And while you're at it, check the tags on that pirate's mattress.

Im coming to the opoin that all these Idotic suits brought by the copyright industry is just an elaborate ruse. They are so far out and unbelievable that people just wont believe us when we try and tell them what is going on and thus win.

I'm currently sitting in my uni's media office surrounded by radio people (currently on air at http://www.demonfm.co.uk/) and they just think im making this stuff up. To be honest what person would believe that we aren't allowed to get rid of old cd's (we receive at least 5 promotional cds a day!) or that sony tried to take over the worlds computers by secretly installing rootkits on them?

I apologise for the pedantry, but shouldn't the headline be "it's illegal to throw away the promo CD we sent you without our permission"? (Although it wouldn't have surprised me to learn that I really needed to sign some kind of affidavit of my intent to dispose of my own rubbish...)

@shedside: I think that the idea is Universal is sending out CDs to people who do not ask for them. Then, the recipients are being told that they cannot throw them out because that is unauthorized distribution.

So, while 'it's illegal to throw away the promo CD we sent you without our permission' should read 'it's illegal to throw away, without our permission, the promo CD we sent you'... the way the title written means "We sent you a CD without your permission, and now it is illegal to throw it away."

@thekevinmonster: Ah, yes, I see it now, thank-you. Parsing for fun and profit!

OMG thrift stores will go out of business if they can't sell all those shitty no name band promo cds that DJs eventually give them that they stole from the radio station who got them for free and unsolicited..

How does this jibe with the mail laws that say if it's sent to you unsolicited, it's yours?

Never mind the physical disk, how does that apply to the content as well?

Ok, I propose that we all make 'demo' CDs, and mail them to Universal. (My CD will contain my rendition of 4'33".) I'll be sure to audit them every day to make sure that they haven't made an unauthorized distribution of my property to the landfill. If they can't prove they still have it, I'll sue the bejeezus out of them for stupidity.

Is this retroactive? Because I've still got dozens of promo LP's I received when I was a radio DJ back in the early 70's, and I'm thinking about getting rid of some of my old stuff. I'd hate to go to jail for passing them along.

I've got two milk crates worth of these things.

You can't give them away to a store because of a law passed by congress a year or highly regulating the used CD retail industry. You have to fill out a long form with your ID and address and what cds you passed along even if you give them to the shop.

So my theory was that the credit card companies had large claims to stocks of papershredding companies with all of their 89lbs of offers that I get every year in the mail that I have to shred. I guess now, the RIAA must have purchased a shitload of stock in these shredding companies because what the hell else are we supposed to do with them other than bury them in our backyards with our dead cat?

re: #8 by pepik

Just realize if you send your rendition of 4'33", you still will need to pay mechanical royalties to the John Cage Trust.

I suppose the same would apply to a sample of said composition...

#7 Rob: I've wondered this for years. Early on (when they were still sending albums with a gold-lettered stamp telling you how you couldn't re-sell it), I knew it was a disingenuous argument, but legally, why shouldn't it hold up in court? I didn't request this album, you sent it to me, ergo I may do what I want with it.

Further to the point: I received a CD recently from a major label, and the CD actually had my name and company affiliation printed on it (along with the usual finger-waggling). I called up the company and said, "I didn't ask for this, and I don't want to be on your mailing list if you're going to send these out, because I can't be responsible for what gets sent me at work." The PR woman said she didn't even know the name printing was being done, then offered to send me non-watermarked CDs. I still don't need them, but I shrugged and said, "If you want."

I'm still getting CDs, just non-watermarked ones, and nothing with my name has shown up. I feel no responsibility about returning them.

The thing is, by handing the responsibility for the CD they've watermarked and sent to us on our behalf -- without requesting it -- the company must have some sort of legal obligation to provide postage and an envelope for its return. To not include that means they expect the onus and costs incurred in returning it to fall on the people they sent it to.

I've long wondered if someone tried to mount a case, saying, "You want your CDs back? Great, come get them, or pay me (shipping costs plus handling costs plus postage plus my time spent) and I'll be happy to make sure you get them. Of course, if you want guaranteed delivery you'll have to pay more for priority postage."

Seems to me a group action could tally up those charges pretty fast. Whether it would hold up in court, I have no idea.

@8 -- You'd be my hero if you did it!

These are the kinds of things I'd love to see people follow through with regularly in the real world. :)

If you mail the unwanted promo CD back to the record company, would they sue themselves for "receiving illegally distributed material"? Would the world collapse into a giant suck-hole of legal idiocy?

Why do I get the feeling that these RIAA proclamations are being generated by lawyers watching a chimpanzee in a suit throwing its own poo at law books (my apologies to all chimpanzees). Whatever it lands on they use to make these bizarre proclamations.

So Universal wants to have their cake and eat it too, and we find it hard to believe?

As others have pointed out, ALL record companies insist that "unsolicited demos cannot be returned", which certainly implies ownership (although I do recall a Prince-wanna-be who pestered my old employer until we sent his crappy demo back).

FYI-- it is well known that employees at all record companies engage in "promo-trading"-- as in "I'll send you the new ____ cd if you send me the new____ cd", or they just add each others names to mailing lists. And I know from experience that nearly all the unwanted cds end up at used record stores, so I guess Universal might have to prosecute it's own employees.

It has always stuck me as a kind of strange cuteness this birthday gift "clause", it somehow throws off all legal twisting with an image of cake and singing.

Pepik, good one! Time to raid those $1 dollar stores.

For anyone interested in more from Matt, I was lucky enough to interview him for my little blog. You can check it out: http://mymediamusings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=216

If Universal were to make this claim stand, it would be able to
ruin anybody simply by mailing him so many promotional CDs that he
could not afford to rent space to house them. Perhaps it could
establish a musical group called "White Elephant" for the purpose.

But I'm sure Universal does not expect to establish this claim, and I
doubt it even really wants to. (The question isn't actually relevant
to the case anyway.) Rather, it has a more subtle plan. Universal is
presenting absurdly extreme copyright demands so as to make its real
extreme copyright demands seem moderate by comparison. Thus, this
absurd claim can do harm even if it is sure to be rejected.

This campaign of confusion goes with the other propaganda campaigns
used by the copyright industry, such as calling sharers "pirates",
describing copyright's effect as "protection", and confusing copyright
with other laws through the term "intellectual property".
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html