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

from the copyfraud-and-sons dept

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Sneeje (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 28th, 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...

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 28th, 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...

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 28th, 2012 @ 8:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

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

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Sneeje (profile), Dec 28th, 2012 @ 8:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I guess I was luckier than I thought then... :)

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            TroutFishingUSA, Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              RonKaminsky (profile), Dec 28th, 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?

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              techflaws (profile), Dec 28th, 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?

               

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re:

        slow news day at techdirt...

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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!

           

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

  •  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Dec 28th, 2012 @ 8:11am

    What the heck is "Unauthorized hiring"?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 28th, 2012 @ 8:27am

      Re:

      Brits say "hire" instead of "rent" for pretty much everything other than apartments

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 8:34am

      Re:

      Having the white album mow your lawn for pay

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Berenerd (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Dec 28th, 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?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Nathan F (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      JEDIDIAH, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 28th, 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).

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 2:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sorry, I'm not signed in on this computer. It's AJ.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Dec 28th, 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?

                 

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

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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?

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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).

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 28th, 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...

         

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

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Sneeje (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 8:59am

      Re:

      Unauthorized Fair Use is Illegal!!!

      That doesn't seem at least a little misleading?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Josef Anvil (profile), Dec 28th, 2012 @ 9:15am

      Re: ummmmm

      Isn't unauthorized lending also known as THEFT?

      So I'm liable if someone STEALS the CD. Great.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      If authorization (from the IP holder) is not needed then 'unauthorized' lending is legal.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re:

        Maybe a better word they could have used was 'unlawful'

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        weneedhelp (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      NCknight, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 10:09am

        Re: Re: letting others listen/view

        But only for the rubes who are unable to google "disable Sony TV presence sensors."

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            MrWilson, Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 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.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                MrWilson, Dec 29th, 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.

                 

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

    •  
      icon
      PT (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      vegetaman (profile), Dec 28th, 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!?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        That One Guy (profile), Dec 29th, 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

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      swattz101, Dec 30th, 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.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    jameshogg (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    DocMAME, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      JEDIDIAH, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        DocMAME, Dec 28th, 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.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          DocMAME, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 9:54am

          Re: Re: Re: LENDING: clarification

          That's how COPYRIGHTS work.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            MrWilson, Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

        •  
          icon
          PT (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        DocMAME, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 10:40am

        Re: Re: LENDING: clarification

        I would agree with this with the exception of when the copywrite owner expressly prohibits said lending.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          DocMAME, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            DocMAME, Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 28th, 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).

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

             

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

  •  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Dec 28th, 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!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      What? Mike has proven that fraudulent copyright claims happen, how is it made up?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Monkey with Attitude, Dec 28th, 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..

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 10:06am

        Re: Re:

        They would never intentionally deceive for financial gain, Joe says so - it must be true.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Dec 28th, 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!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Dec 28th, 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?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Lord of the Files, Dec 28th, 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. :)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Disgusted, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    maclypse (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rick Chapman, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Monkey with Attitude, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 9:57am

      Re: Copyright issues and the Environment

      I am not a big enviromental person, but I could support you on this...

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Peter, Dec 28th, 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?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Chilly8, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Library Borrower, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Guess what?

    I borrowed the Mumford CD from my local library and may or may not have copyfrauded it.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    dd, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Dec 28th, 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"?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    TJ Marx, Dec 28th, 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...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    TJ Marx, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 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?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Glenn, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dustyn, Dec 28th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Charlie, Dec 29th, 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!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Peter Hirtle (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        DC (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        That One Guy (profile), Dec 30th, 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.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 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.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Dec 31st, 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.

             

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dan, Dec 29th, 2012 @ 7:35am

    It is also unauthorized to have this CD playing while anyone else is in the car with you.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Cookie Marenco, Dec 29th, 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. :)

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Kevin (profile), Dec 29th, 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.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Dec 29th, 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/

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Don't care, Dec 30th, 2012 @ 5:23am

    I don't give a crap. I'll loan it if I feel like it. What are they gonna do?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 31st, 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.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 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?.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    lim, Dec 4th, 2013 @ 7:27am

    LOAN OFFER

    We offer our Loans to our clients In USD($), GBP() Euro() or ($) Singapore Dollars and in the following categories.

    Auto ,Mortgage ,Business ,Personal ,Real Estate Loan.

    Contact us today for easy loan with less stress. We give out loans at low and affordable interest rate... Why waste more time? Contact us ASAP so we can move on with your request.

    Contact us for more information with the Contact below,

    Loan Agent: Paul Chua


    Email: lim.koh56@yahoo.com

    Thank you for your response.

    Yours Faithfully,
    Mr. Lim Koh(C.E.O).

    LIM LOANS FIRM

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Thoms Clerk, Jan 3rd, 2014 @ 8:52pm

    Greetings..
    Please contact us for your secure and unsecured Loan at an Interest rate of 3%
    ....................................Hello,
    Is the difficulty of the economy affecting you this year, is your bank refuses to give you a loan? If your answer is yes, then you need a loan. I'm Thoms Clerk, the owner of a lending company We offer safe and secure loans at an interest rate of 3%.


    * Are you financially squeezed?
    * Do you seek funds to pay off credits and debts?
    * Do you seek finance to set up your own business?
    * Are you in need of private or business loans for various purposes?
    * Do you seek loans to carry out large projects?

    If you have any of the above problems, we can be of assistance to you but I want you to understand that we give out loans at the interest rate of 3%.

    * Borrow anything up to $90,000,000 USD.
    * Choose between 1 to 20 years to repay.
    * Choose between Monthly and Annual repayments Plan.
    * Flexible Loan Terms.
    Please if you are interested check back with us through this email address: thoms.clerk_usa@yahoo.ca (OR) thomsclerkloanlender.ca.usa@gmail.com

    We promise a 100% guarantee that you will receive your loan at the end of this loan transaction.There is no security check, no credit check

    Regards
    Thoms Clerk
    Thoms Clerk LOAN COMPANY

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Mrs Trace Henry, Jan 6th, 2014 @ 4:50pm

    LOAN TESTIMONY

    Hello am Mrs Trace Henry from California USA i was in need of a loan when some one directed me to this legit loan company by name Erivan Loan Firm and i applied for the loan of $120000 and 3 days later my loan was send to my bank account without delay or collateral,credit check and cosign but with only 3% low interest rate,i promise them that if i get my loan i will tell the news to the whole wide world and if you are interested in obtaining a loan from them you can contact them today via Email:erivanloancompany@yahoo.com

     

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


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