UMG sues man for selling promo CDs

here is something else that really irritates me. ever since i worked in a radio station in the early 1980s i’ve seen music (records, tapes and CDs) marked with the warning “promotional use only, not for resale”. i’ve seen them in radio station libraries, recording studios, and used record/CD stores, and there doesn’t seem to be any hesitation to sell these to whomever wants to buy and has the money, regardless of whether or not the music is stamped with such a warning.

yet UMG sees fit to sue this guy for listing 26 CDs stamped with “promotional use only, not for resale” on ebay.

let’s look at this a different way. instead of music, let’s pretend that UMG is an automobile dealership. do you think that anyone would “buy” a car stamped with “promotional use only, not for resale”? do you think that UMG would last very long in the automobile industry if they “licenced” their cars, rather than selling them to people?

then why do they think that they can get away with pulling the same kind of shit in the music industry?

of course – to carry the analogy even further – if they did licence cars rather than selling the rights to them, does that mean that they would have to pay to fix things that went wrong with the car? my car is still broken (okay, it hasn’t even been 12 hours yet) and i’m stressing… 8/