New RIAA Argument: Throwing A Promo CD In The Garbage = Unauthorized Distribution

from the next-up:-picking-your-nose=distribution dept

Wed, Apr 9th 2008 8:22am — Mike Masnick

Last summer, the EFF sued Universal Music Group, after UMG had eBay takedown the sales of certain CDs. The CDs were promotional CDs, purchased legitimately by a guy going to LA record stores. However, UMG claimed that the CDs, as promotional items, were still the property of Universal Music Group. The EFF charged that UMG was abusing the law, specifically by ignoring the right of first sale, which is enshrined in copyright law allowing you to resell CDs or other works that contain copyrighted material. In response, UMG has now filed a brief that says that throwing out a promotional CD is unauthorized distribution.

Effectively, UMG is saying that merely by putting some fine print on a CD, it can effectively "own" that CD forever. If the court agrees, this would have some rather stunning ramifications, effectively wiping out the first sale doctrine. Record labels could then include similar language on all CDs, not just promo CDs, and then basically create its own copyright rules, preventing any use other than what the record label decided to allow. That would seem to go against much of historical precedent (and basic common sense) surrounding copyright. Courts in the past have noted time and time again that just because you say something is true, it doesn't mean it necessarily is true. Hopefully the court will make that point once again.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, distribution, eff, first sale, promo cds
Companies: eff, universal music

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

sonofdot, 9 Apr 2008 @ 8:29am

We should be so lucky
That would be the labels putting the final nails in their coffins themselves. This is the same bullshit as software being "licensed" instead of purchased.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Magusyk, 9 Apr 2008 @ 8:38am

Good Grief! Has the human race really stooped this low?

Its the end of the world....as we know it. Oh crap, Now I'll get sued by REM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michelle, 9 Apr 2008 @ 8:45am

Have they lost their mind? Talk about grasping at straws!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 8:58am

After reading the RIAA complaint one recognizes that what the RIAA is saying (1) is that since they did not sell or give the physical CD away but only loaned the physical CD to the recipient the CD are still property of the recording studios. (2) That the recording studio only licensed the CD to the perspective recipient to personally listen to. (3) That the recipient has agreed by accepting the CD to return the CD to the owner, the studio which sent the CD to the recipient, up on completion of usage by the recipient and that the recipient is not authorized to disposed of the owner’s, recording studio, by any other means.

Thus the basic question is who owns the CD?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:00am

This is hardly the first time they've tried something like this. The RIAA tried to claim ownership over CDs that were thrown out by the USPS at their request not too long ago.

Oh crap, Now I'll get sued by REM

As long as you don't feel fine, you should be ok.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:05am

Re:
We do recognize what the RIAA is saying but due to what DanC pointed out we don't understand it.

How can they possibly own a CD that they told the Post Office to throw away. Once it hits the can doesn't it become city property or something like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:08am

Re:
Nice, red herring, DanC. Of course that is the techdirt way so congradulations. Mike will be proud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:18am

Correction to the A/C
As are, apparently, spelling errors. "congradulations" ???

Perhaps you meant 'congratulations' ?

con·grat·u·la·tion
[kuhn-grach-uh-ley-shuhn or, often, -graj-, kuhng-]

–noun
1. the act of congratulating.
2. congratulations, an expression of joy in the success or good fortune of another.

–interjection
3. congratulations, (used to express joy in the success or good fortune of another): Congratulations! You have just won the lottery!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/congratulations
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pale Rider, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:19am

Software lawyers at work -
Isn't this what Microsoft started doing several years ago? You have a license to "use" the software, and only on one machine! You can't give it away or even leave it installed on the machine it came on. Legally you can't even uninstall it to install it on another machine. So I can buy the right to play this CD in my car, but not in my home? I wonder if I can let anyone else listen to it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:20am

After reading the complaint, I would argue that UMG effectively abandoned the cd's and perhaps even the copywrited material. They admit they send out 10s of thousands, and admit that they do nothing to get them back, and do not expect to get them back. They state that disposing of them is not allowed, but that they have the right to the cds at all times.
lets sue them for the damage these cd's do to the enviornment and make them pay to retrieve them from landfills. It is their property as they claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:25am

Re: Re:
I always like to read criticism that provides no explanation. Just the typical "no, you're wrong" without any actual substance. And we get bad punctuation and misspellings as well.

The U.S. government argued the case on behalf of the recording industry. The government stated that "BMG is a victim because it owns the discs, sells them with permission of the copyright owners, and controls the disposition of undeliverable discs." Of course, how BMG retained ownership of the discs after they told the USPS to throw them out is still a bit of a mystery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
obvioustroll, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:27am

Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
1) is that since they did not sell or give the physical CD away but only loaned the physical CD to the recipient the CD are still property of the recording studios.

See, this is where they fail.
"According to the first sale doctrine, once a copyright owner has parted with ownership of a CD, book, or DVD, whether by sale, gift, or other disposition, they may not control further dispositions of that particular copy (including throwing it away)."

Whoops. See, they are parting with ownership to give the people the opportunity to listen to the music. These people then play the music on the air waves. It is effectively a gift or a barter in exchange for play time. You like the music, you play it, band gets very cheap publicity. It cost a CD and postage. Pretty much any common sense shows this to be a transaction.

You can loan someone a book. However when you delete all records of who has that book and really don't care or ask for it back, ever, then you didn't loan it, you gave it away and are not entitled to get it back. Trying to retroactively change the rules to force everyone to send back a book you "loaned" is shady at best.

Personally, I think that all the radio stations should have some fun with it.
They want to own those CDs and not let the stations throw them away?

Send em all back, COD.

When they suddenly have a few thousand metric tons of CDs show up in the mail with a bill and no place to keep them, we can see what they do. Bet you diving in their trash that day would be very profitable as they just gave up the rights to those CDs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shmengie, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:27am

it's true
i read through the brief to confirm whether or not umg is claiming infringement via disposal. sure as shit, on page 6 of the brief (page 13 of the pdf), they do, in fact, state exactly that, in no uncertain terms.

why am i still surprised by these stories?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:29am

Re: Re:
Once it hits the can doesn't it become city property or something like that?

It becomes abandoned property, which is why the police can look through your garbage without a warrant. I don't think it actually becomes city property until it's actually retrieved by the city.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GHynson, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:32am

Blame Game
Why blame the RIAA, or the record studios?
We should blame the artist's that use these distro's.
If "Every" artist told the big studio's to F___off,
and use distro's like Myspace, or other artist promoting
media, the RIAA and the mega studio's would just fade away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devil's Advocate, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:40am

Hillarity Ensues
Can UMG they be sued for neglect or engangerment by not printing on the CD "Return Postage Guaranteed" and an address to send their precious promo CD to?

If it can't go to the dump, it's definitely going somewhere!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 9:50am

Re: Hillarity Ensues
If UMG wants a promo CD back, and uses "Return Postage Guaranteed" idea, it appears they will likely infringe on another's IP.

Patent 5570081 is a "Lost article tracking system" and covers this type of concept for lost keys.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5570081-description.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 10:03am

Re: Blame Game
Some of them can't just leave the Labels, for fear of a breach-of-contract clause that would financially end them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kipster, 9 Apr 2008 @ 10:06am

Re: Correction to the A/C
aren't you smart!!

um, get a life. or go teach high school english.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kipster, 9 Apr 2008 @ 10:10am

Re: Re: Re:
i see 3 or 4 errors in your own post. commas are our friends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 9 Apr 2008 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"aren't you smart!!

um, get a life. or go teach high school english."

Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
moore850 (profile), 9 Apr 2008 @ 10:42am

Stop making CD's
The solution to all of this is simple: stop creating digital music, since no one can figure out how to "protect" a cd in any tangible way. Why would you give someone a DVD of a movie if all you wanted was to sell them a ticket to see the movie? It's the same principle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slimcat (profile), 9 Apr 2008 @ 10:55am

Your trash? No!
"It becomes abandoned property, which is why the police can look through your garbage without a warrant."
And, in case anyone was wondering, as I was, this was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sandra, 9 Apr 2008 @ 11:16am

Universal Music Group can kiss my white ass. Wait. The unique design of MY ass is trademarked, and the lyrical melody of my white farts is copyrighted. So go ahead and kiss my ass you, greedy motherf---ers. I'll see you in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Think of this, 9 Apr 2008 @ 11:29am

Well since technically the music companies don't manufacture the CDs themselves. They buy them and then copy music onto them. So one could argue that TDK or whoever manufactured the CD is the owner.

Does that also mean that I can get sued by 3M for throwing a post-it not away?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alimas, 9 Apr 2008 @ 11:44am

Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
"According to the first sale doctrine, once a copyright owner has parted with ownership of a CD, book, or DVD, whether by sale, gift, or other disposition, they may not control further dispositions of that particular copy (including throwing it away)."

That is where you fail.

They didn't part with ownership. Lending a book is a great example. If I lend someone a book and even go so far as to label the book in a manner that clarifies I'm simply lending it out and he sells it, that isn't legal. The purchaser also enters unsafe water as well since he just bought stolen goods. These goods happen to be "intellectual property".

"However when you delete all records of who has that book..."

It is clear that UMG keeps a record of who they send these Promo CDs to as they were aware of Augusto's past as a Promo CD recipient and the fact that he is no longer. And do you think they just call around and remake a new list every time they want to send out a Promo disc?

I can't defend the garbage thing. Technically, I think it would be IP distribution, but its still really stupid to bring it up. Thats akin to suing someone for playing their car radio with the window down. They should be embarrassed for that one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 11:48am

Re:
Not unless 3M writes the requistite EULA on the back of each note. "Use of this note constitutes consent to..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 9 Apr 2008 @ 11:49am

An Unintended Consequence
A point that we are overlooking is that content producers through this onerous claim that they still "own" the product are actually transferring a degree of liability to the end user. Specifically that the end-user has assumed responsibility for the proper care of their product.
You accidentally scratch the CD, have you now damaged their property and they would now feel entitled to compensation?
You loan the CD to a friend, you now owe the record company a "rental fee".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
whirler, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:04pm

Idiots
Ok, that's it - I have it. I am going to burn every CD in my collection x1000 and then give them away on every street corner in my home town. Catch me if you can RIAA!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BlowURmindBowel, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
Didn't a bunch of people get together and do this to AOL with those damn junkmail AOL installer CDs back in the day?

IIRC they ended up sending like two palettes of AOL disks back to the head office.

Would be fun to do to the Record companies but I doubt it would accomplish much, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:18pm

No, don't complain! Applaud!
They're doing your job for you, Mike! The main reason this behaviour proliferates is because most people are pretty uninformed about things like this. They don't understand alot of these issues, not do they care to. But the most stupid shit they do, the more people will get pissed off... Until the revolution comes and we kill all RIAA attorneys and generals suit-wearers. Muahaha! (Just kidding about the revolution part.)

But seriously, ignore what's on paper, because it's all grey area anyway, and do what you want with what you have purchased. If we keep doing it, eventually the market will change to suit us, as it is slowly doing now. Even Wal-Mart sells digital music that says you can copy it as many times as you like.

Wal-Mart says: "There are no restrictions on the number of computers or devices you can copy MP3s to, and no restrictions on the number of times you can burn them to a disc."

Yay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:20pm

Re: Idiots
You, sir are an asshat. Thats the stupidest thing I have read all day. And I just finished reading the Weekly World News.

The only logical explanation is that you work for the RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BlowURmindBowel, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:21pm

The funny thing...
To me the funny thing is that for most small/local/regional labels promo CDs are meant to be free (read: it is now your property, and it is free), they only have 4/5 tracks on them and they get handed out at shows and festivals ad nauseam.

I go to the Wakarusa Music Festival here in my home town every year, and every year I come home with around three dozen free CDs from bands that I am actually interested in listening to. The CDs themselves are mostly reasonably well produced and professionally pressed/manufactured on contract from the local/regional label...

And from what I can tell, these local/regional labels have grown several orders of magnitude (both in number, and size of each label) over the last ~10 years...

I wonder why? ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:26pm

Re:
When do you EVER "return the CD to the owner, the studio which sent the CD to the recipient, up on completion of usage by the recipient" after accepting the CD as a free promotional item? Free stuff is simply that, free stuff. If you hand me a disk because you are trying to promote your band, why would you sue if I later give that disk away to someone else to listen to? A)It only widens the spread of your initial campaign to advertise your music, and b) you were giving the disk away for FREE in the first place, fully intending to not see a profit from it. So if I turn around and make a few bucks on ebay for my effort to promote YOUR music, I think that is fair, and the recording label is no further behind except that someone else has gotten to listen to the music they were originially handing away for nothing as a promo, thus launching them ahead of the game. Open your eyes RIAA, idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liquid, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:27pm

Re: Correction to the A/C
OMG are you that bored of a person to correct other people's grammar on the internet... You have to be one Anal SOB...

Ohhh wait you might just be an English teacher... Sorry my bad professor spelling B...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
That is where you fail.

They didn't part with ownership. Lending a book is a great example.

And this is exactly the problem. If this is allowable, then there really isn't anything to stop a book publisher from including a similar notice in its books. It allows for the circumvention of the first sale doctrine by telling people they're purchasing a license instead of a product.

This is essentially the same debate over whether you can resell software, even if the EULA says you can't. The closest a court case has come to determining this issue has been Softman vs. Adobe, but in that instance the EULA had never been agreed to.

In the case of UMG, it appears that they're trying to put forth the notion that the CDs are on "indefinite loan" to the recipients. Hopefully the EFF wins this lawsuit, as a loss could have particularly damaging repercussions to consumer rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BlowURmindBowel, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:31pm

R U Serial?
OMG are you that bored of a person to take jabs at people because they correct other people's grammar on the internet... You have to be one Insecure SOB...

Ohhh wait you might just be an DOUCEBAG... Sorry my bad Trollie McTrollington...

***Actually my post, your post, and the guy correcting spelling are all idiotically inane posts, I'm just not so petty as to not admit it. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
moe, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
That's an extremely weak claim. If the right of first sale includes the wording, "or other disposition", then I think you can consider that they parted with ownership of the CD. If they send out tens of thousands of CDs all over the country, and do nothing to assert their ownership of the CDs, then they've parted with ownership.

Lending a book is a good example, you're right. When you lend a book, there is an expectation that you'll get the book back. When promo CDs are sent out there is no expectation that they'll get the CDs back. The point of the promo CDs is that they'll be out "in the wild" promoting the artist.

This is just the RIAA getting upset that there is a secondary market for their products, and they're mad they can't be a part of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave the Rave, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:41pm

No one wins in this circumstance...not the RIAA and certainly not the public. Everybody hurts...sometimes. Oh crap, now I'll be sued by REM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:42pm

This could easily make the CD 'owner' responsable for cleanup costs
This could be used to rip the CD companies a 'new one.' What if "their" property was contaminated with something, and then disposed of in a place that needed remediation? wouldn't they be required to remove (and then decontaminate them) thereby costing them millions of dollars?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BlowURmindBowel, 9 Apr 2008 @ 12:50pm

Re: This could easily make the CD 'owner' responsable for cleanup costs
Theoretically yes, but I think that if CDs contained any extremely harmful substances we would have figured that out by now, and you would have to dispose of them at local hazmat collection sites, and there would be tons of PSAs explaining that you can't throw CDs in the garbage, etc.

But then again, how often are you told that you "can't throw batteries in the trash" as opposed to hearing that you "should recycle them"...

But having studied RCRA and CERCLA, there are tons of loopholes that allow corporations to weasel out of having to pony up to clean up sites they are responsible for contaminating, bankruptcy actually being one of the easiest believe it or not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eric Fredericksen, 9 Apr 2008 @ 1:06pm

No more cds
This is precisely why I no longer buy cds. I only listen to the radio and don't do that very often. I am tired of all the tired posturing and fingerpointing. Now if everyone refused to buy a cd or dvd with FINE PRINT. Then it would stop immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ehrichweiss, 9 Apr 2008 @ 3:34pm

Re: We should be so lucky
Except some software IS licensed legitimately.

I own several Silicon Graphics servers and the operating system is licensed specifically for the hardware you have purchased. The deal is that SGI actually takes care of it's loyal customers, so if I bought a brand new server with the support contract and my hard drives crashed and somehow my install media was destroyed, I would make a single call to support and they'd have me a new copy overnight. No questions asked and completely for free(well, I might have to pay for the shipping). The thing is, you can use any copy of the install media as it is not tied into the system hardware-wise but you are forbidden by signed contract(they won't sell to you without the signature) to sell any copies without the hardware they are assigned to.

Strangely, this sounds a bit strict but makes perfect sense and SGI are incredibly lenient about this even though they have the right to be incredibly nasty since they have signatures, and hence a fully legally binding contract.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Wyman, 9 Apr 2008 @ 3:38pm

Don't US Mail laws apply here?
As I understand it, any unsolicited mail which is clearly addressed to you becomes your property on receipt and without limit. If the demo disks were sent as unsolicited mail then they would become property of the recipients. (i.e. If the demos were sent to a list of "known" reviewers or "music stores" -- not to people who explicitly asked for the demos)

bob wyman
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 5:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
The difference between sale, rent, and lend.

In sale ownership is transferred.

Ownership did not transfer so there was no sale.

Rent ownership does not transfer and the owner receives money back for the borrower usage.

Lent ownership does not transfer with no rent collected.

RIAA position is that ownership was not transferred.

If CD were ordered to be disposed of by Post Office by throwing in trash question is did ownership transfer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 9 Apr 2008 @ 5:30pm

So much for CD's...
If the RIAA can actually get away with printing "this is ours forever" on regular CD's, does this mean I ever owned the CD?

And does this mean that I can't buy a CD and give it as a gift? Would I have to get the RIAA's permission to give CD's as Christmas gifts? Or would all of my recipients be treated as thieves for not paying for the CD's?

I think I'll just give people gift certificates to the music stores or iTunes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 6:21pm

AOL promo CDs
Well, I guess that a lot of people are in trouble for tossing those AOL CDs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Heart RIAA, 9 Apr 2008 @ 6:39pm

Where's the RIAA
Article mentions UMG, why is RIAA in the headline? Oh, to help get people to read it.
Mike is slipping, but wait, his response will be that the RIAA reps all the majors. I know, I know, Mike is never wrong and loves to get everything for free as the method to get him to buy it. Yes, maybe cars should be free, houses, food and jobs, you know, so we can try them out, and if we like them, go back and buy something from one of those companies. I'm still waiting for my free Techdirt corporate report to help my company, you know, the ones we have to pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jeff, 9 Apr 2008 @ 7:24pm

this article is biased
companies send out promotional copies that CLEARLY say "not for sale. property of this company." It is illegal to sell them. Meaning the kid bought these cds black market. They were never for sale. They are owned by UMG. They are not trying to trick anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
Ownership did not transfer so there was no sale.

That's what's in question. Just because you and the RIAA say so that doesn't make it so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hellsvilla, 9 Apr 2008 @ 7:54pm

Re: this article is biased
Sure, and if I write "this is a nuclear warhead" on a clay brick, then it is then a nuclear warhead, no questions asked.... right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2008 @ 8:09pm

Re: this article is biased
companies send out promotional copies that CLEARLY say "not for sale. property of this company."
That doesn't necessarily make it so. Some people seem to have this bizarre idea that if something is written down it somehow becomes "law". That isn't so.

It is illegal to sell them.
Again, just because you and the record companies say so doesn't make it so. You vastly overestimate your authority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 10 Apr 2008 @ 3:52am

Re: Where's the RIAA
I know, I know, Mike is never wrong and loves to get everything for free as the method to get him to buy it. Yes, maybe cars should be free, houses, food and jobs, you know, so we can try them out, and if we like them, go back and buy something from one of those companies.

Um. No. I've never said that and pretending I have is wrong. I have said that *infinite* goods will become free over time.

I have not said that anything *should* be free, and I've certainly never suggested that anything scarce (which includes cars, houses, food and jobs) should be free. In fact, I've said just the opposite. Those things should be charged for. But you can use infinite goods to make them more valuable.

You can mock me all you want, but at least get the basics right. Otherwise, you look pretty silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 10 Apr 2008 @ 3:55am

Re: this article is biased
this article is biased

I love it when people call me "biased." What's the bias? It seems that any time someone has an opinion you disagree with, you call them biased.

I have no "bias." I simply give my opinion based on the facts.

companies send out promotional copies that CLEARLY say "not for sale. property of this company." It is illegal to sell them.

Just because they print that doesn't make it so. I thought I clearly explained that in the text of the post. Did I not?

Meaning the kid bought these cds black market. They were never for sale. They are owned by UMG.

Again, the law suggests otherwise. Once UMG has "disposed" of these CDs, they are no longer "owned" by UMG under the first sale doctrine, which is encoded in US law.

They are not trying to trick anyone.

No one suggested otherwise. Unless you meant that UMG is trying to "trick" the courts into granting it the ability to create its own extra-copyright rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Debunked, 10 Apr 2008 @ 5:01am

Just call me God
Mike quote:
"I have no "bias." "

Right- this is a totally intellectually honest statement (meant as humor).

I have no problem admitting to being biased for my ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obvious Troll, 10 Apr 2008 @ 5:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward not reading the law
You left one out and it is a major one.

The ACTUAL difference is between sale, rent, lend, AND GIFT.

Guess which matters and was conviently ignored.

If you send a bunch of CDs out, keep NO RECORD (they admit to this in their filing), have no expectation of having it returned (also admitted), do not attempt to get it back (admitted) and do not have any known examples of having one returned (again admitted) then it is NOT LENT. It is a gift.

Ownership transferred when it was gifted. First sale doctrine clearly covers gifting in its wording.

RIAA can claim whatever it wants. But as a promotional effort it was clearly sending them as "free gifts" with the understanding that the recipients would listen and possibly use the CD and in doing so promote their music.

If they had LENT the CDs they would have kept track of the people. (Whoever said they did is incorrect. They admit to otherwise in their court briefing.) They didn't, they didn't care about the people and admit the logistics of getting the CDs back would be too costly.

Well, if something is too costly you don't do it. You don't half-@ss it and expect the courts to do the work for you. They are trying to save money by forcing the taxpayers to pay to police their bad policies. Either don't send out gifts and try to limit them, or spend the money to make it a proper "lend" and make them return it in a defined amount of time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 10 Apr 2008 @ 10:14am

Re: Just call me God
I don't deny that I'm opinionated, and I believe certain things that I try to back up with facts, but that's different from "bias" which means an "unfair" skew or unreasonable skew. Being biased implies some outside influence that biases you. There's no outside influence on my posts. I simply write what I think. I won't deny that they're opinionated, but that's different than bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Debunked, 10 Apr 2008 @ 10:35am

Definitions Needed
Mike's definition of bias quote:
Being biased implies some outside influence that biases you. There's no outside influence on my posts. I simply write what I think. I won't deny that they're opinionated, but that's different than bias.

Wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result. All information and points of view have some form of bias. A person is generally said to be biased if the person's output is influenced by inner biases, to the extent that one's views is not subjectively considered neutral or objective.

Let the reader decide. Once again, for the record, I am biased according to the Wikipedia definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2008 @ 10:20pm

Re: Definitions Needed
A person is generally said to be biased if the person's output is influenced by inner biases, to the extent that one's views is not subjectively considered neutral or objective.

Well, that doesn't seem to apply to Mike in this case. Congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
matthew, 17 May 2008 @ 3:55pm

dont now
you people rock even thoug i dont now you you now wat i shouldent even be here rite now bye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]