Billboard reported last Thursday that a federal District Court in Los Angeles has denied a motion by Universal Music Group to find an eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) seller who sold promotional CDs the label claims are its property (and thus not eligible for sale) liable for copyright infringement. UMG argued in its motion that a label printed on the discs stating they "were promotional and could not be sold" gives the holders of the CDs the right to listen only and not sell the CDs. According to the BBC, the motion from UMG was first filed against eBay seller Troy Augusto in May 2007 and resulted in the cancellation of an auction and threats from eBay.

The federal court argued that the label could not prevent that sale, and Billboard added that copyright law states "once the legal title to a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted work is transferred, then the person who obtains that copy owns it and may dispose of it." That does not mean an owner of the item can copy and sell the new version for profit ,though. Troy Augusto, the eBay seller targeted by UMG, argued to the court that the recipients of the CDs from UMG could treat the items as gifts under federal law and the court agreed with this assessment.

The yearlong affair between Universal Music Group, Troy Augusto and eBay, brings a larger question into the fold: What is the point of these promotional CDs? Before the advent of the digital market, physical copies distributed to sell new music via the radio made perfect sense, and in many ways they still do because these items are easily played on stations. But, with MP3 files and stores like Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iTunes Store leading the way for sales and marketing, could the record industry make promotional MP3s available to both radios and consumers?

In a news piece that is gaining more and more momentum, Rolling Stone issued an article on Friday featuring an interview with hip hop artist Nas about his new album and Universal Music Group's decision to back his choice for title. Meanwhile, New York area legislators are demanding the State Comptroller withdraw a pension fund from UMG unless the title is changed, arguing that UMG and Nas are "profiting from a racial slur that has been used to dehumanize people of color for centuries."

Nas can certainly feel confident with his title choice, as the record label has backed him and offered no comment for the piece. According to the rapper, the controversy surrounding the album "is like talking to your children about sex. It's hard, but it's important." Despite the difficulties that may raise among whoever talks about the album, as Nas also states it is "just an album." Listeners and fans will decide to buy the album presumably on their like or dislike of Nas's past work and if reviews are positive for this album.

Of course, listeners may be enticed to purchase the album strictly for the title, or they may be turned away. No matter the controversy surrounding the decision, or the decision itself, in the end it appears like any other marketing stunt. Universal Music certainly has nothing to lose in the venture; the company's share in the music industry is around 30% and they have a wide lead over the next competitor, Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG), at 25%. In any case, in a month we can see if the controversy amounts to anything and what kind of reception the album will have.