greatbear: (fuzzy)
A large number of people on my friends list are serious music fans, musicians and DJs (why is that?). A court case I've been following might be of interest to some of you. A judge has determined that a record label can not stop the sale of "promotional" recorded works (CDs, vinyl, etc) by the people who originally received those items. The labels defense had been the promo materials, being given away rather than sold, were 'licensed' to the recipients and that those recipients did not actually 'own' the items. By attempting to sell the materials, the seller was committing 'copyright infringement' by violating the license agreement, and the labels halted the sales and auctions by invoking the beloved DMCA.

Music companies have long tried to stop the sale of used records and CDs, but time and time again were thwarted by something known as the "First Sale Doctrine" which basically states that once an item is purchased, one has the right to re-sell that item. Unless a contract was signed stating otherwise, there is nothing the primary seller can do to stop subsequent sales of a particular item. Promotional materials have long held a high collector value and can bring big bucks for sellers of those sorts of items. While a music company might snarl at the prospect of someone re-selling a CD that they had purchased because the sale brought in no more profit for the company, these companies have historically been in a tizzy over the market for promo material given away at their own cost. By waving the DMCA around these companies figured they had found a convenient tool to work their bidding. Instead, a level-headed judge proved that the promo stuff fell under the rights of first sale despite being free, and the similar area of law that states a party can't hand out unsolicited items to people then expecting payment of some sort. The CDs were considered 'gifts' and once out of their hands, the labels had no more say in how they were to be used.

Wonderful! Finally here is a definitive, pro-consumer ruling that has some pretty big implications for the future and helps protect individuals and organizations from draconian abuse from corporations bent on having final say on what we as consumers can or cannot do with products we buy, even after the sale.

I know a couple of my dear readers had encountered this sort of issue when trying to sell on eBay some promo stuff only to have it continually shut down. Maybe now you can tell 'em to go pound sand. And now your friendly local used record store can breathe a bit easier too.
greatbear: (fuzzy)
I'm posting this picture simply to piss off Prince's 98 pound ass.



I'm sorry, but any respect I had for this little twerp has gone out the window. It's one thing to want to have control of one's copyrighted images and silly symbols. After all, no one wants to see unauthorized posters and swag for sale, etc. That's the letter of copyright law. It is, however, something completely filled with asshattery to demand that fan sites, personal webpages and the like be scrubbed of all such imagery, including personal photos and other user-generated content that give passing resemblance. To do as such is essentially waging war with your own rabid fan base.

What's that old saying about biting the hand that feeds you? Go on ahead, Mr. Nelson. Send out the legal hounds to purge the internet of every single instance of 'your property' being used by fans in noncommercial, fair-use situations. You will soon be ridiculed and relegated to the cutout bin of relevance. After all, I'm sure that the YouTube clip of the dancing baby with "Lets Go Crazy" barely audible in the background has caused a marked decrease in CD sales and eroded control of your work.

And to think I used to enjoy music.

Profile

greatbear: (Default)
Phil

December 2016

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 12:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios