The title is extremely misleading. It makes it sound as if Mumford & Sons have been interviewed saying they don't want people to lend their CDs to each other. What has actually happened is their label included some small print on their CD saying 'Unauthorized Lending' is not okay. This is clearly an issue with the label rather than the artist, and as amadeus says, is probably meaning Lending in terms of public rentals like from a library.
I just had a look at about 10 of my CDs and 2 of them had exactly the same warning, both from UK labels, so perhaps it is fairly UK specific boiler-plate legal notice. Can't help but feel this is terrible reporting from Wired.
In the UK, it is illegal to lend copyrighted works, with exceptions for some public transfers (18A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/18A) or under very specific "fair dealing" clauses.
I find this revelation incredibly relevant to the "I have nothing to hide" thread here on HN. How many people can even comprehend getting in trouble for just handing a CD to a friend?
I think you're right, it's a European thing, and it probably shouldn't have been printed on a CD sold in the US. One recent Metallica CD actually says "For sale or rental for private home use only."
Of the US-purchased CDs I checked, major label and indie, none of them prohibited renting or lending.
Of the 3 CDs I checked that I purchased in Europe, 2 prohibited renting or lending. One from the Netherlands says "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performances of the record prohibited." One from the UK (from 1994, so it isn't recent) says "unauthorized copying, hiring, renting, public performances & broadcasting of this recording prohibited."
I think they use "lending" and "hiring" because "renting" in ambiguous as to who is paying or being paid.
TL;DR: The term lending has been on most records in the last 20 years and actually refers to public rentals, or something to that effect, and has nothing to do with letting your friend borrow your CDs.
> The highly-confusing but incredibly important “first sale” doctrine in the Copyright Act states that the buyer of a copyrighted work — whether it’s a CD, book, or otherwise — can re-sell or loan that particular copy of the work in any way they want without the copyright holder’s permission
They have misstated the first sale doctrine under US law. For music CDs, lending is only allowed under first sale if it is not for direct or indirect commercial advantage. This is what there was not widespread CD rentals like there were for movies.
Same also applies to computer programs, which is why you don't find Windows or Office rentals. For programs there is an exception for certain kinds of games and for firmware, which is why you can easily rent those.
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (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. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.
Over 20 years ago I was standing in line at a bookstore (younger ones might not have heard of these things we used to have called bookstores back in the old days) and spotted an anti-lending clause in the copyright page of a book I was about to buy. I exited the line and returned the book to the shelf.
I don't always check for these anti-lending clauses but sometimes I do. In my opinion it's not legally enforceable because it violates first sale doctrine. But I don't like to support corporations whose lawyers have this attitude, so it always generates a 'no-sale'. They are not new clauses in 2013, but they seemed pretty new when I first saw them and I don't think they existed in books 30 years ago as opposed to 20.
I have similar feelings about the non-transferability of DRM digital books, albums and mobile apps. On those they make the argument that since the product is intangible there is no sale and it is not sold but a licensing fee is being charged for access to a bitstream, an access license which can be revoked at will by the licensor and without recourse by the licensee. Since these products are not being sold I am not sure the words books or albums really apply, they are more bitstream consumption allocation contracts. Not anything I am all that interesting in licensing, I'd rather buy real albums and books, and I do.
Oh good. Another reason I can reasonably dislike this band. I find them to be a poor version of one of my favorite bands (The Avett Brothers).
I would think that having more people hear your music would be a good thing. Controlling or attempting to control whom hears it smacks of echoes of the Metallica 'Down with Napster' stuff. Either enjoy people listening earnestly to your music, or well, you're just a really interesting marketing project and not musicians IMHO.
The article is empty link bait, using 'Mumford and Sons' to get views.
While I am also not a fan of the band, this 'article' doesn't suddenly make them Lars. The 'warning' seems generic speak slapped on things. A Google search shows Velvet Underground records from the 80's with this warning.
Also, a lot of people think The Avett Brothers are considered a 'poor version' of folk music(easy listening, pop) in the same bucket as Mumford & Sons. Regardless of versions and quality, both are nice to listen to on summer days with friends(who often don't care much about music), regardless of who's imitating who.
Books in the UK routinely ban lending in their copyright notice. I assume this means that in the UK, unlike the US, that is a valid thing to do. The text is probably just a holdover from the UK, or printed so that a single package can be sent to both the UK and US. In any case, I'm pretty sure the do-not-lend clause holds no power in the US and can be safely ignored.
Storm in a teacup will result in more bittorrent seeds...
More seriously: my kids school are always using their smart whiteboards to play YouTube videos and DVDs on, particularly on pre-Xmas slacking week (the one that the teachers think everyone is entitled to in the UK). How does this fair with such terms? Would they sue a school?
Oh for heaven's sake. This is standard UK copyright boilerplate, because the 'first sale' doctrine does not exist in British law. And in any case, it's put there by the record publisher, not the band. I've never listened to them, but singling them out for complaint like this is completely yellow journalism.
A simple Google search for "Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited" returns many hits for other bands with the same terms.
Any limitation you can think of, lawyers are going to bring to your employment contract, EULA or copyright provision.
Because for them it never makes sense not to.
So, EULAs, frivolous copyright provisions and employment contracts should be outlawed or severely limited. As in: there should be a white list of what you can put there.
I just had a look at about 10 of my CDs and 2 of them had exactly the same warning, both from UK labels, so perhaps it is fairly UK specific boiler-plate legal notice. Can't help but feel this is terrible reporting from Wired.