digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at networkworld.com

Judge rejects music industry's wild CD copyright claim

networkworld.com — In a major pushback against music industry efforts to expand copyright control at the expense of consumers, a California judge has ruled that recipients of promotional CDs are free to do with them as they please, up to and including reselling them on eBay. In other words, what would seem obvious to the layman, also happens to be the law.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • britblogger, on 06/11/2008, -41/+3so many jokes...

    but seriously, a cop with an intellectual brain? please.
  • trendmagic, on 06/11/2008, -11/+36If laws like this start to pass, not only will we lose the rights to resell the music....we won't even be able to listen to it without facing a lawsuit!!
    • DrCrankenstein, on 06/11/2008, -1/+22What do you mean... the judge's decision says that people CAN resell music.

      I'm at least glad that title rights in the digital age is being discussed. We need to sort this ***** out and the record companies need to take a new approach.
      • Blandyman, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1Just like trendmagic did, however, the RIAA will misinterpret the decision ("Oh, you said DON'T sue? Oh, our bad. Well, they've already sold their house to pay their lawyers. We'll drop the case. Mission accomplished.")

        Of course I'm joking, but hopefully, this is just the first step in a long line of proper legislation allowing logical usage of your own purchased products.
    • acidbathfan, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Don't buy music from RIAA affiliated companies and you wont have a problem.
    • yesimahuman, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3Are you from the RIAA? Trying to get everyone to think the article said something different...
  • dthpsc, on 06/11/2008, -1/+66Great to see some official opposition to the RIAA's attempts at creating an even more tyrannical music industry.
  • DeathWish808, on 06/11/2008, -1/+24The RIAA and some others need to be disbanded. They're allowed to go to far. ..plunk...2 quick cents.
    • feliks2, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7Yeah, there probably needs to be some sort of association to look out for music industry interests, but the RIAA is far too ***** up to ever change. It needs to be completely disbanded and the industry needs to start over. Unfortunately, I don't really see this happening, but who knows.
  • CoffeeJoost, on 06/11/2008, -4/+22Justice
  • louiebaur, on 06/11/2008, -1/+15That's cool I get promotional cd's from time to time and put them up on ebay for a few bucks and never thought twice about it. Now I really don't have to.
  • Oea420, on 06/12/2008, -4/+36***** JUDGE ROCKS!
    • freeth1nker, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3After the ruling the judge returned to his chamber to listen to his promotional copy of the new Coldplay album. (I could so see a judge listening to Coldplay.)
  • Hellman109, on 06/12/2008, -2/+11Im waiting for CDs to have strings attached to them, or more RIAA style possibly compound explosives, so that if they ever want to terminate your CD, they pull a string / level your house from their bat layden cave.
    • burnedtubes, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3They could just use the same technology as those disposable DVDs....

      RIAA = Fail
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3No strings. No explosives. Just a really long EULA which states that by opening the package you agree to all it's terms, which just happens to be located on the inside cover...
  • jerrycurIey, on 06/12/2008, -4/+10Waste of the courts time, this should be common sence
  • LightSpeed4, on 06/12/2008, -22/+2GO RIAA!

    ***** the judge.
  • LightSpeed4, on 06/12/2008, -8/+2rofl, this is not a "major pushback against music industry efforts" like the digg topic starter said. What a dumb ass.
    • Sawta, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3When you consider the fact that this is *ANY opposition towards record labels ideals whatsoever*, then yes, I would call this a major push back. Other than that, you're right.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Obvious troll is obvious
  • truthliesverbs, on 06/12/2008, -4/+8How about music ripped from a promotional CD and then seeded? This is great news for music fans...
    • dsmx, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2If your reselling CD's how is it any different from using p2p? In both case the record industry receives no money, which is probably what the case was really about.
      • Sawta, on 06/12/2008, -0/+9When you resell, one person is paying real money for it. When you seed it, several hundred/thousand/million people can get it for free at their own choosing. It's kind of different.
      • truthliesverbs, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1The whole point I am trying to make is if the Judge ordered in favor that consumers can do WHATEVER THEY WANT with the promotional CD's they obtain, then that means seeding them as well. That is huge.
  • thebrinkman, on 06/12/2008, -3/+5Dear music industry: please just ***** die under Itunes' foot already and let musicians and their listeners do the damn thang.
    • feliks2, on 06/12/2008, -2/+10iTunes is just as bad.
      • Sawta, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4cdbaby
        • uberduger, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0CDbaby is possibly one of the awesomest things to ever happen to music as far as I'm concerned. And no, I'm not on their payroll, but I've found even more good stuff on there than I ever did on Pandora.
    • thebrinkman, on 06/12/2008, -3/+1baby steps, man. anyway Itunes is the simply kind of vendor which will ultimately do in these massive companies with fat paychecks to maintain. It poses no threats such as the one this article describes, and will continue to sell for the succeeding smaller labels whose treatment of artists and fans can only be fairer than that of today's corporations.
      • vtnerd, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Most of the stuff on iTunes has DRM. DRM = threat to consumers. Apple and the RIAA can all go blow themselves until they start selling affordable (less than $5 per entire CD), quality music with no DRM.
        • celotil, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0Anyone can choose to sell their stuff on iTunes without the DRM. I like the band Poets of the Fall, and all their stuff is available with DRM or without (a few cents more expensive).

          The DRM is only there to placate the RIAA. Why do you think it's so easy to get rid of?
  • feliks2, on 06/12/2008, -5/+38***** THE RIAA
  • elitexero, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5It's about time. I buy promos from the 'ebay seller' in question all the time, he spends basically all his time hunting down promos and radio cds, so it's good to finally, after seeing him be the subject of all this crap, get a decision for his side.
  • tikited, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2Play your music to the max at universal studios Hollywood and Florida to annoy them.
    • Spinfusor, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1You do know that Universal Music and Universal Studios are separate companies, right?
      (UM is 100% owned by Vivendi, US is 20% owned by Vivendi, 80% by GE)
  • rationalbeats, on 06/12/2008, -1/+7You know there is a right way and a wrong way to approach fair compensation for intellectual property.

    Why does the RIAA always, I means always, choose the wrong way?

    Their actions are undermining the artists they supposedly represent.

    Assholes.
  • shauncullen, on 06/12/2008, -11/+2***** THE MOVIE, MUSIC, TELEVISION FATCAT PARASITES WHO CAN ONLY SURVIVE BY BLEEDING BOTH THE PRODUCER AND CONSUMER OF CREATIVE WORKS. ***** THEM.
  • niksad8, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4if the RIAA had their way,in a few years listening to music with your friends would be piracy.
  • Myztry, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5It's like bags of chocolates that say "not for individual resale". Sorry, but ownership has passed hands. And the owner can do whatever the hell the Law says they can in regards to sale.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5Yes and no. While I see the point you're making, with food marked not for resale it's a totally different ballgame.

      When you've got a food product that is marked not for resale, you do not need to put the nutritional information on the package like you do for products for resale. If someone were to take that product and resell it after it had been specifically marked as "not for resale", then the manufacturer could be liable and fined for putting out a product without the proper labeling on it.

      Since there's no nutritional value of music, you don't have the same problem.
      • Myztry, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2There may be legal requirements (such as nutritional labeling). My point is that it's what the law says. Not the manufacturer.
        It would be much simpler to place the nutritional information where the NOT FOR RESALE print is, if they were concerned about the required information not being there.
        CD's are the transfer of physical media. That's why they can be resold, with negotiated some pseudo contract.
  • dontstaylong, on 06/12/2008, -12/+4hey guess what? reselling CDs has been illegal for years, as in since the 60s or 70s. this isn't a new law.

    the reason reselling promos was made illegal (even though it was rarely enforced) is because artists aren't paid any kind of royalty for promo units shipped. the only person profiting off of this would be the guy selling the CDs, so you might as well just download the thing anyway.

    of course, this is digg, a community of people who wouldn't dare put their money towards the person who actually created their entertainment, so i fully expect to be dugg down. thanks!
    • anubis2night, on 06/12/2008, -2/+6If there's a royalty lost then the artist should take that up with their label. As for a physical entity that has passed hands in ownership it would seem prudent to be able to do with any possession as the owner see's fit. As it seems obvious that the Labels do when they originally handed out the sample cd's. As for the last part of your comment, I am a member of Digg and I'd wager that I spend more money in support of music than you. I buy cd's from the artist directly at the concerts, and I routinely pick up a few shirts as well making sure to bypass the studios and put the whole profit behind the bands. I just spent $305 Sat on concert tix for the summer and while I use Emusic to find and expand my search for independent bands I often don't even use all of my purchases. I could cancel the service but for now have left it in place if only to encourage a better business model that Itunes. Music and CD's are not what brings profit's to bands. Those are like calling cards. Labels make the lions share off of cd's. If you knew or understood the business model of the music industry you'd understand this. Bands make money from licensing and concerts. They'd make more money if they could get their media across to more people since that's what drives people to see them live. As it stands now they have to a lot of touring and festivals to push the cd's to increase their profits from tours. I know it's a crazy circular process but that's the way it works.
    • Sawta, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7So what you're saying is that, in fact, reselling promo's are illegal because the artist isn't making any money off the FREE ITEM that they physically handed to the person without expecting any kind of personal compensation in doing so. That's what you're going to go with?
    • PopcornDave, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Without citing a law that specifies the legality or otherwise to back up your claim, consider it done.
    • armyofbees, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2uh, they had CDs in the 60's?
  • brickbat, on 06/12/2008, -1/+10So why doesn't this also apply to OEM operating systems that are preinstalled? I paid for that operating system and if I decide to install Linux for example, I should be able to sell it.
    • celotil, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1It probably does apply, which is why it's nigh impossible now to buy a complete computer system and receive actual installation CDs for the OS and other pre-installed software.
  • bonds, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Good, take it you pricks.
  • shoutingbrown, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3Why does everyone think this is such a huge victory? The real problem is that even after consumers have taken legal ownership of CDs, by paying for them in a shop, the RIAA don't want us to copy them to our mp3 players or listen to them on our computers in the privacy of our own homes. So we can now all go out and sell those huge collections of promotional CDs that we apparently have cluttering up our homes? Whoop-de-doo.
    • Sawta, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5We think of it as a huge victory because the courts have actually come to a logical outcome.
      • dhice, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Courts come to a logical outcome regarding digital rights?!?!?!

        I believe we just divided by zero.
  • robbob, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3common sense
  • redshaman, on 06/12/2008, -4/+2digital watermarks forensic watermarks traceable unique identifiers bootlegs inside leaks watermarking piracy marketing promotion pre-release release tracker sonic arts MIS blue spike verimatrix activated content digimarc ... wow all kinds ... xcp song bmg
  • Soave, on 06/12/2008, -1/+12"Steal it? No, your honor. This 40 GB music collection was given to me as a promotion... from The Internets."
  • greekgoat91, on 06/12/2008, -5/+1***** 'em, ***** 'em, even if they celibate

    o wait, is that copyright infringement too?
    • PopcornDave, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Uh, how can you "***** 'em" if they're celibate?
    • greekgoat91, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1i guess geeks don't listen to Lil Wayne, o well
  • aserer511, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Thank god for some logical members of the legislating process, eh?
  • JekJob, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Ugh, it's all about making a profit. The music industry is terrible.
  • richi1173, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2i bet Metallica is really pissed off right about now on the ruling. An important step toward stomping their tyranny. U.S. District Judge James Otero FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • RabidAngel, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2The RIAA still matters?
  • diggydougie, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1This all hinges on "first sale rights". If my doctor gives me some sample drugs then can I put them up for sale on Ebay? I think that I should. I know that it's copyright vs. controlled substances, but I think that if I have something that I have a right to sell it. Whatever it is.
  • graeh, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I don't think I've ever seen a promotional CD.

    Are they common in Australia and I'm just weirdly missing out?

    Props to the judge for allowing resale of a legitimately owned item (as opposed to selling home manufactured pirate copies of media - which clearly isn't legitimate). This seems like the same sort of obvious logic that should exist when it comes to the legality of modifying or even just opening your video game console, music player, or phone. It's something you own.
    • celotil, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0Unless you're a promoter, venue owner, record store owner, popular music critic, etc, I doubt you'll ever see a promotional CD. I've seen a couple but that was when they were left on the counter at the local Cosmic.

      As to logic, we-ell ... computers and phones and MP3 players are magical devices. Only the CEOs who make lots of money truly understand how they work because, isn't it obvious, they're making lots of money. All us people who use them every day and share information about how to get the most bang for our buck are just mindless chimps getting lucky when we hammer at those devices with sharpened rocks because, obviously, we didn't invent those magical devices, the CEOs did, because they're making the big bucks.

      It's the same lack of logic I've encountered in the past when trying to introduce other people to Linux and Mac - depending on their needs and knowing that they simply can't look after the security of a Windows machine. If it doesn't cost a cent then it can't be worth anything, and if it's not the most popular then it must be crap. I've given up advocacy and simply suggest, once, what I think a person needs, and if they come back to me later with a problem on a system that isn't what they should have bought I'll tell them, "I can fix your problem but I'm not going to. You didn't listen to me before and after I fix this, and tell you how I fixed it, you're going to forget and later have the same problem and come to me to fix it again, and again, and again ... so I'm not going to fix it now. Learn how it works and fix it yourself, or pay someone else to fix it."

      Logic plays almost no part in the general public's perception of anything technical. I forget the exact quote but it applies to most people with anything more complex than a toaster,

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic."
      • graeh, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0I work as a creative - I use a PC for the software, price performance, and adaptability.

        Oh dear - it can make life difficult in a studio when designers who use Mac assume that you can't do design on PC, or that somehow photoshop and illustrator on a Mac are a more creative platform than a PC.

        I wish I had my nice transitional windows - some of the niftier parts of OSX - and some of the consistency of industrial design, but for the price, the software, all unsexy motivations, PC with XP is the most pragmatic option. The same lack of logic people display when it comes to the potential solution a mac, or linux may present, is displayed en mass by creatives with macs. It's incredibly entertaining just how shallow our understanding of the tools and items we have around us, that we may use every day, can be.
  • JurisAnonimus, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1That the record industry would even argue this position is insane. Basically, they appear to have called off all the stops and care not if every individual on the face of the planet knows that they are evil.
  • Upon66, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2The judge must use Bit Torrent
  • sk11, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1This reminds me of that movie where the mob get hit so hard by an agent that they hire a psycho to take down the entire squad. The suicidal lunatic goes completely off the rails though and causes huge problems for them, ultimately taking the whole mob down with him.

    Looks like the RIAA have hired such an animal.
  • AvangionQ, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1From the page: ""This is a very important ruling for consumers, and not just those who buy or sell used CDs," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "The right of first sale also protects libraries, used bookstores, and businesses that rent movies and videogames. This ruling affirms and protects the traditional balance between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the public." "It was clear to the court that these CDs were the property of (the eBay merchant), and therefore he had the right to resell them," said Joseph C. Gratz, attorney with Keker & Van Nest. "Copyright holders can't strip consumers of their first sale rights just by sticking a 'Not for Sale' label on a CD."" ... protecting the rights of consumers to retain the ability to resell used equipment clearly outweighs any corporate interests to maximize sales on new equipment of the same type ... I'm glad to see that Judges view the law thus favorably for the people ...
  • acidbathfan, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1When I pass by the cd's on a store shelf I feel like I'm walking by a isle filled with promo's to a really ***** circus that no one wants to go to.
  • Yage2006, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1It would be great to see ACTA die because if it does not kiss your 4th amendment rights goodbye.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.