[MW Forums]

Wondering why iTunes 7.4 requires you to pay another 99 cents to make a ringtone of a song you already own? This excerpt from MDJ looks at copy rights, fair use, and how that comes into play with Apple's ringtone offerings. more

[swartzfeger]

Excellent article. Many seem to think of copyrights as an onerous relic... unless it saves their own bacon.

[lwdesign]

This was a good article, however, I fail to see why so much hoopla is being made about ringtones by anyone at all. Even if you purchase 5 different ringtones for different people on your iPhone, the cost comes out to $9.50 if you haven't purchased the songs before. Surely this amount of money is considered in the "frivolous miscellaneous purchase" category, and a price range that all but the most frugal could afford without making a dent in the grocery bill, rent, car payment or monthly cell phone charges.
This is a MINOR PURCHASE. I'm just not sure what people are complaining about. Apple has provided an excellent service that has a cost cheaper than most other services, and far easier with better options, and ringtones are useable in perpetuity unless you change your phone. This is all there is to the story, even though the subject has been milked to death.

[schoonerman]

Quote:

---

This is a MINOR PURCHASE.

---

Furthermore, it is entirely voluntary. At least, every cell phone I've had (which goes back to the days before USWest sold off their cell system) has had a way to alert me to an incoming call. Fortunately, the iPhone even has one that sounds like...a phone (to aged US ears).
I understand neither the complaining about the ring tones nor the desire to acquire them. But then, I grew up having to stand on a stool to get close enough to the wall phone's mouthpiece to use the phone.

[lymond]

What annoys me is the fact that Apple has provided a wonderful program named GarageBand. With it, I can create my own compositions, to which I own the copyright. Yet Apple provides no way for me to use any of my own compositions as my iPhone ringtone,

[EMoeller]

Best darned article on copyright issues I have seen - thanks.
I can think of only about 3 songs I would like as ring tones and will be happy to pay the 99 cents each for the privilege.
Eric

[DarrenForbes]

A very interesting article explaining quite a lot.
As the iPhone is Europe bound in the next month or so could you comment on the situation here? Is it different in every country just to make matters more complicated?

[Xaqtly]

Quote:

---

What annoys me is the fact that Apple has provided a wonderful program named GarageBand. With it, I can create my own compositions, to which I own the copyright. Yet Apple provides no way for me to use any of my own compositions as my iPhone ringtone,

---

This is exactly the point. Those of you saying "it's a minor purchase" and "it's voluntary" are completely missing the point. I want to put ringtones that consist of content THAT I OWN on the iPhone. This is not a legal issue, I own 100% of the content I want to use as a ringtone, so why can't I do it?

[TerryWhite]

I totally agree (great article, by the way), but if I want to make MY OWN SOUNDS and use them as Ringtones, iTunes shouldn't prevent me from doing that. iTunes let's me take anything I would create in Garageband or any other sound app for that matter and use it on an iPod, why would this be different for an iPhone?
So let's say I'm a musician (I'm not, but just pretend for a moment), as it stands now I would first have to get my music onto the iTunes store, buy my own track from the store and then spend another 99 to convert it to a ringtone. That's the part that just doesn't make sense to me.
Thank God for iToner!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What annoys me is the fact that Apple has provided a wonderful program named GarageBand. With it, I can create my own compositions, to which I own the copyright. Yet Apple provides no way for me to use any of my own compositions as my iPhone ringtone,

---

This is exactly the point. Those of you saying "it's a minor purchase" and "it's voluntary" are completely missing the point. I want to put ringtones that consist of content THAT I OWN on the iPhone. This is not a legal issue, I own 100% of the content I want to use as a ringtone, so why can't I do it?

---

[DonC]

There is some logic in this argumentation, but there is a way to implement ring tones on the iPhone circumventing the described issue:
- Use only songs allready installed on the iPhone in the iPod section
- tag start and stop times on that file
- silence the iPod section when the phone rings
This way you technically use only ONE copy of the song, don't create an unneeded dublicate which has to be licensed and technically disable the iPod to prevent listening to the same song twice...
=> just use ONE of the 5 legal copies
I guess this had to be done to please the carriers and their business model

[cweber]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is a MINOR PURCHASE.

---

Furthermore, it is entirely voluntary. At least, every cell phone I've had (which goes back to the days before USWest sold off their cell system) has had a way to alert me to an incoming call. Fortunately, the iPhone even has one that sounds like...a phone (to aged US ears).
I understand neither the complaining about the ring tones nor the desire to acquire them.

---

Exactly! Just say no to ringtones.
As many others said, excellent article, with a clear explanation of the vagaries of copyright as it applies to songs and recordings of songs (which are two different things for copyright purposes).
I will add, however, that the current unease about paying for ringtones points to an underlying fundamental shift: When creative works come into the digital realm, and technology is as advanced as it is now, making an additional copy of a work incurs near zero cost. That is VERY different from the analog realm, and by its very nature changes the game. In the long run I believe it is inevitable that we move to a blanket licensing scheme, or perhaps change copyright law and its underlying assumptions altogether. Which isn't saying authors, artists and publishers should go unpaid, just paid differently. The current state of affairs is simply archaic, ineffective and sometimes just plain ridiculous. Just note how long and complex of an article it took to lay it all out.

[foolishpuck]

Worst article on copyright issues I have seen.

Quote:

---

The trick to remember here is that fair use is a legal doctrine and defense, not a specific part of copyright law. Fair use exists in the United States because the First Amendment to the US Constitution mandates that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.

---

Fair Use most certainly is a specific part of copyright law.
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
17 U.S.C. 107.

Quote:

---

Copyright, by its very nature, abridges the freedom of speechyoure not free to take the Macworld iPhone Superguide and give it to friends or resell it, for example.

---

I most certainly am free to do so. It's called the first sale doctrine. From Wikipedia:
"The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that a copyright holder's rights to control the distribution of a particular copy end once that copy is sold."
What I can't do is make copies of the Macworld iPhone Superguide and sell those.
If you're going to publish articles about copyrights, please hire somebody who knows copyright law.

[doglesby]

Quote:

---

This sits in opposition to the general Internet consensus on copyright, which is, roughly paraphrased, Copyright is burdensome and overwhelming, and almost everything should be available inexpensively or as fair use, except the stuff that I or my friends created, because its totally bogus when other people rip off my tunes or Web site designs or graphics for use without my permission.

---

Ha ha. I have a musician friend who told me about his collegues who rant about music piracy when they use pirated software to produce their music.

[doglesby]

Thanks, I was put off by that "not a law" bit too. However, your last point is beyond nit-picky. Computer files are inherently copied. You cannot sell the original file, you can sell a copy and delete the original. The statement really was not ambiguous.