silverwhisper's tags:
courtesy of slashdot...

short version: universal music group (UMG) sent out unsolicited promotional CDs which unsurprisingly wound up on ebay. UMG is suing the ebayers, in spite of US caselaw (and indeed logic) to the contrary, arguing they retain ownership of the CDs. long version here.

commentary: a little explanation, if this seems a bit hard to understand:

in US intellectual property law, the “first sale” doctrine dictates that once someone has physical possession of a legal product, they can dispose if it however they like. by way of explanation:

once you've acquired a lawfully-made CD or book or DVD, you can lend, sell, or give it away without having to get permission from the copyright owner. in simpler terms, “you bought it, you own it” (and because first sale also applies to gifts, “they gave it to you, you own it” is also true).

seems obvious, right? after all, without the "first sale" doctrine, libraries would be illegal, as would used bookstores, used record stores, and video rental shops (and their modern variants, like lala and other CD-swapping communities).

i’ll confess i wasn’t familiar with the “first sale” doctrine until reading this article, but it makes a lot of sense.

now, universal’s argument is patently absurd—if you’ll pardon the pun. even if the law didn’t make this laughable, there would also be the problem of it being utterly unenforceable.

i think this is all about their trying to intimidate, much as the recording industry did in trying to sue people who uploaded music to filesharing sites. unfortunately for universal, the EFF stepped up to the plate.

ed

del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • the_infernal_optimist said on Apr 11, 2008....
    [headscratch]

    Did Universal really think anyone would be ok with this?? Or that it would get anywhere?

    And did you see this? They're claiming that throwing away a promotional CD is illegal! :-p

    ~Infernal
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 11, 2008....
    Oh this looks interesting...
  • nytquill17 said on Apr 11, 2008....
    Err...huh?  This sounds like a bad commercial.

    Like, "I've secretly replaced the head honcho of UMG with a hamster in a wheel, now let's watch and see if anyone notices!"

    I can't see ANY logic here.  I can't even figure a publicity stunt out of this.  I grok record companies trying to intimidate people, since they're all up in arms about downloading and filesharing and stuff.  But this is so silly and obviously wrong that it's hard to feel intimidated, and while nothing is over until it's over (like, the judge could be a real nutjob or they have something else up their sleeve), it's a fairly good bet they will get shot down in court which will just make them LESS intimidating in the future.
  • LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 11, 2008....

    Hey Ed,

    If you recieve some ting in the mail that you didn't order, it's yours period. It's interesting, I've been reading about inttelectual property laws, and how they are trying to revamp them in this digital age.  People are not buying music the way they used to, they are downloading digitally.  Record company profits have dropped dramatically and the executives are afriad that soon they will all have to go out and get real jobs.  So no, I'm not surprised that they would pull a stunt like this one.  I should mention that I did not receive a CD in the mail, but now I wish I had.  Peace andLong Life 

  • Fallyn said on Apr 11, 2008....
    there go my purging efforts.
    dammit.
    anyone want to buy a bunch of REALLY crappy cd's for a buck apiece?

    *grin*
  • sexylatinagal said on Apr 11, 2008....
    if that isn't a bunch of crap, i don't know what is?
  • GrapeKoolaid said on Apr 11, 2008....
    This is precisely the reason why I support digital piracy... 

    Nothing like a virtual swashbuckling to stick it to transnatcorp, you know? 

    Support the pirate party!!!  Yarr Matey!!!  >;D

    }(((((*>  Trout?  :D


  • CreativeWoman said on Apr 11, 2008....
    Perhaps it is all a big publicity stunt to further promote the CD?  It makes you wonder.

    CW
  • RollingC said on Apr 11, 2008....
    It probably is a publicity stunt.
    Rc
  • Lucytorial said on Apr 11, 2008....
    Interesting post Ed: I have to deal with copyright all the time, not just with music which we purchase and rip off  ssshhh but in imagery.

    Eg: We create a DVD, the finished product is handed over to the client, our copyright states quite simply that the client has limited use of the footage for use only within the restraint of the original request.  They are NOT permitted to on sell, or hand over the footage to a second party for use in any way.

    This is purely what I would call a gentleman's agreement, a simple cease and desist works 9 out of 10 times however if we were to take miss use/infringement to the courts we wouldn't win, as you state even in Australia we cannot control that which we have handed over as gift or otherwise.  It means though that we lose money, shit loads of it.

    We get paid $**** to create a DVD, the owner then passes on the footage to a second party and it is re edited and he sells it for $**,***, making money off our hard work it sucks but we have no recourse but a gentleman's agreement in writing as per above.  If its changed in Aus more than 28% its safe to rip off anyones work.

    Copyright laws like all are so open to interpretation that they simple do nothing but befuddle and unintentionally provide back doors for those out to make a quick buck!

    sorry for such a long comment, I get passionate about it and commercial law.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 11, 2008....
    Lucytorial, someone else using your footage in another product (a "derivative" product) is a violation of copyright in most places, certainly in the US. I don't know about Australia though.

    Of course, that brings into question Youtube and stuff like that. While I certainly support copyright WRT derivative works for pay, I am also hesitant to sic lawyers on the creators of mashup derivative works that I really enjoy watching/listening to for free.

    My main problem with copyright is that it lasts far too long before the works fall into the public domain -- or at least some kind of broader fair use.

    While the tactics of some copyright owners really bothers me, I don't support outright piracy beyond what could be considered fair use anyway. And "first sale" is certainly fair use.

    But I'm sure the copyright owners will find a way around this. My son bought a computer game today which requires Steam, and on the game's website it states "do not purchase this game second hand because you will be unable to play it". Because it requires registration and the CD key is linked to the first purchaser.
  • Lucytorial said on Apr 11, 2008....
    TinS ~ oh we are protected by standard copy right however if the imagery is changed by as little as 28% we are without foundation to sue, not that I would as I said before a simple cease and desist is always enough. 

    Broader fair use is a very hazy line Tin, mainly because how do you gauge the longevity of say a piece of footage or music? you simple can't.  Something we do today could have far reaching value and to be honest I wouldn't want to be in a position where I am 10 yrs down the track watching someone else use my stuff without asking me... its my integrity, my work, my name my brand.

    I'm all for fair use if its appropriate and I have been asked. 
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 11, 2008....
    But for how long? 10 years? 20 years? 90 years? In perpetuity?

    So I need to ask if I make a copy for myself? For my friend? For a few friends?

    Yes, copyright violations can be the death of a thousand cuts. Then again, I see a lot of stuff on Youtube that is very creative but would not be able to be made at all if people had to ask every copyright owner for permission.

    I respect your position, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot or call you wrong, but I think that in many cases it can be a very fuzzy area where your work ends and another begins. I think there are a lot of factors at play but I'm not sure how well I could put that into words.

    And as I try to point out -- there is a big difference between a derivative work made "for the fun of it" and distributed for free, and one made specifically for profit.
  • Lucytorial said on Apr 11, 2008....
    I agree with your last statement, hey your not being anything but conversational w me, its good.

    The thing is that as a doco maker, my work is in a sense a piece of time, it has been built and made with integrity, a spirit for with the end result is quite important.  It is spectacular in the sense that it was done, now if you wish to utilize some of that spectacular you can purchase it, not steal it, but purchase it and do what you wish with it.

    Fair use would apply to a very limited degree.

    As for time frames, some yes in perpetuity, however it would be fairer to say that after 50 yrs sure, within limits rip it off! make it even more spectacular if you can??

    Ahh now I am finding it difficult, we have a youtube channel where we post quite a bit of work, anyone can take it, its not that difficult to import a clip from youtube, however as we are for profit its our living when you do that, the quality is shite, it then degrades the original, the known factor that thats our work, makes us look lesser for it because people think we did it. We've had run ins with people doing that on youtube already yet, in the interest of having good faith those that do it with style and class are left to their own, those that do not are served.  Its a rather personal interpretation isn't it.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 13, 2008....
    infernal: yep, i did see that (there's a reference in the original article) but it's ridiculous. like i said, i think this is ultimately about nothing more than simply intimidating people.

    TS: "interesting", if by that you mean "wow, universal's a bunch of frigging morons"... :> so..for how long should IP laws protect the original work, in your view?

    nyt: what i'm hoping is that the EFF countersues for a frivolous suit.

    worf: see, here's what i don't get: seems to me that the publishing companies are at much greater risk than RIAA-affiliated companies, and w/ the ever-increasing costs of paper, their profit margins are smaller than record labels. but you don't see them engaging in this kind of extortion--instead, you have stephen king releasing work electronically. so what's the deal w/ these idiots? i sometimes think that the record labels are run by the same guys responsible for e-voting machines!

    fallyn: um...purging efforts?

    sexylatina: o, it's a steaming pile of crap!

    grape: i don't support piracy, but i understand the appeal. as someone who hope to make a living through intellectual property laws, it's quite clear a new understanding is needed w/out this reactionary, fear-driven idiocy. interesting about the pirate party, though, and their influence. :> no, no trout just yet--but it's early... :D

    CW: i dunno, to me this appears to be a move that isn't artist-specific--the "logic" in this move would seem to apply across the entire universal catalog.

    rollingc: if so, for what, though?

    tobi-lee: it's a funny thing--to me, youtube and the like don't qualify as making a derivative work that violates IP laws, specifically b/c those don't really make anybody any money (except for youtube through google adsense). if it were a proposition where someone uses your material in a clearly commercial fashion (e.g., takes your work, modifies it the necessary 28%) and sells it, i agree that should be a very clear case of IP infraction.

    i'm sorry i missed out on this exchange!

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 13, 2008....
    TS: "interesting", if by that you mean "wow, universal's a bunch of frigging morons"... :> so..for how long should IP laws protect the original work, in your view?

    I mainly said "interesting" in order to keep this within my attention span. Yes, I use the flag thing sometimes too.

    How long should IP laws protect the original work? Well the original copyright law in the US was 14 years with the option for renewal for continuing terms of 14 years. I know I thought about it and posted elsewhere but I'm okay with that. It shouldn't be infinite, though -- maybe be extended three or four times? Five times 14 years is 70 years, that should be more than sufficient in my opinion.

    WRT Youtube, those are definitely derivative works. If someone used Lucytorial's images in a way that was offensive to her, wouldn't that still be a violation even if the work was distributed for free?

    I think that Youtube fits into kind of a gray area. If an IP owner asked someone who say made an AMV with anime footage and a popular song to cease and desist, I believe that the IP owner(s) have the right to do that. But just because they have the right doesn't make it the right thing to do if the video was created by amateurs and fans.

    The point of copyright isn't to encourage people to create, as is often pointed out, but rather to encourage people and give them an incentive to share their creations.

    Also, even though trademarks and patents all get rolled up into "intellectual property" the rules are and should be different. I assume that we're mostly discussing copyright law here though.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 14, 2008....
    hm...i agree 14 is inadequate. and of course, you and i are familiar w/ the ways in which certains rightsholders (e.g., T$R) were about protecting their IP.

    re: derivative works, my understanding is that the example you cited is technically a violation of IP laws, but as there's no money changing hands in the direction of the video creator, it's hard to demonstrate loss of sales, which i believe is usually a relatively significant point in such cases. so yeah, definite gray area, i agree.

    yeah, my intended meaning here is really copyright specifically rather than the much broader "intellectual property" umbrella. patents and the US patent office have their own peculiar brand of stupid--esp if you read slashdto. :>

    ed
  • Lucytorial said on Apr 15, 2008....
    man I so missed this sorry guys...

    Yes TS, we are discussing copyright here, and I agree w your statement in general.

    The point of copyright is not to share their ideas... this is the main problem, I do a piece, you do a piece, my piece is clearly outstanding yours is well guff! clearly you have used my images and made them into something lesser... thats where copyright comes into it.

    Small time stuff sure what ever, but as I make a living, and a substantial one I might add doing original creative videographical works then there is absolutely no way I will share my work for others to use and then degrade my name.....
    agghhhhh

    Its not that hard to show a loss of sales silver, its far easier than you think especially if the work itself is backed up by a branded name that has been selling same for some time.

    Ahh now you have it, intellectual property is far grayer than copyright property and thats where its extremely difficult to control.  My movie a day in the life... I own the copyright, I cannot trademark it because its a common speak term, cool thats fine however if someone else makes a movie/doco with the title a day in the life of????? and its inferior (we sell international btw) and its in the same intent, etc etc then that is not gray, our rights have been infringed, ergo I will send a writ.

    But in the courts, there is so little to protect us bar the fact we have **grin** a proven sales record, a name, a brand recognition that indeed the concept (intellectual copyright) was created by us...

    soooo full on, so in depth, I have just done a 10 hour day at work and found this so I am very sorry if you cannot follow me.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 15, 2008....
    tobi-lee, i know that UK IP law is very pro-rights holder, at least WRT US IP law. is that the case in australian IP law, too?

    ed

Comment on "universal: when we send you something unsolicited for free it is not yours"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)