EFF Explains Why You Should Be Allowed To Sell Promo CDs

from the first-sale-first-sale-first-sale dept

Last summer, a district court ruled that selling promo CDs is perfectly legal. This was an important ruling, because it reinforced the right of first sale -- which has been a part of copyright law for ages -- and it made it clear that companies couldn't wipe out the limits of copyright law simply by declaring them void. The case involved a guy, Troy Augusto, who was selling CDs on eBay. Many of the CDs were "promo" CDs that had been sent to reviewers and radio stations -- stamped with the words to the effect of "Promo: Not for Resale." I've got a few such CDs in my own collection.

Universal Music Group claimed that these CDs remained its property because of that stamp. However, that goes against the entire first sale doctrine concept -- which has always allowed individuals to resell copyrighted products that they possess. Universal's claim was that the stamp meant that it continued to own the CD, even though it never asked for such CDs back. If allowed, this would effectively let any company create their own copyright laws by simply stamping the content with the rules. So, forget the current, already ridiculous, term for copyright. New authors or musicians could just stamp every product with "Property of the content creator" and you would never actually own the product.

Luckily the court disagreed... but Universal has appealed, and the RIAA has filed a brief siding with UMG as well. The EFF has now filed its own brief, noting the ridiculous consequences of any ruling where Universal wins. Allowing Universal to win would effectively mean that all of the extremely important (and already diminished) limits found on copyright today no longer apply. That would be a travesty and go against everything that copyright was originally designed to represent.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Phillip, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 11:58am

    Well, the implications for this are frightening.

    Let's hope that the judge can see the obvious problem with this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:02pm

    Got to love EFF.

    More people need to read their website on a regular basis to really understand the kind of crap that goes on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:07pm

    Why stop with CDs and DVDs? There are copyrighted materials in automobiles. General Motors, for example, could stamp "Property of General Motors" on each car making any resale illegal.

    GM would not even have to do it on the entire car, just on some integral but hard to replace/remove part, making it very costly to resell a car without GM getting a cut.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:09pm

    Isn't right of resale the wrong term? Those promo CD's are not purchased in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:14pm

    Re:

    "Isn't right of resale the wrong term?"

    Under the law it doesn't really matter. The point is that the ebay seller bought them in bulk from someone and then resells them to someone else.

    What UMG and the RIAA are doing is trying to chisel away at first sale rights. Despite the fact that you need a healthy first sale market before having a used market, the music industry has always taken a dim view on used CD sales.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:15pm

    What about bulk food items labeled "Not for Individual Sale"? Seems they are treading the same ground.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Beefcake, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:26pm

    Re:

    Not for Individual Sale is not a demand of ownership, but a stipulation for labeling laws. They are not telling someone "you can't sell this individually because we don't want you to", but "it's illegal for you to sell this individually because the federally required nutrition/ingredients labeling is on the bulk packaging and not the individual wrappers."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    JB, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:28pm

    Re:

    What about bulk food items labeled "Not for Individual Sale"? Seems they are treading the same ground.

    AC,
    That label is to indicate the item is not marked with the FDA required nutritional information. I do not believe that there is a similar requirement for items other than foodstuffs. That being said, you personally could turn around and sell those foodstuffs to someone else, but as long as you are not in the business of doing so, I do not think there is a problem. Hell, you could copy the nutritional information from the main box and give a copy with each item you sold. I'm not sure if this would work legally so please do not take this as any semblance of legal advice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:28pm

    That means they are not packaged for resale. They do not have UPC's on them for scanning at the register and are not marked with information that is required on for sale food items such as nutritional and ingredient information. Without this information the packages are illegal to sell in retail stores.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    jonnyq, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 12:49pm

    EULA

    Software is already there. You already don't own software. You own a license to use software. The software is not yours and therefore cannot be resold under the first sale doctrine.

    Maybe this is one more step in invalidating EULAs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 1:01pm

    Yeah, there's no "right of resale" here because the copyright owner never sold them in the first place. It's really that simple. IMA FISH has it entirely backwards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Rick, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 1:23pm

    Re: EULA

    EULA's are already invalid.

    Their function is merely to make you think they are valid, which most consumers do, just because it says so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Eclecticdave (profile), Jan 29th, 2009 @ 1:51pm

    No Sale

    Hate to say it but Anon #11 might have a point here.

    When you are given something is there the same legal transfer of ownership as when you are sold something? AIUI this is why you occasionally see things sold for "1 Cent/Penny" (Barings Bank being the most recent example I can think of) - it allows a legally binding bill of sale to be written.

    Of course that still means UMG is suing the wrong bloke. They should surely be suing the original seller rather than the reseller - Augusto can easily make the case that he bought the CDs in good faith, I would have thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Jan 29th, 2009 @ 1:57pm

    Re:

    What about bulk food items labeled "Not for Individual Sale"? Seems they are treading the same ground.

    they're not packaged for individual sale, meaning that the packaging does not meet the FDA's requirements for labeling (ingredients, nutritional information, etc.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:01pm

    Re:

    They gave the physical item to a new owner. Without a contract in place, ownership passes along and it constitutes a sale under the law. If I mail you something purposely, I can come back later and say give it back. I've given it to you unless we had some sort of agreement beforehand. Also, the agreement can't be on the item itself because I can accept the physical item without the agreement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: EULA

    Wouldn't a ruling in UMG's favor here potentially add validity to those, though? If you can dictate law by stamping it on a CD, why not by including it in a text file on that CD?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    It would be accurate to say:

    "Last summer, a district court ruled that selling promo CDs is perfectly legal under circumstances such as exist in the case that was before the court."

    Change the facts a bit and it would change the outcome. In this case the CDs were given away like popcorn without any reasonable expectation on the part of the provider and the recipient that the CDs were only being "loaned", so to speak, and had to be returned at the end of the loan period. The outcome was based upon the reality of the situation, and not on the basis of a label on the CDs that did not reflect the reality of what was happening between the provider and the recipient.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:28pm

    Re: No Sale

    When you are given something is there the same legal transfer of ownership as when you are sold something?


    It's been a long time, and most of the links I'm trying to dig up are long dead, but you might remember a company at the turn of the millennium called Digital Convergence that came up with a device called a "CueCat". It was a handheld barcode scanner that, in theory, would interact with software that, when you scanned a bar code, would direct you to a web page with product information on what you scanned. They gave away the scanners in copies of Wired magazine and through Radio Shack, free. Their business model was marketing. Each scan on a scanner was sent to their servers with a unique identifier, not just to do the barcode look-up, but so they could track what you were scanning and sell your "scan-stream data" to ad agencies.

    The software was Windows only, so when Linux geeks got their hands on them, of course the first thing they did was try to get this gadget working in Linux. To do that, they had to hack the encryption that the scanner was using to send data to the computer. It was very weak encryption, so it was broken very quickly.

    When DC learned that its scanners were being used without the software that harvested and reported the scans, they tried to say people couldn't do that with the hardware (despite the fact that it was given to them), saying it really was the property of DC. It didn't fly, one of the arguments being that an unsolicited item sent in the mail is legally considered a gift and property of the recipient.

    old /. thread

    (Which reminds me, I still have a dozen or so of these things in my closet somewhere. :D )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Richard 23, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:35pm

    I'm not a criminal?

    I bought tons of promo vinyl back in the day. I've been living in fear for decades, waiting for that knock on the door.

    "We want our records back."

    Just imagine what could have happened if I recorded any of these on a cassette tape. I'd probably still be on bread and water.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    jjjj, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:49pm

    It's a '

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    jjjj, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:50pm

    It's a 'Gift' to me

    To me, receiving something in the mail that I didn't specifically order or ask for is a Gift. I will do with that Gift whatever I choose to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 29th, 2009 @ 3:21pm

    I used to shop at independent record stores, and can't count the number of "promo" cds, vinyls, etc., I got hold of. At the time, it was great because they were cheap and allowed the record store to recoup some costs while introducing customers to new artists. Later on, they were great for me because I could resell the promos I'd bought that I no longer wanted on eBay, et al., often for more than cost (especially if the promo contained tracks/mixes that weren't included on the final album).

    So, win-win situation, right? The label get their advertising, the store get a higher profit margin and the consumer gets a resellable item that encourages them to try out new artists. But, of course, the record industry is too dumb to realise this. If the don't have control over the final item, they're not interested, even if they lose out and kill retail channels in the process...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 4:33pm

    Re: EULA

    jonnyq expounded:

    You own a license to use software.

    But if you own the licence, then you can resell the licence, can’t you, on the same terms it was sold to you? Unless you don’t own that either?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 5:36am

    Promotions shouldnt be resold because the cd is being given to listen or "try out" as you will... much like a sample. If nabisco hands out free samples of cookies, you're not allowed to resell them. Same concept with CDs

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 6:26am

    Re:

    That would never happen because, unlike the CD market, which colludes on pricing and practices, the competition in the auto market is fierce. Taking away the ability to resell your vehicle would dramatically reduce the value, and GM would be out of business within a few short years.

    I'm not defending Universal. I think the promo CD stamps are ridiculous. And, seriously, there are a very limited number out there, and the loss has already been taken. Why would they waste all this time, money, and legal effort on something so insignificant? Idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 6:28am

    Re:

    It doesn't matter whether you bought it or received it as a gift. Once you own the physical good, you have the right to resell it. Universal's argument is that you don't own it, but the courts have shot that down, saying that a simple stamp cannot change ownership rights or copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 6:34am

    Re:

    What are you talking about? Of course you could resell the sample cookie. You'd have to find a complete sucker to buy it, but there is nothing legally stopping you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 8:29am

    Re: No Sale

    Yes. When you give something to someone you are, in effect, giving them the property and all rights and responsibilities of that property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Robert, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 8:54am

    This guy is a sleazeball. He has our stuff up

    This Troy Augusto is so sleazy. He has a Willie Nelson cd that we are releasing for sale and it's not even out yet.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/WILLIE-NELSON-ASLEEP-AT-THE-WHEEL-Rare-09-Promo-Adv-CD_W0QQitemZ20030367 4949QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMusic_CDs?hash=item200303674949&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1 205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

    This CD was given to him for free to review, not sell before it's even out.

    Unreal. He should be in jail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Smart Chick, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 11:32am

    Re: This guy is a sleazeball. He has our stuff up

    The end date on the auction is Feb. 3. The same day the CD is released so technically he's not selling it before it's out.

    Why should he be in jail? You sent him the copy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2009 @ 7:19pm

    First sale doctrine need also apply to digital goods like drmed mp3s/pdfs, and theoretical goods like seated software licensing; particularly the unenforceable 'student' or 'teacher' editions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Jerry Leichter, Feb 1st, 2009 @ 11:53am

    Absurdities both ways

    This whole dispute has absurdities both ways.

    There is no doubt that I can produce a CD and sell it to you, under a contract that we both knowingly sign, that prevents you from reselling the CD. We could agree that you will only play the CD during nights when the moon is full. We could agree that you will only play the CD to people while trying to convince them that they, to, should buy a copy.

    None of this implicates copyright; none of it implicates the First Sale Doctrine. I could sell you a car on the same basis. That it would be nuts for you to *buy* a car encumbered by such a contract is neither here no there - if no one buys, the company dies, as it should.

    Should you violate our agreement and sell the CD anyway, say to a used CD store, I'm in violation of my contract and you can come after me. Whether the CD store is in any way bound my agreement is more complex. It's easy for them to say "well, we didn't enter into any agreement, we can do what we like". Fine claim, but a fence will say exactly the same thing. Nevertheless, receiving stolen property is a crime. The question comes down to whether the alleged fence should reasonably have known that whoever sold him the stuff wasn't authorized to do so.

    In this case, the merchandise is clearly labeled "not for resale", so the store can't deny knowledge of the agreement. On the other hand, there was typically no contract between the record company and whoever receives the sample records - they send these things out en masse. Also, it's been accepted practice in the industry for many years that these things get resold, and absent any kind of contract, one should certainly be entitled to rely on it.

    The record companies, at this very, very late date, are trying to establish a convention that never existed. If they seriously want to do this, they can - but they need to do the hard work: Sign actual contracts with whoever they distribute to, with agreements that the CD's remain he property of the record company. Put into place some kind of auditing procedure, where they have the right (which they should exercise) to come in and ask to see their CD's - or even take them back.

    Absent that kind of effort, they should be told "sorry, the horse left that barn years ago, as a result of your own actions - don't come to the courts now". And copyright law shouldn't enter into this at all, where the individual CD's are concerned. (They already have the right, under copyright law, to say the CD's can't be duplicated, performed in public, etc. That's true whether they've sold the CD's, rented them, or given them away.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    pijggy, Sep 28th, 2009 @ 9:54am

    ha

    this was ia

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This