This listing was removed for violating our Counterfeit items policy

[debbie6438]

Three of my listings for a 77 year old phonograph record was removed because of “Counterfeit Items Policy”????? Bilt More Records was a company that started in the late 1940's and they did reissue older recordings from the 1920's and early 30's. RCA sued them and closed them down for reissuing titles that RCA had no interest at the time, but wanted to play ruff with Bilt-More Records thus closing them down. They did have a nice size catalog before closing their label down. Okay I get that, but I and other sellers have been selling these 78rpm records for decades, so now RCA wants to come after these 77 years old records, of recordings made 90 years ago! Somehow I don't think that a copyright violation would bring enough cash in to merit any legal action in a court! Any court would toss this one out! This is so dumb! As my three listings were removed dozens are still for sale on eBay? So whats going on here? Some other seller wanted my three down, so they could sell their copies? Who knows! So don't list anything that's 77 years old! You may get in trouble! RCA will come knocking on your door!

[onefootflipper1]

It seems like you have at least 25,000 records that are moving pretty slowly (17 year sell through rate), so I probably wouldn't worry about having to take down 3 of them. 

I would say just stick them in the back of a lot of other records and don't mention them in the text, but you don't seem to do lots at all.

[1786davycrockett]

@albertabrightalberta 

"That page proves the case that the item was counterfeit and that the listings were correctly removed: 

From the page linked: 

Profile: New York-based bootleg label that re-issued older Jazz recordings between 1949 and 1951. Put out of business when RCA Victor successfully sued Biltmore Record Company for copyright violation."

And that explains the copyright violation.

If these Biltmore Records had been released between 1949 and 1951, someone at Biltmore very likely went to the trouble of re-establishing a new copyright.  (When I worked at Eclipse Comics in 1988-1989, this had become a standard operating procedure for "out of print" works.)

So, when RCA sued Biltmore Records, RCA also assumed ownership of the renewed copyrights, as well -- which are still in effect, and NOT in public domain.  Since the earliest copyright would have begun in 1949, that means that that particular copyright will not expire until 2044 -- at the earliest.

And it is possible, as well, that those "Biltmore copyrights" seized by RCA can be renewed for copyright for an even longer time, after the original "Biltmore copyright" expires.

As for private audio and video recordings of most licensed popular music -- it is clearly stated (either on the ticket itself, or the program, or in a pre-concert announcement) that ALL video and audio recordings are forbidden, since they violate multiple copyright and trademark laws.  There are exceptions; but these must be made in advance of the recording dates, and with the full permission of all copyright and trademark performers.

[slippinjimmy]

---

@albertabrightalberta wrote:

---

@debbie6438 wrote:

https://www.discogs.com/label/1625199-Biltmore?page=1

Here's the discog page

---

That page proves the case that the item was counterfeit and that the listings were correctly removed: 

From the page linked: 

Profile: New York-based bootleg label that re-issued older Jazz recordings between 1949 and 1951. Put out of business when RCA Victor successfully sued Biltmore Record Company for copyright violation.

---

If you look at the individual releases you will see that Discogs does not allow them to be sold on their site (for obvious reasons).

[fbusoni]

All true.  But what is striking is that RCA (which one would assume had bigger fish to fry) is so determine to prevent an individual American consumer from making a few bucks from the sale of an antique piece of shellac that can no longer be played by 99.9999% of US households that the company actually scans online e-commerce sites.  

Reminds me of the ads that big music companies insert into music videos on YouTube in the hope that someone will click, allowing the companies to make 3 cents.  

Punitive and bizarre at the same time.  I guess music companies must really be suffering.  

[1786davycrockett]

@fbusoni 

"what is striking is that RCA (which one would assume had bigger fish to fry) is so determine to prevent an individual American consumer from making a few bucks from the sale of an antique piece of shellac that can no longer be played by 99.9999% of US households"

From what I have read in business journals, it is standard operating procedure on the part of "Big Corporations" to sue "Little Guys" for these minor copyright issues, since (if the smaller businesses are NOT sued), that it opens the door for legal precedent for other cases, which may result in the overturning of other, more significant copyright cases.

So that's why the "Big Boys" sue even the "nickel and dime" cases -- it's a matter of avoiding any change in copyright ownership.

[debbie6438]

great points! RCA is BMG?   

this is one paragraph from the Google Gods!:

"A court can, in its discretion, also assess costs and attorneys' fees. For details, see Title 17, United States Code, Sections 504, 505. Willful copyright infringement can also result in criminal penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000 per offense."

For a phonograph record fom 1949! OF music from the 1920's!  These sold for around 85 cents

in the late 1940's! Big Bucks!

[debbie6438]

As of this morning there are four Biltmore records for sale! why hasn't eBay taken them down?

[debbie6438]

yes these Bilt-More records were reissues from the late 1940's of 1920's Jazz, some Dixeland

which is a dead seller! 

[a-lotta-stuff]

So I guess nobody noticed back in 2008 when we sold 'Shaky Tom' estate - thousands of photos, labeled on the back with band name, show date/place, SONG BEING PLAYED! along with the negatives, of hundred's of bands - Beatles in CA, Stones, Kinks, Motley Crud, Gums n' Noses, Bob Marley, dB's, B-52's - you name them, he photographed them over forty plus years. Plus ticket stubs and flyers

About his self given nick name: He had a nerve disorder that made him shake - really jump like a hick up - 10/20 times a day for 72 years.

[debbie6438]

they (eBay) missed the listing?

who can know?

[a-lotta-stuff]

Not one listing, it was hundreds of listing over a year plus. No label or band or anybody complained or vero us.

[1786davycrockett]

@debbie6438 

"As of this morning there are four Biltmore records for sale! why hasn't eBay taken them down?"

Go ahead and report them to eBay!

[debbie6438]

i'm staying away from that one! They know about them!

how could they not if RCA contacted them?

[sugarnspice777]

99.9% of the time it is a competitor who turns in your listings.  Then a bot takes it down.  Got nothing to do with RCA.  I KNOW what I am talking about.

Do a search, find out who is selling same.  It is one of them.  For sure.  

[american-photography · Accepted solution]

RCA went defunct in 1987, 37 years ago, the company doesn’t exist anymore except as a brand name.

So that rules out RCA reporting you, most likely a competitor or Ebay buyer/seller who turned you in.