If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Copyright notice on Mumford & Sons' new CD makes it illegal to lend the disc to anyone, a move with wide-ranging implications for both Mumford & Sons fans who still use CD players   (wired.com) divider line 70
    More: Stupid, Mumford & Sons, CD players, optical discs, college kids, logical implications, copyrights, first sale, federal jury  
•       •       •

4243 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 26 Dec 2012 at 7:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-26 02:39:34 PM  
Hidden in the fine print on the back ofBabel is an odd provision that clearly states: "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." Most of that all seems legit, but "lending"? Since when can't people let friends borrow their records?

Oh, my gosh, this is horrible! How can they possibly do that?! And that lawyer quoted in the story said in his tweet that it's "silly, invalid, and pernicious"! Why, what does the Copyright Act have to say about this?
17 USC 109(b)(1)(A): "... unless authorized by the owners of copyright..., neither the owner of a particular phonorecord... may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.

... oh.

Yeah, this is much ado about nothing, and the quoted lawyer is trying to drum up business through FUD and propaganda. This provision was added to prevent Blockbuster and similar places from buying a single copy of a DVD at normal retail price and renting it out for years without paying royalties - or conversely, to allow places like Blockbuster to exist without the movie distributors forcing everyone to sign contracts to ban the rental market.
It's also not "new" - a simple Google search for the phrase will turn up tons and tons of sites using the same exact prohibition on lending.

So, no, Subby...
1) It's not making it illegal to lend the disc to anyone, provided you don't do it for commercial advantage.
2) It doesn't have "wide-ranging implications".

looneytunes09.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-26 02:44:20 PM  
Whew.  What a relief.  I was worried someone was going to try to lend me a boring CD of inauthentic folksy music made by some weakly talented English twats.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-26 02:54:33 PM  
They're an English band. British copyright law doesn't have the first sale doctrine to the extent American law does. Maybe somebody tried to leak British law into an American product.
 
2012-12-26 02:54:59 PM  
who?
 
2012-12-26 02:57:45 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: who?


I've seen them described as "Coldplay with banjos"
 
2012-12-26 03:02:05 PM  

Sliding Carp: MaudlinMutantMollusk: who?

I've seen them described as "Coldplay with banjos"


AKA "The soundtrack in Hell".
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-12-26 03:05:42 PM  

Sliding Carp: I've seen them described as "Drunk Coldplay with banjos"


Fixed that for ya!
 
2012-12-26 03:09:16 PM  
And  Theaetetus lays down the hammer of the law.
 
2012-12-26 03:10:39 PM  
Buy the Mumford and Sons album?  I think that I will wait.  I will wait...
 
2012-12-26 03:43:49 PM  
But those CD sales are what helped the band buy each other new mandolins!
 
2012-12-26 04:21:13 PM  
"(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.
 
2012-12-26 04:25:15 PM  
It's wrong to give someone  a Mumford and Sons album in the same way it's wrong to give them a disease.
 
2012-12-26 07:20:22 PM  
There's nothing I love more than nerds with vests and neckbeards. Except for Nickelback.
 
2012-12-26 07:24:18 PM  
Hey Mumford and Sons: Would you rather I buy a $15 CD or a $50 concert ticket? Of which do you get the bigger slice of the pie? I'm pretty sure I know, and even the suggestion that you shouldn't lend the CD to others (which is certainly what MOST people will take that fine print to mean, especially if they don't have the Fark approved GED in law) will reduce the number of people who are exposed to your music. We can listen to it for free on spotify anyway, but we can't experience it live through the internet.

/does not buy albums
//buys concert tickets
 
2012-12-26 07:24:58 PM  
This disclaimer has been in compact discs since the farking 1990s. That's some top-notch journalism, chief.
 
2012-12-26 07:26:43 PM  

sariq: "(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.


Yeah, shutting down libraries is something the RIAA has wanted for quite a long time.
Libraries is Socialism at its worst.
 
2012-12-26 07:27:25 PM  
I've always wondered how everyone seems to hate Hipsters, but the most the most stereotypically Hipster band that is Mumford & Sons seems to only get love from Hipster haters, as near as I can tell.
 
2012-12-26 07:44:10 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: the most the most stereotypically Hipster band that is Mumford & Sons


Yeah, I was into 60's folk before I heard Mumford and Sons. Is the Kingston Trio hipster? What about Simon and Garfunkle? Really?

No, there is nothing  stereotypically hipster about Mumford and Sons other than they are a new rock band. Want hipster? Try Can. I was into them before you were.
 
2012-12-26 07:44:35 PM  

Theaetetus: Hidden in the fine print on the back ofBabel is an odd provision that clearly states: "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." Most of that all seems legit, but "lending"? Since when can't people let friends borrow their records?

Oh, my gosh, this is horrible! How can they possibly do that?! And that lawyer quoted in the story said in his tweet that it's "silly, invalid, and pernicious"! Why, what does the Copyright Act have to say about this?
17 USC 109(b)(1)(A): "... unless authorized by the owners of copyright..., neither the owner of a particular phonorecord... may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.

... oh.

Yeah, this is much ado about nothing, and the quoted lawyer is trying to drum up business through FUD and propaganda. This provision was added to prevent Blockbuster and similar places from buying a single copy of a DVD at normal retail price and renting it out for years without paying royalties - or conversely, to allow places like Blockbuster to exist without the movie distributors forcing everyone to sign contracts to ban the rental market.
It's also not "new" - a simple Google search for the phrase will turn up tons and tons of sites using the same exact prohibition on lending.

So, no, Subby...
1) It's not making it illegal to lend the disc to anyone, provided you don't do it for commercial advantage.
2) It doesn't have "wide-ranging implications".


The point that you missed is that the Copyright notice on the album did NOT mention that lending had to be "for profit", which is in line with what the lawyer is saying: Invalid as written.
 
2012-12-26 07:48:08 PM  
Nothing wrong with CDs, Subby, it's a great hardcopy backup system. After a series of HDD crashes, and the douchebaggery of Apple(can't copy from my iPod to my computer) came into play, my CDs were a good last result. Much easier than tracking down music from multiple different online retailers.
 
2012-12-26 08:02:09 PM  

HempHead: sariq: "(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.

Yeah, shutting down libraries is something the RIAA has wanted for quite a long time.
Libraries is Socialism at its worst.


Except that libraries aren't engaged in "unauthorized lending." First-sale trumps any bullshiat the labels put on albums. So long as libraries aren't required to purchase directly from the publishers, there's nothing they can do to stop lending.
 
2012-12-26 08:10:43 PM  

Mikey1969: The point that you missed is that the Copyright notice on the album did NOT mention that lending had to be "for profit", which is in line with what the lawyer is saying: Invalid as written.


No... it can be read in an overbroad way that makes it cover (i) an invalid restriction  and(ii) a valid restriction. It can't be read in any way that is unambiguously invalid... and as a result, a court will simply construe it to  only cover the valid restriction. Courts don't play gotcha - if there's a choice between one party saying "I meant only to protect my legitimate rights" and the other party saying "Haha he forgot to dot his i, so therefore it's all invalid and Sarah Palin is president," the court is going to simply narrow the term as necessary. Particularly where the notice echoes language in the statute - clearly, the copyright owner only meant to follow Congress' intent (or so the judge would say).
 
2012-12-26 08:13:22 PM  
Someone loaned my wife their Mumford and Sons CD. I guess I better email said friend and tell them to take back their CD.
 
2012-12-26 08:14:22 PM  

rugman11: HempHead: sariq: "(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.

Yeah, shutting down libraries is something the RIAA has wanted for quite a long time.
Libraries is Socialism at its worst.

Except that libraries aren't engaged in "unauthorized lending." First-sale trumps any bullshiat the labels put on albums. So long as libraries aren't required to purchase directly from the publishers, there's nothing they can do to stop lending.


Not so. First sale doesn't save libraries - rather, there's a specific exemption in the copyright act (linked above) to allow libraries to lend materials.

Think about it - if the first sale doctrine trumped  any bullshiat, then could you purchase a CD and make millions of copies for sale and profit, claiming that your original purchase exhausted the copyright owner's right? No... First sale only exhausts the right of the copyright owner to prevent  distribution of  that copy.You are still restricted from the other copyright rights - you can't make unauthorized copies, you can't make derivative works, you can't publicly perform the work, etc.
 
2012-12-26 08:22:19 PM  

ZAZ: They're an English band. British copyright law doesn't have the first sale doctrine to the extent American law does. Maybe somebody tried to leak British law into an American product.


The British have that right, and have had since copyright was invented, because only in the US did some idiot try to take that right away. There is no fist sale doctrine law in the UK because it has never been needed, that right has always existed. Books, records etc have been traded happily for centuries (in the case of books).
 
2012-12-26 08:23:18 PM  
Do Do Dun Dun. Do Do Dun na na na nuh, do do do do.
 
2012-12-26 08:28:50 PM  

Mikey1969: Nothing wrong with CDs, Subby, it's a great hardcopy backup system. After a series of HDD crashes, and the douchebaggery of Apple(can't copy from my iPod to my computer) came into play, my CDs were a good last result. Much easier than tracking down music from multiple different online retailers.


They don't have the Internet where you're from?
 
Slu
2012-12-26 08:35:04 PM  

meanmutton: Mikey1969: Nothing wrong with CDs, Subby, it's a great hardcopy backup system. After a series of HDD crashes, and the douchebaggery of Apple(can't copy from my iPod to my computer) came into play, my CDs were a good last result. Much easier than tracking down music from multiple different online retailers.

They don't have the Internet where you're from?


They also don't have proper backup strategies via external hard drives or the cloud where he is from either.
 
2012-12-26 08:35:44 PM  
I thought about coming in here to defend you, Mumford & Sons. Instead, I will let you choke on the noose around your neck.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-26 08:36:03 PM  
Flint Ironstag

British books come with legal warnings against rebinding them, and libraries have to pay royalties, so there are rights that American book buyers have that British book buyers do not have.
 
2012-12-26 09:00:23 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Whew.  What a relief.  I was worried someone was going to try to lend me a boring CD of inauthentic folksy music made by some weakly talented English twats.


I lol'd. I mean, what would hipsters ever do?
 
2012-12-26 09:11:45 PM  
It's like a bad British version of Trampled by Turtles. I don't get their popularity at all.
 
2012-12-26 09:14:17 PM  
They were amazing on Sesame Street.
 
2012-12-26 09:18:35 PM  

ZAZ: Flint Ironstag

British books come with legal warnings against rebinding them, and libraries have to pay royalties, so there are rights that American book buyers have that British book buyers do not have.


Publishers on both sides of the Atlantic use covers returned as proof books have been destroyed. I have US printed books telling me not to buy a book without a cover as it "may be stolen property". Books in the UK may have had that warning but I'm not aware of it ever being upheld in court.

As to the libraries royalty that is something imposed on libraries and doesn't affect the public when they buy a book. There are now lots of volunteer run libraries in the UK who do not have to pay royalties, the law does not apply to them, so the purchaser of the book has the right to donate to such a library who is then free to loan them out quite happily.
 
2012-12-26 09:19:01 PM  

grinding_journalist: especially if they don't have the Fark approved GED in law


Heh.

As for the article and how most people will understand 'lending'

"Mumford and Sons? Fark them on general principle'.
 
2012-12-26 09:42:08 PM  
I like mumford and sons. They're good to chill to
 
2012-12-26 09:46:19 PM  

Theaetetus: Hidden in the fine print on the back ofBabel is an odd provision that clearly states: "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." Most of that all seems legit, but "lending"? Since when can't people let friends borrow their records?

Oh, my gosh, this is horrible! How can they possibly do that?! And that lawyer quoted in the story said in his tweet that it's "silly, invalid, and pernicious"! Why, what does the Copyright Act have to say about this?
17 USC 109(b)(1)(A): "... unless authorized by the owners of copyright..., neither the owner of a particular phonorecord... may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.

... oh.

Yeah, this is much ado about nothing, and the quoted lawyer is trying to drum up business through FUD and propaganda. This provision was added to prevent Blockbuster and similar places from buying a single copy of a DVD at normal retail price and renting it out for years without paying royalties - or conversely, to allow places like Blockbuster to exist without the movie distributors forcing everyone to sign contracts to ban the rental market.
It's also not "new" - a simple Google search for the phrase will turn up tons and tons of sites using the same exact prohibition on lending.

So, no, Subby...
1) It's not making it illegal to lend the disc to anyone, provided you don't do it for commercial advantage.
2) It doesn't have "wide-ranging implications".

[looneytunes09.files.wordpress.com image 500x243]


They still got their greenlight.

Headlines like this get on the main page every day with errors like this.

Welcome to Fark
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-26 10:07:33 PM  
Flint Ironstag

This is the British book warning I'm thinking of: "Except in the United States of America this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher."
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-26 10:09:59 PM  
I looked up a court case on "stripped" books a few years ago. Private parties are not responsible for policing bookstores' compliance with publisher contracts. As long as you get the stripped book from a merchant in the ordinary course of business, the law protects you.
 
2012-12-26 10:20:18 PM  

Theaetetus: rugman11: HempHead: sariq: "(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.

Yeah, shutting down libraries is something the RIAA has wanted for quite a long time.
Libraries is Socialism at its worst.

Except that libraries aren't engaged in "unauthorized lending." First-sale trumps any bullshiat the labels put on albums. So long as libraries aren't required to purchase directly from the publishers, there's nothing they can do to stop lending.

Not so. First sale doesn't save libraries - rather, there's a specific exemption in the copyright act (linked above) to allow libraries to lend materials.

Think about it - if the first sale doctrine trumped  any bullshiat, then could you purchase a CD and make millions of copies for sale and profit, claiming that your original purchase exhausted the copyright owner's right? No... First sale only exhausts the right of the copyright owner to prevent  distribution of  that copy.You are still restricted from the other copyright rights - you can't make unauthorized copies, you can't make derivative works, you can't publicly perform the work, etc.


I think y'all missed the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT part of my post.  Or maybe you think the US is European.  The lending restriction has *nothing* to do with the US or first-sale rights.
 
2012-12-26 10:25:28 PM  

ZAZ: Flint Ironstag

This is the British book warning I'm thinking of: "Except in the United States of America this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher."


The US Copyright Act 1976 does give the copyright holder rights over what the buyer of a copy can and cannot do with their book. Mirage vs Albuquerque Art upheld the right of the copyright holder to be able to prevent someone buying that book and reselling individual pages as artworks. It is classed as a Derivative Work and such is not allowed.
Would a book without a cover be a derivative work? They could certainly argue that. If a single page cannot be sold by itself then where is the limit? Two pages? A hundred?

As I said I am not aware of any case where the UK warning has been tried and upheld in court. Books, and records etc, have however been freely bought and sold for years with no issues. No one has suggested UK book buyers do not have the right to sell their books on, hence no need for a First sale Doctrine law to assert that they do have that right.
 
2012-12-26 10:34:26 PM  
This is not new. I had old cassettes that said the same thing.
 
2012-12-26 11:05:45 PM  
oh noes!

this would be terrible news
if they didn't suck.
 
2012-12-26 11:12:46 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: FeedTheCollapse: the most the most stereotypically Hipster band that is Mumford & Sons

Yeah, I was into 60's folk before I heard Mumford and Sons. Is the Kingston Trio hipster? What about Simon and Garfunkle? Really?

No, there is nothing  stereotypically hipster about Mumford and Sons other than they are a new rock band. Want hipster? Try Can. I was into them before you were.


I have vinyl of Flow Motion from the late 70's that I bought in the late 70's. I found them interesting then, but it doesn't sound like they have changed very much.
 
2012-12-27 12:38:35 AM  

sariq: Theaetetus: rugman11: HempHead: sariq: "(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.

Yeah, shutting down libraries is something the RIAA has wanted for quite a long time.
Libraries is Socialism at its worst.

Except that libraries aren't engaged in "unauthorized lending." First-sale trumps any bullshiat the labels put on albums. So long as libraries aren't required to purchase directly from the publishers, there's nothing they can do to stop lending.

Not so. First sale doesn't save libraries - rather, there's a specific exemption in the copyright act (linked above) to allow libraries to lend materials.

Think about it - if the first sale doctrine trumped  any bullshiat, then could you purchase a CD and make millions of copies for sale and profit, claiming that your original purchase exhausted the copyright owner's right? No... First sale only exhausts the right of the copyright owner to prevent  distribution of  that copy.You are still restricted from the other copyright rights - you can't make unauthorized copies, you can't make derivative works, you can't publicly perform the work, etc.

I think y'all missed the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT part of my post.  Or maybe you think the US is European.  The lending restriction has *nothing* to do with the US or first-sale rights.


You're right. In a thread about US law on an article about US law relating to a work by a US publisher under US copyright, you clearly referenced some European directive. Forgive my mistake regarding your irrelevant threadjacking and subsequent pissy-ness.
 
2012-12-27 12:40:41 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
The only Mumford I want to hear about
 
2012-12-27 01:34:50 AM  

Theaetetus: rugman11: HempHead: sariq: "(b) "lending" 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; " - Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament

So, libraries I think.

Yeah, shutting down libraries is something the RIAA has wanted for quite a long time.
Libraries is Socialism at its worst.

Except that libraries aren't engaged in "unauthorized lending." First-sale trumps any bullshiat the labels put on albums. So long as libraries aren't required to purchase directly from the publishers, there's nothing they can do to stop lending.

Not so. First sale doesn't save libraries - rather, there's a specific exemption in the copyright act (linked above) to allow libraries to lend materials.

Think about it - if the first sale doctrine trumped  any bullshiat, then could you purchase a CD and make millions of copies for sale and profit, claiming that your original purchase exhausted the copyright owner's right? No... First sale only exhausts the right of the copyright owner to prevent  distribution of  that copy.You are still restricted from the other copyright rights - you can't make unauthorized copies, you can't make derivative works, you can't publicly perform the work, etc.


There are two current cases that are now attempting to overturn 1st sale doctrine:




Two legal cases now pending could determine the future of the doctrine. The first is Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons. In that case, a textbook publisher is trying to undercut first sale by claiming the law only covers goods made in the United States. That would mean anything that is made in a foreign country and contains copies of copyrighted material - from the textbooks at issue in the Kirtsaeng case to shampoo bottles with copyrighted labels - could be blocked from resale, lending, or gifting without the permission of the copyright owner. That would create a nightmare for consumers and businesses, upending used goods markets and undermining what it really means to "buy" and "own" physical goods. The ruling also creates a perverse incentive for U.S. businesses to move their manufacturing operations abroad. It is difficult for us to imagine this is the outcome Congress intended.

The second is Capitol v. Redigi. Redigi is a service that allows music fans to store and resell music they buy from iTunes. Here's how it works: customers download Redigi software and designate files they want to resell. Redigi's software checks to make sure the files came from iTunes (so it knows they were lawfully purchased), pulls the data files from the reseller's computer to cloud storage, and deletes them from the reseller's hard drive. Once the music is in the cloud, other Redigi users can buy it. When a purchase is made, Redigi transfers ownership of the file and the seller can no longer access it. At last, a way for users to exercise their traditional right to resell music they no longer want.

No way, says Capitol Records. According to Capitol, the first sale doctrine simply doesn't apply to digital goods, because there is no way to "transfer" them without making copies. When users upload their music the cloud, they are making a copy of that music, whether or not they subsequently (or simultaneously) delete it from their own computers, and the first sale doctrine doesn't protect copying.

A win for Capitol would be profoundly dangerous for consumers. Many of us "buy" music, movies, books, games etc. in purely digital form, and this is likely to be increasingly true going forward. But if Capitol has its way, the laws we count on to protect our right to dispose of that content will be as obsolete as the VHS tape.

. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/first-sale-under-siege-if-you-bo ught-it-you-should-own-it
 
2012-12-27 01:55:11 AM  
Who?
 
2012-12-27 03:16:27 AM  

meanmutton: Mikey1969: Nothing wrong with CDs, Subby, it's a great hardcopy backup system. After a series of HDD crashes, and the douchebaggery of Apple(can't copy from my iPod to my computer) came into play, my CDs were a good last result. Much easier than tracking down music from multiple different online retailers.

They don't have the Internet where you're from?


That was my thought. I don't use CDs, I use...well, I won't name them, but they kinda rhyme with "Florence"
 
2012-12-27 06:32:47 AM  
The Total Fark mouth-breathers that think these guys are 'deep' deserve this.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report