Sign In
Register
Help
Feefer is dead right on all counts. Thanks Feefer!
People are getting their panties all in a bunch about something over which they have no control.
Some people see "class-action" and alarm bells go off. They think it's always just lawyers making gobs of money over something pointless. These kinds of suits exists for good reason. Given the makeup of today's courts, I think it's very unlikely Apple will be held rsponsible for any damages. The current courts are stacked heavily in favor of corporate interests.
I could'nt care less if they win the ability to run iPhones on T-Mobile, but if we get consumer control of placing media we already own onto our iPhone as a ringtone, just as we do with placing music and video on an iPod, that would be a good thing for consumers. I also think it's unethical for Apple to purposely brick people's phones so I hope my suspicion on this front is confirmed, and they are forced to change that policy so that people who hacked them can at least reverse the process and sign up with AT&T.
Maybe there's a way that the people on this forum who seem so excited about paying for ringtones Apple chooses for them could continue to pay Apple, while those of us who think using our existing MP3s as a ringtone should be free like it is on a Nokia phone, could do so cost-free.
Let's see what the case brings about, if anything.
iPhone lawsuit seeks over $1 billion in damages
MultiQuote
#114
Terrin 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 357
- Joined: 04-May 06
Posted 15 October 2007 - 01:55 PM
This is a nice attempt to apply the law to Apple's reasoning for charging for ringtones. However, there is a difference between making the means available to use your own songs as ringtones, and selling songs to be used as rigntones. It would be legal for Apple to enable you to use whatever you want as a ringtone provided it plays no part in the using of copyrighted work as your rigntone. As someone else pointed out, if you wanted to record a bird chirping and use that as a riingtone, that isn't a violation of copyright law. Arguably, using your own legally acquired copyrighted music as a ringtone is also legal under a fair-use theory. However, it is likely a violation of copyright law to help you edit a copyrighted song to be used as a ringtone on your computer. Doing so would be considered a derivative work under copyright law. Apple's service does just that: you edit a song you already own to be used as rigntone. That probably is illegal without paying the labels.
Apple hasn't let you use anything as a ringtone possibly for a variety of reasons, 1) the iPhone was rushed to the market and is far from being feature complete (if so give Apple a break, you got what you paid for), and 2) Apple sells music and is trying to appease the labels who hate Apple so it can continue to sell music.
Apple hasn't let you use anything as a ringtone possibly for a variety of reasons, 1) the iPhone was rushed to the market and is far from being feature complete (if so give Apple a break, you got what you paid for), and 2) Apple sells music and is trying to appease the labels who hate Apple so it can continue to sell music.
Quote:
This is wrong on so many levels it boggle
From http://www.thelegals...roceedings.html, which I thought explained this issue in understandable terms that are relevant to this discussion:
1. "1) Does a Ringtone made available for use on a cellular telephone or similar device constitute delivery of a digital phonorecord that is subject to statutory licensing under 17 U.S.C. 115, irrespective of whether the Ringtone is monophonic (having only a single melodic line), polyphonic (having both melody and harmony) or a mastertone (a digital sound recording or excerpt thereof); and
2) If Ringtones are subject to statutory licensing under 17 U.S.C. 115, what are the legal conditions and/or limitations on such statutory licensing? Id. at 1.
Held . The Register of Copyrights responded affirmatively to the first question and distinguished between the types of works that constitute Ringtones to resolve the second question. Id.
The Register of Copyrights reasoned that statutory construction allows one to conclude that Ringtones satisfy the definition of DPDs under the Copyright Act. Id. at 10. The Register held that the phonorecord in these instances is the actual sound recording file stored as a download on either the cellphones hard drive or on a cell phones removable memory storage disk. Id. Since delivery of Ringtones is frequently via the Internet or in wireless environments, the Register further asserted that categorizing a Ringtone as a DPD conforms with the intent of the 1995 DPRA legislation. See S. Rep. No. 104-128, at 37 (1995)."
CONCLUSION IN REGARDS TO THE ISSUE AT HAND: Apple, as a music retailer, is required to SELL ringtones legally and simply cannot allow, under current law, one to make one's own ringtones since its phone is tied directly to the very medium by which it sells the music (iTunes) until exceptions or exemptions are made in so far as ringtones -- which have been held as DISTINCT works -- are concerned.
2. Nokia and the majority of other phone manfacturers that allow users to create ringtones are NOT also music retailers like Apple.
3. The cell phone manufacturers that do allow ringtones to be made from your own music and also sell music usually SELL ringtones at SUBSTANTIALLY higher prices for ringtones than Apple does.
The upshot is this: Apple is not like the vast majority of cell phone manufacturers (including Nokia) or distributors because it is also a music retailer. If Sony Erricsson phones allow you to make ringtones from music you already own regardless of label, their position is different because its cell business is a different subsidiary from its music business. Not so with Apple. Ringtones are cash cows for the labels (again, up to $2.49 for a ringtone) and it is foolish to think that they would not include provisions in their contracts with Apple that would require ringtones be sold, per established law that holds ringtones as distinct music works.
I, for one, think that Apple would rather let users have the ringtone making ability they desire. Why? First, because of Jobs very public and industry leading stance about selling music DRM free. Second, because Apple could have easily gone the conventional route and charged close to or exactly the full price of current ringtones. Third, because Apple already provides apps like Garageband on Macs and Quicktime for Macs or PC's and any other number of utilities in its own software suites that ALREADY ALLOW users ethe ability to easily edit music for ringtone use. Take iMovie on the Mac, for example: with rare exception one can easily add music tracks INCLUDING DRM TRACKS bought through iTunes to video projects. Given these and other reasons, I think that Apple isn't as draconian about this as you would have us believe.
On the contrary, I firmly believe this is an issue that should be addressed with the music industry at large, the participating labels, the RIAA and even the Copyright Royalty Board. Your position and those of your fellow critics around this issue is that Apple is no different than any other cell phone manufacturer. But the truth is that Apple manufactures and sells the iPhone but it has CONTRACTS with the labels in order to sell their music. You can buy "1-2-3" by Fiest and "own" that song/download. But the LAW says that the "1-2-3" ringtone is a separate and disctint work. That's the distinction that truly makes the difference.
Or do you think, contrary to all historical evidence, that the music labels would LOVE to do nothing more than let their retailers give away a revenue source with outrageous profit margins for free?
This is wrong on so many levels it boggle
From http://www.thelegals...roceedings.html, which I thought explained this issue in understandable terms that are relevant to this discussion:
1. "1) Does a Ringtone made available for use on a cellular telephone or similar device constitute delivery of a digital phonorecord that is subject to statutory licensing under 17 U.S.C. 115, irrespective of whether the Ringtone is monophonic (having only a single melodic line), polyphonic (having both melody and harmony) or a mastertone (a digital sound recording or excerpt thereof); and
2) If Ringtones are subject to statutory licensing under 17 U.S.C. 115, what are the legal conditions and/or limitations on such statutory licensing? Id. at 1.
Held . The Register of Copyrights responded affirmatively to the first question and distinguished between the types of works that constitute Ringtones to resolve the second question. Id.
The Register of Copyrights reasoned that statutory construction allows one to conclude that Ringtones satisfy the definition of DPDs under the Copyright Act. Id. at 10. The Register held that the phonorecord in these instances is the actual sound recording file stored as a download on either the cellphones hard drive or on a cell phones removable memory storage disk. Id. Since delivery of Ringtones is frequently via the Internet or in wireless environments, the Register further asserted that categorizing a Ringtone as a DPD conforms with the intent of the 1995 DPRA legislation. See S. Rep. No. 104-128, at 37 (1995)."
CONCLUSION IN REGARDS TO THE ISSUE AT HAND: Apple, as a music retailer, is required to SELL ringtones legally and simply cannot allow, under current law, one to make one's own ringtones since its phone is tied directly to the very medium by which it sells the music (iTunes) until exceptions or exemptions are made in so far as ringtones -- which have been held as DISTINCT works -- are concerned.
2. Nokia and the majority of other phone manfacturers that allow users to create ringtones are NOT also music retailers like Apple.
3. The cell phone manufacturers that do allow ringtones to be made from your own music and also sell music usually SELL ringtones at SUBSTANTIALLY higher prices for ringtones than Apple does.
The upshot is this: Apple is not like the vast majority of cell phone manufacturers (including Nokia) or distributors because it is also a music retailer. If Sony Erricsson phones allow you to make ringtones from music you already own regardless of label, their position is different because its cell business is a different subsidiary from its music business. Not so with Apple. Ringtones are cash cows for the labels (again, up to $2.49 for a ringtone) and it is foolish to think that they would not include provisions in their contracts with Apple that would require ringtones be sold, per established law that holds ringtones as distinct music works.
I, for one, think that Apple would rather let users have the ringtone making ability they desire. Why? First, because of Jobs very public and industry leading stance about selling music DRM free. Second, because Apple could have easily gone the conventional route and charged close to or exactly the full price of current ringtones. Third, because Apple already provides apps like Garageband on Macs and Quicktime for Macs or PC's and any other number of utilities in its own software suites that ALREADY ALLOW users ethe ability to easily edit music for ringtone use. Take iMovie on the Mac, for example: with rare exception one can easily add music tracks INCLUDING DRM TRACKS bought through iTunes to video projects. Given these and other reasons, I think that Apple isn't as draconian about this as you would have us believe.
On the contrary, I firmly believe this is an issue that should be addressed with the music industry at large, the participating labels, the RIAA and even the Copyright Royalty Board. Your position and those of your fellow critics around this issue is that Apple is no different than any other cell phone manufacturer. But the truth is that Apple manufactures and sells the iPhone but it has CONTRACTS with the labels in order to sell their music. You can buy "1-2-3" by Fiest and "own" that song/download. But the LAW says that the "1-2-3" ringtone is a separate and disctint work. That's the distinction that truly makes the difference.
Or do you think, contrary to all historical evidence, that the music labels would LOVE to do nothing more than let their retailers give away a revenue source with outrageous profit margins for free?
#115
Buttereggs
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 15-October 07
Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:33 PM
Right on. ATT offers lousy coverage in Northern Illinois. Apple needs to make a deal with Verizon
#116
Kurtster
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 17-November 04
Posted 16 October 2007 - 01:41 PM
Quote:
However, it is likely a violation of copyright law to help you edit a copyrighted song to be used as a ringtone on your computer. Doing so would be considered a derivative work under copyright law. Apple's service does just that: you edit a song you already own to be used as rigntone. That probably is illegal without paying the labels.
Apple hasn't let you use anything as a ringtone possibly for a variety of reasons, 1) the iPhone was rushed to the market and is far from being feature complete (if so give Apple a break, you got what you paid for), and 2) Apple sells music and is trying to appease the labels who hate Apple so it can continue to sell music.
However, it is likely a violation of copyright law to help you edit a copyrighted song to be used as a ringtone on your computer. Doing so would be considered a derivative work under copyright law. Apple's service does just that: you edit a song you already own to be used as rigntone. That probably is illegal without paying the labels.
Apple hasn't let you use anything as a ringtone possibly for a variety of reasons, 1) the iPhone was rushed to the market and is far from being feature complete (if so give Apple a break, you got what you paid for), and 2) Apple sells music and is trying to appease the labels who hate Apple so it can continue to sell music.
How in the world is it illegal to place onto my iPhone, an MP3 file of a CD I bought, then set it to be used as a ringtone? There isn't a court in the world that has decided this process is some kind of copyright voliation.
If making a ringtone froman MP3 is illegal, then Nokia and other phone manufacturers are all liable for billions in damages. This simply is not true. Somone must still bring this as a challenge to be tested in court before anyone can say conclusively that this process is somehow illegal.
Preventing us from doing this is a way for Apple and AT&T to get more money out of customers for something that should be as free as putting music you bought on your iPod and listening to it. What's next? Charging to view the album art while listening to a song? I'm sure someone's not being paid for your viewing of that artwork on your iPod or iPhone!
