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.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

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

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
150 Comments
Sneeje (profile) says:

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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: 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…

TroutFishingUSA says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

RonKaminsky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

average_joe (profile) says:

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.

sophisticatedjanedoe says:

Re: 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?

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

MrWilson says:

Re: 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).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: 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.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: 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…

saulgoode (profile) says:

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.

Sneeje (profile) says:

Re: 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.

MrWilson says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: 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.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

vegetaman (profile) says:

Re: 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!?

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

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.

DocMAME says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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).

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: 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.mozilla: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.

Lord of the Files says:

Re: 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. 🙂

Disgusted (profile) says:

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.

maclypse says:

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.

Rick Chapman says:

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.

TJ Marx says:

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…

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Glenn says:

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.

Peter Hirtle (profile) says:

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.

average_joe (profile) says:

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.

Ophelia Millais says:

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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Cookie Marenco (user link) says:

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. 🙂

Kevin (profile) says:

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.

Phil Doleman (user link) says:

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

However, the key word is ‘unauthorised’. Lending, I suspect, doesn’t mean letting your mate listen to it, it means lending it out from a library or similar (Blockbusters for example), and if I wanted it to be put in a library I could say ‘yes’, and if I didn’t, I could say ‘no’.

Nobody says:

First sale rights in CDs are already limited

So what if a library makes a copy of a C.D. and lends the copy? How is that any different than lending the original? I would appear that the original content holders would lose monetary gain due to the libraries copying of the original content. What if the library purchases multiple copies of the original content at a used record store, the original content holder still doesn’t gain monetarily!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...