Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend

from the copyfraud-and-sons dept

Fri, Dec 28th 2012 8:22am — Mike Masnick

We've talked a lot about the concept of "copyfraud," the increasingly common activity of copyright holders claiming more rights than copyright allows. It happens all the time, but sometimes it's really egregious. Wired is reporting on how the super popular band Mumford & Sons CD, Babel includes a copyright warning label that says it's infringement to lend the CD to anyone:

“The copyright in this sound recording and artwork is owned by Mumford & Sons. Warning: all rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited.”

You can see a scan of the back of the CD here, which includes the warning on the left:

Here's a rotated and zoomed in image:

While this is clearly copyfraud, the article makes a few important points. First, it's bizarre that they've included this tidbit in their warning, when the boss of the label they're on, Glassnote, has made it clear that "the fans really do come first and word of mouth is important." If that were true, you probably wouldn't lie to fans and tell them its illegal to lend out the CD.

However, the article raises a larger point concerning "first sale rights" and the Kirtsaeng case that the Supreme Court will be deciding one of these days. If the CD were made outside of the US, it's possible that Glassnote/Mumford & Sons could start legitimately banning lending, since first sale rights will no longer apply. Wired quotes copyright lawyer Andrew Bridges (you might recognize his name), who first called everyone's attention to this bizarre choice:

“If this disc was made in Mexico, then it may be that I don’t have the right to lend it to anybody under the plaintiff’s view in the Kirtsaeng case,” Bridges said. “That actually highlights the importance of the Supreme Court’s pending case.”

Of course, while the Wired article suggests this is a new thing, Sneeje helpfully points out that it's not that uncommon. And, if you look around, you can find the same terms on other albums as well, including by Roger Waters and Kanye West -- so it's not fair to blame Mumford & Sons specifically for this.

Spin Magazine claims to debunk the Wired article, also by pointing out that this phrase has been widely used for the past 20 years, and arguing that it's accurate in Europe, due to its directive on "rental and lending rights." Though, Spin's "debunking" deserves a bit of a debunking itself, since the "rental and lending rights" are specific to things like libraries. The specifics of the directive are that it applies to lending "made through establishments that are accessible to the public." The problem of course, with the simple terms used on the CDs, is that they make no such distinction. And though no one will enforce this against lending a CD to a friend, it remains a case of copyfraud, in which the public is being told that they cannot lend the CD due to copyright law, even if that's not accurate at all.

Whether the use of the term is new or not really doesn't much matter in the long run. Spin is right that it's not Mumford & Sons specifically that's the problem here (and it's not clear which CDs get this and which don't), but the inclusion of a claimed prohibition on lending still is a form of copyfraud and an attempted expansion of claimed rights.

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, lending, mumford & sons, music

150 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Sneeje (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 6:23am

To be clear, this has been on many, many CDs for years. I just pulled two random CDs from my collection and "lending" was on one of them. My "O Brother, Where Art Thou" CD from 2000 says, "Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and..."

So I'm not sure we should blame Mumford and Sons for ignorance that has been prevalent across the industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 7:39am

Re:
To be clear, this has been on many, many CDs for years. I just pulled two random CDs from my collection and "lending" was on one of them. My "O Brother, Where Art Thou" CD from 2000 says, "Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and..."

Interesting. The original article notes that people were unable to find it, and I just looked through a stack of CDs and none of them have it either. So it doesn't seem that common, but apparently does happen...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 7:42am

Re: Re:
Though, thanks to professor Google, it does appear that the phrase is used more widely. Adding some more info to the post...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:04am

Re: Re: Re:
Ok. Made some changes and added some more info... including a link to another article about this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arsik Vek (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:11am

What the heck is "Unauthorized hiring"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:27am

Re:
Brits say "hire" instead of "rent" for pretty much everything other than apartments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:34am

Re:
Having the white album mow your lawn for pay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:36am

the inclusion of a claimed prohibition on lending still is a form of copyfraud and an attempted expansion of claimed rights.

Copyfraud isn't a legal term of art, but I take it to mean over-claiming one's copyright rights. Still, I'm not sure I understand why you think the word "lending" is a problem if the other words in the list (copying, reproduction, public performance and broadcasting) are not. Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download. Some lending is infringing just like some copying, reproducing, public performing, or broadcasting is infringing. But some is not, such as if I'm copying and it's fair use. Seems clear to me that everything on that list can be either infringing or noninfringing, depending on the facts. So I think it's weird to point to just "lending" and claim copyfraud, whatever that even means. It's just like putting a copyright notice in the beginning of a book even if that book contains a mix of public domain and copyrighted materials. That's not copyfraud even though some of the contents are not copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:39am

This is perfectly logical if you start from the absurd position that enjoying something without paying the someone first is theft.

Still no basis in any sane country's law for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
saulgoode (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:42am

This is not a matter of copyfraud since the "lending" is qualified by "unauthorized"; just as those FBI warnings at the start of videotapes were not copyfraud because infringement was limited to unauthorized copying. Of course, those familiar with copyright law knew that they were allowed to make copies for their personal use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:44am

Re:
Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download.

Than why not to indicate that ripping the cellophane wrapping is also prohibited: indeed some may rip the wrapper with the intent to take off the disk and lend it (without case) to a guy who will copy it, or, worse, who would sharpen the disk and slid someone's throat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess I was luckier than I thought then... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:48am

Re:
Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure that 95% of the populace wouldn't know that distinction. This is part of why the laws are so broken--if an average person finds themselves within the scope of the law on a daily basis, but does not intuitively understand how to comply with the law or even worse compliance is counter to their own common sense, something is very very wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan F (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:49am

Re:
Two different acts going on there. Lending the disk to your friend is perfectly fine. His act of copying the disk is a totally separate act that needs to be looked at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:55am

Re: Re:
Lending the copyrighted materials to your friend is perfectly prohibited. Can't you read? Words always stop prohibited acts. Always.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:57am

Re: Re:
Sometimes it feels like if you want to be an artist you have to know the law, but if you want to be a lawyer you don't have to know how art works, how culture works, nope, that would be silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:59am

Re:
Unauthorized Fair Use is Illegal!!!

That doesn't seem at least a little misleading?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re:
No, not always. There are many types of contractual terms that are illegal in and of themselves and so are not enforceable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:03am

Next thing they will be claiming that a CD can only be listened to by the purchaser, and that letting anyone else hear it is copyright infringemeny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:06am

These companies can write whatever jargon they want on the sleeve, in a "licensing agreement" or otherwise and it doesn't mean jack to the average person. Good luck attempting to force the public not to lend stuff to others, a pipe dream if ever there was one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jameshogg (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:06am

"No unauthorised lending."

Well there you have it. Hijacking basic physical property rights in broad daylight.

I've had it with people who make excuses for this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:07am

It would be helpful if the authors of these various articles linked above would explain why "lending" is deemed problematic given the rights associated with phonorecords under 17 USC 106.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:15am

Re: ummmmm
Isn't unauthorized lending also known as THEFT?

So I'm liable if someone STEALS the CD. Great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:16am

Re:
If authorization (from the IP holder) is not needed then 'unauthorized' lending is legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:18am

Re:
Actually, if you throw a party with over a certain amount of people and you play protected content and more than a certain number of people can hear it then it can be infringement if royalties are not paid. Even having too many friends over to watch a sports event on cable T.V. can be infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:28am

LENDING: clarification
In this case, I am sure that lending refers to the act of a library offering the disc for distribution to it's patrons. It is well within the copyright holder's reasonable rights to restrict this type of usage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:33am

Hey Mike,

I know how much you like made up things like "copyfraud," so here's another one for you--"copyblight": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033105

It's made up by a law professor, just like "copyfraud," so you can sell it really hard. Go get 'em!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:34am

Mindless Muddle
The lending is not infringing.

COPYING is the infringing activity.

The fact that the media was lent in the process is entirely irrelevant. You don't get to engage in prior restraint just because some Netflix user or library patron MIGHT violate your statutory rights.

No. "Some lending" is not infringing. You're just trying to muddle the issue by intentionally conflating separate acts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:35am

Re: Re:
Maybe a better word they could have used was 'unlawful'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Disgusted, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:36am

So, basically they're telling us that if we purchase a physical object, in this case a CD or DVD, that we don't actually own that object. That means we aren't purchasing it, only licensing it, the same as software. Right? That also means it's grossly overpriced, just like software (you listening Microsoft?). And they're trying to STOP piracy? Yeah right! There's much more to this than we're seeing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
maclypse (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:37am

While I can't speak for the rest of Europe (and note that if you thought US states had big differences in law - you don't even want to know how different the laws are in the relatively recently formed EU) but in Sweden, lending is certainly not illegal. It's not illegal to lend and borrow films, books, movies, paintings, cars, etc.

It's just not.

Not that there aren't some trying to change all this, but at least they haven't succeeded yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:37am

Re: LENDING: clarification
No it isn't.

Once you sell it, you no longer have control. It becomes someone else's property. That's how property works.

Isn't it great how these "artists" only care about morality and law when it's their rights under consideration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:39am

Re:
What? Mike has proven that fraudulent copyright claims happen, how is it made up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:39am

" If the CD were made outside of the US, it's possible that Glassnote/Mumford & Sons could start legitimately banning lending"

Is not really consistent with:

"this is clearly copyfraud"

Unless you know where the disc was made. Do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Chapman, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:39am

Copyright issues and the Environment
I really do agree with having copyright laws to protect the initial sale of products and the incomes of the artists which have produced those products. However, it is outright wrong to suggest that lending a CD to a friend to listen to is wrong, as we all know that leads to more people buying the music/video game/movie etc.

Also, I am an advocate of reuse and recycling of materials, so it is sad to hear that artists would not back the idea of the resale of old discs that one doesn't listen to anymore, just to throw that old CD in the garbage...shame on the industry for supporting destructive practices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:40am

Re:
"Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download."

Please explain how the lending itself is in any way legally infringing . If you lent the disc out with the intent to copy and post it on the internet, then you (or at least the party you lent the disc to> are guilty of infringement, making the claimed prohibition on lending irrelevant even if it WAS actually illegal, according to the example you've provided.

Can you give an example in which lending, on its own merits and not attached to an existing and separately punishable infringement, is illegal, or even worthy of being an offense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. Poe's Law strikes again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:43am

Re:
"copyfraud" is more likely to cover cases where the deception is intentional or semi-intentional, with the intent being to deceive for financial gains.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:45am

Re:
Well, the CD is manufactured in China. I can say this as I actually own a copy of the album physically (Yay Christmas!))
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
You are confusing the ownership of the media with the licensing of the content. They do still own the IP rights to the musical content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
That's how COPYRIGHTS work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monkey with Attitude, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:55am

Re: Re:
So basically you just described Average Joe? Deceptive Intentionally with Financial gain as a shill?

Better watch it Joe, THE LAW IS THE LAW..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monkey with Attitude, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:57am

Re: Copyright issues and the Environment
I am not a big enviromental person, but I could support you on this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:58am

but what about
So if I take the CD and import it to my iTunes. Upload that CD to my iPhone then loan my phone to a friend. Would that be illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:59am

Re:
" It's just like putting a copyright notice in the beginning of a book even if that book contains a mix of public domain and copyrighted materials. That's not copyfraud even though some of the contents are not copyrighted."

The notice in books of that sort (including some I've contributed to) covers ONLY the NEW material in the tome.
But, since you've obviously never contributed anything creative, you wouldn't know about such things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:59am

Re:
Pirate "isn't a legal term of art" for copyright infringement, but that doesn't stop IP maximalists and some copyright infringers alike from using it.

I think it depends on how you interpret the term "unauthorized" that precedes all the verbs in that sentence. Does "unauthorized" refer to A) actions that are not expressly permitted by the copyright holder B) actions that are not expressly permitted by the copyright holder but also not permitted by copyright law or C) actions that are not expressly permitted by copyright law alone?

Based on other notices I've seen from other copyright holders, they seem to refer to A and pretend that fair use doesn't apply at all, while also pretending that A is a legally correct interpretation of C. It's rare to see copyright holders every acknowledge fair use without being challenged on their claims or otherwise prompted to.

They benefit from lying about what's legally authorized by pretending that they must expressly approve all uses and they have no consequences for the lie. If a consumer is ignorant enough, they might believe they can't lend the CD to anyone, which theoretically (in the minds of the copyright holder) might lead to more sales.

I can't imagine a scenario where lending would be legally unauthorized except in the absurd scenario of first sale not applying to products made outside of the country (but then, I would argue, copyright wouldn't apply either since you can't have it both ways - and I imagine the general public wouldn't stand for that either).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:01am

Re:
"I know how much you like made up things like "copyfraud," so here's another one for you--"copyblight": "

Since your masters indulge in copyfraud, boy, it's your duty to try to claim it doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NCknight, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:02am

Re: letting others listen/view
There have been several patents regarding the hardware sensing the presence of others and how many. If that holds sway, at some point, there will be an extra person(s) charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought I heard a whoosh. Now I know what it is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:06am

Re: Re:
They would never intentionally deceive for financial gain, Joe says so - it must be true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Re:
Which gets to the crux of the deception.

They seem to be implying that their authorization is necessary for lending at all.

If they mean legally unauthorized lending is prohibited, then they're essentially saying "illegal actions are prohibited by law." That just ends up being a meaningless tautology.

So either they're making a meaningless statement of law or else they're trying to convince consumers that they have more control under copyright law than they actually, legally have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:09am

Re: Re:
What you say here is a perfect example of why PPL dont care about copyright, and never will. And as the copyright cartel pushes for greater and greater measures to be put in place that flies in the face of reality, the wedge between consumers and CONTENT PROVIDERS will greatly expand. (I feel that there is not much they can do to make amends to the consumer. The damage has been done.)

Kickstarter is just the beginning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: letting others listen/view
But only for the rubes who are unable to google "disable Sony TV presence sensors."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:12am

Re:
Yup.

This is why I mostly ignore the license/sale issue. I treat them all as a sale. I own them, and I do what I want with them the same as any other property I own. I don't care what the law says about this. The law is a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:13am

Copyright question
If it's legal to record material being broadcast, such as from radio and TV, why wouldn't it be legal to download music videos from YouTube?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:14am

Re: Re:
And we don't use apartment often either, it usually flats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:15am

Re:
Dunno asswipe.... looks like the term is taking off nicely:
https://www.google.com/search?q=copyfraud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mo zilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

Jason Mazzone, an Associate Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School used the term in 2005.

You are a day late and a dollar short... as always Jo(k)e, you are a Joke, and not a funny one either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:16am

Re:
Thanks Joe, now I understand that not once, in the history of forever, has a copyright holder claimed more rights than the law allows. Cheers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
And that's what's wrong with copyright.

People don't buy CDs with content on them because they want the physical object. Nobody expressly purchases a piece of media with content by a specific artist to get an expensive coaster for their coffee table. They are purchasing the content on the media and the media is...well, just a medium for the delivery of that content.

So yeah, as far as the consumer is concerned, regardless of however IP maximalists and their lawyers and lobbyists have manipulated copyright law over the decades, the consumer owns that content. The ability to legally make a backup copy of the content is an acknowledgement that the content is the thing of value to the consumer. Sure, the companies call it a license for the content, but if that were true, the license would exist without the media and you would have a right to that content regardless of retaining the media it originally came on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:19am

Re: Re: Re: letting others listen/view
But that would be a crime under the DMCA, circumventing digital rights management for number of viewers present.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: LENDING: clarification
No it isn't. Libraries are perfectly within the law to loan CDs and DVDs, just the same as books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:27am

Re: but what about
"I'm sorry; I have copyrighted music on my phone so I can't loan it to you to call 911."

Would the RIAA consider this a "job gain" as the guy that dies had a job?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:29am

Re:
Not sure what you are trying to prove here AJ. Based on the abstract of that paper, what the author labels as "copyblight" is a subset of what is generally referred to as copyfraud.

So are you agreeing that copyfraud is a problem that needs to be addressed? Seems like you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TroutFishingUSA, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok. Made some changes and added some more info... including a link to another article about this.

Um... how about just doing some of your own research before you continue stuffing your foot in your mouth?

The "Rental and Lending Right" is nothing new in Europe. It's part of a directive that was highly publicized around twenty years ago. Countries to this day are still adopting it.

The Rental and Lending Right

"Lending" in the words of the directive means:

making available for use, for a limited period of time and not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, when it is made through establishments which are accessible to the public.

Less than two minutes on Google would have cleared up your ignorance.

But, then again, those words might be mis-interpreted by people (who, for some reason read the fine print while not being versed in legalities)! The Horror! It must be stopped. This is the definition of your favorite tactic: FUD!

It's like you're not even trying anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PT (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:34am

Re:
If they were to take this a little further, that a CD can only be listened to by the purchaser after the purchase, it might help some record companies to sell more CDs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:34am

Re:
You are not renting the album, you are hiring a digitized version of the singer to sing specifically for you. They wont sing if anyone else can possibly hear it. They get stage fright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PT (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
But the copy on the CD was sold. The copy of the content is as much my property as the physical media. The only right retained by the IP holder is the monopoly right to make further copies.

As for licensing, show me the agreement I signed when I purchased the CD, and then we'll talk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
I would agree with this with the exception of when the copywrite owner expressly prohibits said lending.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> This is the definition of your favorite tactic: FUD!

Wait a second, I'm confused? You're claiming Mike is a copyright maximalist? You know, like the ones claiming that without copyright/SOPA/DRM/DCMA/extension/harmonization/N-strikes/... (or instead that with VCR/P2P/proxies/encryption/...) the fundamental forces binding the universe/economy together would suddenly cease in an apocalyptic finale?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:43am

Re: Re:
Welcome to DRM in 10 years. Advances in Artificial Intelligence mean we will no longer download music, but instead have to hire digital musicians to play for us, who will then negotiate 'terms of performance' with the person hiring them, and stop playing if those terms are violated in even the most insignificant ways... like walking past someone on the street with your headphones up too loud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:44am

Re: Re:
slow news day at techdirt...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chilly8, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:52am

If you are paying ACSAP, BMI, SESAC, and SoundExchange fees, the prohibition on broadcasting would not apply, since these licensinses are stautory and allow you to play any legally obtained music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
-copyright- not -copyrite- ... I apologize for the oversight in my proofreading... I hate when people spell incorrectly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
WOW - I can tell it's Friday... COPYRIGHT not copyrite or copywrite!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Library Borrower, 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:07am

Guess what?
I borrowed the Mumford CD from my local library and may or may not have copyfrauded it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
The point is they don't have the right to limit the lending. I can say this post is copyrighting and you are prohibited from reading it and anyone reading it is subject to prosecution but it would just be me making up bullshit that is outside my legal rights. Just like saying lending is prohibited. Until first sale rights are over turned I can do anything I want with the disc except copy it or broadcast it publicly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:26am

Re:
Good post. Some copying and reproduction like for backup is often an exemption. You can also argue for the transformative rights of parody, news and research, but then we are talking about something not in the list.

The article would have been better with a more questioning debate angle about what should be included in the disclaimer on a cd. It is a hard choice given the little space on a cd-cover.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:37am

Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
The copyright owner currently does not have this right to withhold this permission under US law. If a library legally purchases a book, cd, or dvd the copyright owner cannot stop the library from doing whatever they wish with it other than actually copying the media. Renting, selling, and lending the media are completely within the library's rights under the first sale doctrine. This may change with media created outside the country under the pending Kirstaeng case, but domestically produced media will not be affected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:53am

All the Releases I have had put out by the bands I have formed do not have any Warnings on them.I offer it all up for Free anyways and you all have my permission to freely share my Art.
www.bigmeathammer.com

You have to love old school wacky punk rock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vegetaman (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:58am

Re:
It's funny because growing up:

1) Friend gets new CD
2) We ride around in his car and listen to it
3) If good, more of us buy the CD
4) If bad, we ridicule it

I'm sure certain people would like to make this activity illegal. I mean, if we don't all buy the CD individually and then judge how good or bad the album is, aren't we also just dirty pirates!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMAME, 28 Dec 2012 @ 12:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
I still contend that the library purchases a physical medium (in this case a CD) which contains a licensed copy of the content (music) which I feel the owner of the copyright should be permitted to license under whatever whatever restrictions they chose to impose, save the right of the purchased to dispose or sell the medium without restriction, which is what the right of first sale allows. The licensor is still the owner of the content, not the licensee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
What media is produced domestically? If Kirstaeng overturns first sale, NO media will be produced domestically, all pressing and printing will be carried out opverseas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 28 Dec 2012 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: letting others listen/view
And that would only be a problem for the rubes who are unable to understand that violating unjust laws is not a moral violation and following unjust laws simply because some rich corporation bought those laws is just stupid and is merely compliance with your own subjugation and disenfranchisement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dd, 28 Dec 2012 @ 1:11pm

lending CDs
Only you can listen to your CD. If you play it and your spouse can hear it, you are in violation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
That is extending copyright beyond the right to control the production of copies. The big danger from copyright is the extension into the use of copies, and attempts to control private copies. The maximalist positions on copyright are destroying personal freedoms because of the degree of control required to protect what the maximalists consider their rights to control use of works to which they hold the copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re:
Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download.

Um, no, that's not infringing either. If you copy the CD, then you are infringing on the exclusive right to copy; if you post it on the Internet, then you are infringing on the exclusive right to distribute. My loaning it to you does not constitute infringement, even if you do those things with the copy I loaned you, because there is no exclusive right to loan.

In extreme circumstances, I might be guilty of contributing to infringement, but lending itself is not an infringement of copyright. It simply does not infringe upon any of the rights enumerated in 17 USC 106, and until one of those rights is infringed upon, no infringement has occurred at all. (At least not under U.S. law.)

In essence, you are committing copyfraud yourself: claiming restrictive rights that copyright simply doesn't grant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 28 Dec 2012 @ 1:56pm

For quite some time now, I've been seeing the word "hire" used by non-Americans to mean "rent". As in "I hired a DVD to watch." So, since "hire" obviously means "rent" in a large part of the world, how do they describe it when they get a new job? Do they say "I just got rented by the local store"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TJ Marx, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:11pm

What a dumb article.
To be clear this notice appeared when TAPE was still popular, it's a standard notice on recorded media. This article fails to have any real insight, chosing instead to just take another publications word for it then defend that position when challenged. This isn't copyfraud, whilst the notice doesn't explictly say lending to the public, it doesn't mention your friends either; the language lend is important, friends tend to borrow, organisations lend.

Prohibiting lending is indeed a right they have and thus it is in no way copyfraud, this article on the otherhand...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TJ Marx, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:15pm

All rights reserved
I'd also like to point out the All rights reserved notification warns that V2 records retains ownership over the recording. You purchase the media and a licence to listen to the recording, you do NOT own it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re:
Karl, the lender could be liable as a contributory infringer for doing nothing more than lending the disc--so long as the lendee infringes. So the lender can be liable for infringement for doing nothing more than lending, which is exactly what I said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I'm not signed in on this computer. It's AJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Mindless Muddle
In my example, the lender would be a contributory infringer for doing nothing more than merely lending the disc. Not all lenders are infringers, but some clearly can be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re:
The liability would be derivative, so there'd have to be an infringement by the person you lent it to since there can't be secondary liability without primary liability. But the party that lends would be liable for doing nothing more than lending under my hypo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re:
I think we agree on the point. People put a notice that the book is copyrighted, and even though it's not all necessarily copyrightable, we don't consider that to be fraudulent over-claiming. I think this copyfraud idea is interesting, but I'm not convinced that it's actually a problem. Apparently the language that got Mike all worked up has been around for years, yet no one even noticed. Seems like the anti-copyright crowd are just spouting more sour grapes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re:
Say for example if I buy a CD and rip it to my hard drive and then lend it to you so you can do the same. That seems like a case of infringement on my part, no? It's secondary liability of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re:
While there are some counter-arguments that can be offered, you may wish to consider 17 USC 106(3) as it applies to "phonorecords" (defined in 17 USC 101).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
When the library purchases the CD they do in fact purchase a licensed copy, but they are then free to do anything with that copy except copy it. They can listen to it, rip it to their mp3 player, use it for a beer coaster, sell it at a yard sale, or let their friend borrow it (etc...). None of these things are prohibited (or able to be prohibited) by the license granted for copy and private ownership.

It seems you are confusing a licensed physical copy with the rights granted by licensed digital copy. Once I have a licensed physical copy, I own that copy and can do anything I want with it except copy it. A licensed digital copy is different. That may impose restrictions on the transfer of that license which would restrict me from lending it or selling it (although this is something that will be addressed soon through the court system).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
the lender could be liable as a contributory infringer for doing nothing more than lending the disc

No, they couldn't. They would have to have knowledge of the infringement, and take some sorts of affirmative steps to contribute to it. Merely lending the disc would not be enough, even if the person you loan it to ends up infringing with it.

In any case, the act of lending wouldn't itself be the problem; it would be the act of intentionally materially contributing to direct infringement that gives rise to liability. Lending a CD is no different from any other act in this regard.

It's like loaning someone your truck: you can face secondary liability if you know that they're going to use your truck to haul bootleg DVD's (or whatever). That doesn't mean that copyright holders have the right to prevent everyone from loaning their truck to a friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "Rental and Lending Right" is nothing new in Europe. It's part of a directive that was highly publicized around twenty years ago. Countries to this day are still adopting it.

As I discussed in the article. Not sure your point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re:
If you copy the CD, then you are infringing on the exclusive right to copy; if you post it on the Internet, then you are infringing on the exclusive right to distribute.

Well, even posting it on the internet *might not* infringe on the right to distribute -- as there is still somewhat unsettled law as to whether or not "making available" infringes on the distribution right, or if actual downloading must also occur...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:42pm

lets settle this stupid argument right now, someone got a dictionary ??

it will probably be able to tell you that "lending" and "copying" mean two completely different things !!!..

(I know that will surprise you Masnick) !!

Also "word of mouth" does not mean "lend someone your CD's"..

word of mouth, means just what it says, otherwise it would say "noises on a CD"..

so someone saying word of mouth is important, is not saying "sure lend your CD's to other people, so they can copy it", it means TELL others how much you like (or dislike) the product..

Lending is not generally illegal, making an illegal copy without having the rights to copy it is illegal..

But when you get your dictionary Masnick, it will all become clear..

We know you have a lot of trouble with the simple meaning of common everyday words.. Keep working on it, you might get better.

You could ask your children for help, I am sure they are going to school, and clearly could teach you much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn, 28 Dec 2012 @ 3:52pm

Copyright gets more ludicrous all the time...
so always be prepared for the worst (and another perfectly legal yet dumb decision by the SCOTUS).

But the copyright holders... geez, you'd think that they believe that they were never educated, trained, or inspired by anything or anyone but themselves and that they owe nothing to anyone, least of all the society or culture that formed them. For people like this, I think it's best to ignore them entirely--don't buy their stuff, don't listen to (or watch or read) their stuff... just pretend they never even existed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re: Re:
How would you know slow, darryl? Your excuse for a brain chugs along so slowly it practically goes backwards!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:20pm

Re:
We're dealing with organisations that think playing a radio within an office, or a stable (to horses of all things) constitutes a "public performance". Hell, remembering the lyrics to a song probably counts as making a copy these days. But what would you know, darryl, you unimaginative turdtwat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:36pm

Re: Re: Re:
Breakdown of lame example:

buying(legal), ripping(legal, there are no DRM in CDs to circumvent), lending(legal), friend ripping the borough CD(illegal).

The only clear case of infringiment is if the your friend actually makes you know that he is doing something illegal, otherwise you got nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
Could be if you can prove that he knew, colluded or aided in the illegal act, the missing part here is intent, what was the intent when lending the CD?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they couldn't. They would have to have knowledge of the infringement, and take some sorts of affirmative steps to contribute to it. Merely lending the disc would not be enough, even if the person you loan it to ends up infringing with it.

My hypo was more than mere lending: "Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download."

In any case, the act of lending wouldn't itself be the problem; it would be the act of intentionally materially contributing to direct infringement that gives rise to liability. Lending a CD is no different from any other act in this regard.

The lending to you is what makes me the contributory infringer. I have done no action other than lend it to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:50pm

Re: Re: Mindless Muddle
In most countries only if they have direct knowledge of the purpose it will be used for and than proceeded to take an affirmative action to see it happen like lending otherwise no, lending is not illegal and never was illegal in any shape of form as far history is concerned.

To make it easy to understand here is a breakdown.

illegal intent to willfully brake the law + lending = illegal
lending = legal

So in your example the guy would be innocent in most jurisdictions because it is missing the "intent to brake the law" part in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
Well, even posting it on the internet *might not* infringe on the right to distribute -- as there is still somewhat unsettled law as to whether or not "making available" infringes on the distribution right, or if actual downloading must also occur...

No doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re:
That may be, but that is not how it is written or how it is viewed by the general population that don't ever contribute to antyhing, don't care about those laws and rules and shouldn't have to become experts in the arts(legal arts) to be able to parse such things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
No.

It is missing the part that make it illegal and that is intent to willfully brake some law and using the act of lending to make it happen, the lending itself is without consequence and perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 5:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
There are others rights, copyrights is a bundle of rights and it keep expanding.

Distribution rights, performance rights, reproduction rights, etc.

Copyright is a artificial monopoly mess, that is why is so dangerous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 5:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
Well, in that case I am licensing my money to the real owners of that CD, the lincensor should have to pay me back with the appropriate interests for granting him the temporary use of my money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re:
Put it to good use, build a biquad antennae with it :)

http://educypedia.karadimov.info/electronics/antennawlanbiquad.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 5:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No you did things before the lending was just the realization of all the things that came before, the idea of breaking the law, the planning all that should be shown first, just merely lending will never in a sane judicial system land anyone in hot waters, you have to have somebody say it is doing it with intent to break the law and then the realization of that act, by some action taken.

But you know that don't you Joe, you just want to mess around and try to confuse those who are not in the law profession to try and create sympathy towards your positions.

That is your intent, you are not stupid and this is a rooky mistake that no law student would ever make, a lame pro would try to do it in court hoping to get to the dumb jurors though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you know that don't you Joe, you just want to mess around and try to confuse those who are not in the law profession to try and create sympathy towards your positions.

That's not at all my intent. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I think copyright notices are usually boilerplate language that focus on prima facie infringement, not on the possible defenses one might raise. It's like if I post a "No Trespassing" sign in my yard. In general, you don't have the right to trespass. But under certain facts, your trespass would be justifiable. It's not fraud for me to say "No Trespassing" even though some people might have a defense to a trespassing claim. Regardless, I don't think this fraudulent over-claiming, if that's even what it is, is a problem. Where's the harm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2012 @ 7:19pm

Re: Copyright question
Well, whatever you do, don't use a program called Free YouTube Downloader. The program can download videos and convert them to AVI, but there's a lot of pixelation and it has a hard time handling scenes that flash between bright and dark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dustyn, 28 Dec 2012 @ 8:29pm

USELESS WARNING
WHATEVER! Not only am I gonna lend this CD and any other CD out, I'm gonna RIP burn and make copies of these CD's too. Nobody is going to tell me what I can and can not do with the music that I purchased... nobody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 9:44pm

Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification
Which is irrelevant, as just because they own the rights to the songs, and can prohibit people from doing certain things with them, it does not mean they can also tell people what they can and cannot do with the device/item the songs are on.

That would be like purchasing a book that said you were only allowed to read it on tuesdays; just because the copyright holder has legal rights to the content, it doesn't automatically mean they have the same or any rights to the object the content is in/on, after it's been purchased.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 10:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "Rental and Lending Right" is nothing new in Europe

Which has what bearing on US law exactly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:09pm

Re:
I know how much you like made up things like "copyfraud,"

That's rich coming from the clueless jackass who failed miserably at trying to redefine the meaning of property.

Hey Joe, why don't you just try an envy footer like OOTB's on the Streisand Effect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord of the Files, 28 Dec 2012 @ 11:36pm

Re:
"I know how much you like made up things like "copyfraud," so here's another one for you--"copyblight""

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. I'll stop using the word "copyfraud" if you stop using the word "pirate". Can't promise I won't use "copyblight" in the future though. That one is too good to pass up lol. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 1:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The lending to you is what makes me the contributory infringer. I have done no action other than lend it to you.

If you have intentionally facilitated the copying and distribution of the CD, then you have done much more than lend it to me.

What makes your scenario infringing is the unlawful copying and/or distribution by the person you lent your CD to. What makes you liable is intentionally facilitating that infringement. That your action is "lending" is not the issue. So long as your lending doesn't intentionally facilitate unauthorized copying or distribution, it is beyond the reach of copyright law altogether.

Simply put, you do not need authorization to lend your CD to anyone. And copyright holders do not have the power to authorize lending, separately from the power to authorize copying or distribution to the public. They no more have the power to "authorize" private lending, than they have the power to "authorize" loaning your truck to a friend. Any copyright holders who claim that they do are committing copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2012 @ 3:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: letting others listen/view
Until the police come knocking down your door, because the TV reported the problem with the camara.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charlie, 29 Dec 2012 @ 5:14am

What A Joke
This has been on Australian DVD's for about ten years. As a joke between me and my brothers, we lend each other a disc then promise not to don each other in for copyright infringement!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter Hirtle (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 7:21am

First sale rights in CDs are already limited
The label on the CD may be correct. Look at 17 USC 109(b)(1)(A):
"...unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending./blockquote>

This section is why there are not CD-rental stores in this country but there are DVD-rental stores.

The key question is whether loaning a CD to a friend represents "direct or indirect commercial advantage." Some courts have suggested that avoiding purchasing something is indirect commercial advantage. The fact that the next sentence in the section explicitly authorizes library lending of CDs, something that one would think would not be considered to be "direct or indirect commercial advantage," might lead one to conclude that "indirect commercial advantage" should be read broadly and could exclude some loans to friends.

I would hope that the courts would conclude that loaning a CD to a friend was not an infringing act, but as far as I know, there has been no case law on the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 29 Dec 2012 @ 7:35am

It is also unauthorized to have this CD playing while anyone else is in the car with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 9:10am

Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
Brilliant, Peter! That's the answer. Section 109(b)(1)(A) explicitly proscribes "lending" under certain circumstances. Looks to me like there's no copyfraud, whatever that even means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cookie Marenco, 29 Dec 2012 @ 9:22am

What's most shocking is....
... how many people actually responded to this headline, including myself. Sorry that Mumford and Sons got the bashing, but I gotta give kudos to mike for that decision. Had you put Sony or Universal or Warner Bros, I probably would have ignored the article.

After 25 years in the music business, all I'll say is that 'contracts are made to be broken'. If you don't make a product customers want to buy, they're gonna steal it. If an artist doesn't want to record, they won't show up for a session. If labels don't have money to record, then hobbyists flood the marketplace.

I'm happy to be an independent label with customers who want to see us stay in business and pay us to do so.

This has been a fascinating read about our culture. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 11:08am

Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
So is there not any case law that says you can lend your CDs to your friends? I looked but didn't see any. Mike and others are assuming that you can just lend out your CDs legally, but I don't think that's at all clear. As you note, it depends on how you define "commercial advantage." IIRC, that phrase is interpreted broadly in the context of Section 506. I don't see why that same broad interpretation wouldn't apply here as well since it's the same phrase. Seems to me that under that broad meaning, lending to your friends would often be prohibited. So in other words, that label is right and it isn't copyfraud at all. Instead, the copyfraud is Mike claiming that everyone can lend out their CDs legally since that's claiming more rights than people actually have Ha! Mike's the one committing copyfraud! I love a good turnabout. Mike, you better stop committing copyfraud. It's really a problem, I hear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 12:44pm

I never lend CDs
I have never lent a CD to anyone. I give it as a gift with their right to return it if not satisfied.
Copying a CD is a trickier. To get around that restriction I note that the copyright doesn't mention copying part thereof so I snip 1/2 second off the end of each track.
Public performance. It is annoying having to advise all neighbors within hearing range of my 500 watt stereo system to wear ear plugs whenever I play a CD. I now take out an advertisement in the local newspaper list all times that music will be played. I am billing the copyright owner for the earplugs.
I have had my car sound proofed as to adhere to the broadcasting restrictions.
Reproduction. My wife is post menopause so reproduction has ceased plus I cannot reproduced something I never produced in the first place.
All solutions are as idiotic as the restrictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 3:38pm

Reward fans who buy and share
Great idea and radical business model that just might work. Offer consumers a choice which is better than free. Reward those who BUY and share the links to the music legally.
http://e27.sg/2012/12/28/tell-my-friends/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 29 Dec 2012 @ 7:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: letting others listen/view
Because the people who googled "disable Sony TV presence sensors" forgot to not connect the thing to the internet?

But if we got to the point that the police are knocking down doors over unconfirmed violations of the DMCA, we truly will live in a police state and such actions by the police will be the least of our problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DC (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 9:05pm

Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
AJ: In your world, I can not legally lend a CD to someone, possibly even someone very close, like family.

Possibly someone who suffered a stroke and just wants to hear a little bit of music we used to listen to.

AJ: You are corrupt and morally bankrupt.

Please die soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 11:30pm

Re:
You're right, everything on the list is potentially non-infringing. In fair use situations, it doesn't matter whether the use is "authorized" or not. Why, then, is it not copyfraud for the statement to say that all "unauthorized" uses are "prohibited"? Seems like an over-claim to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 11:36pm

Re:
Lending is not generally illegal

Yes, but the statement printed on the CDs is that it is indeed "prohibited" to lend at all. There's no nuance to it whatsoever. It says that all "unauthorized" lending is prohibited. That's simply not true. It's not disingenuous of Masnick to point this out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 11:47pm

It's a cheap shot, but I can't resist...
#4 is why some bands would put the prohibition on lending on the CD case, they know that if people were able to listen to the songs before purchase, the chance of them buying their own copy is drastically lower, due to finding out pre-purchase the 'quality' of the music. /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 29 Dec 2012 @ 11:55pm

Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
The issue here is that the record company has declared that all "unauthorized" lending is "prohibited". It is being argued that this was an overstatement, a "copyfraud". You're failing to convince me otherwise.

OK, sure, so 17 USC 109 disallows commercial lending. It must thereby be read as allowing some kind of noncommercial lending. Now, if case law has not resolved exactly what kind of lending qualifies as noncommercial, so what? That doesn't change the fact that the record company was making an overstatement. There are still situations where lending is allowed by law, even if the record company doesn't authorize it. For example: lending by a library, other noncommercial lending (as supported by case law now or in the future), and fair use.

So the fact remains that the copyright owner can expressly forbid certain uses, yet they'd still be wrong to say or imply that the law prohibits those uses. So yes, with their general warnings on CDs, they've overasserted their rights...this sure sounds like copyfraud to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Dec 2012 @ 12:00am

Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
... you're studying to be a lawyer, you should know this.

Laws aren't put in place to tell people what they can do, but rather to tell people what they can't, for sheer simplicity/rationality sake. Therefor, if there hasn't been any rulings either way, the assumption would default to 'lending of that sort of totally legal'.

And trying to use the 'commercial advantage' bit to cover lending between friends and family? That's a serious stretch and you know it, and something I highly doubt an unbiased, informed judge would consider valid for even a second.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't care, 30 Dec 2012 @ 5:23am

I don't give a crap. I'll loan it if I feel like it. What are they gonna do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
swattz101, 30 Dec 2012 @ 9:43pm

Re: unauthorized listening
I've actually heard of someone getting a ticket "unauthorized broadcast" for listening to a CD in their car to loud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2012 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
Okay, I'll say it.

"... you're studying to be a lawyer, you should know this."

He's studying to be A lawyer, not necessarily a GOOD lawyer. So in his defense, he shouldn't necessarily know this.

But you are correct. Laws tell people what they can't do, not what they can. Ergo if there isn't specifically a law on the books AGAINST something then by default it is legal until such a time as there is. It doesn't fall into a "grey area", nor is it a "loophole" or any of the other things people like AJ or OotB would have you believe. IT IS LEGAL. End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 31 Dec 2012 @ 6:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
As the poster I was responding to quoted, certain "lending" of "phonorecords" (which include CDs) is prohibited in Section 109. Not sure how you read that to mean it's perfectly legal when it is explicitly proscribed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 31 Dec 2012 @ 10:41am

Only unauthorized lending is prohibited. It only applies when the mafiaa manages to change the law so we aren't authorized to lend anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2013 @ 10:54pm

If I may be so bold...
Perhaps lending in this case has an older english meaning, such as hireing means renting.
Could the lending refered to here actualy have to do with using the recording, or future sales of the recording, as collateral for a loan?.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 20 Feb 2013 @ 8:50pm

Re: Re:
Really? Because I'm from the UK, and I don't recall ever 'hiring' a DVD or game from Blockbusters, I used to rent them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil Doleman, 29 Apr 2015 @ 12:36pm

I'm in the UK. I have just been required to put this on my latest CD. As part of the terms and conditions of an MCPS license (required if you wish to produce a CD that has covers of other peoples material on it), this must be written on the CD and disc. It isn't any particular band or label's choice whether to do this, it's a standard phrase. Of course not everyone puts it on, and I imagine that someone who has clout with their record company and writes all their own material could request that it was not put on their disc.

However, the key word is 'unauthorised'. Lending, I suspect, doesn't mean letting your mate listen to it, it means lending it out from a library or similar (Blockbusters for example), and if I wanted it to be put in a library I could say 'yes', and if I didn't, I could say 'no'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nobody, 26 Mar 2016 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
So what if a library makes a copy of a C.D. and lends the copy? How is that any different than lending the original? I would appear that the original content holders would lose monetary gain due to the libraries copying of the original content. What if the library purchases multiple copies of the original content at a used record store, the original content holder still doesn't gain monetarily!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quozox, 30 Nov 2016 @ 6:39pm

Authorized or otherwise
Instead of saying unauthorized, they might as well dump all pretense and say "authorized or otherwise": authorized DOESN'T mean legal or morally right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2018 @ 11:09pm

Re: Re:
Brings to mind a smartass workaround. You can copy your own music. Sell it to your friend for a penny. He copies it and then sells it back to you for the same penny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]