossed in the mail. Let me send to back to them."
Then you receive another one the next month, so you call again, and they say that sending the first one back relisted you... or they say that you aren't in the system but you need to mail them back their book or pay them for it. And you do.
Then you receieve another one the next month, and you decide it's their fault and you don't do anything with it, and they send you a bill.
Then you take them to court, and you win. While you had previously been under a contract with them, the contract was terminated. The fact that they continued to mail you products was their fault, not yours, and you can consider anything they send to be a gift.
That's precisely how consumer protection laws are supposed to work. Don't go screwing it up.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.