[DS9Sisko]

Quote:

---

I may be "stupid" to you but at least I strive to do better than a dog bark, a duck and a "boing" sound for my ringtones.

Quote:

---

Nevermind. They'll settle out of court for a large sum, I'm sure. These people don't really care about the iPhone or Apple, they just want a chunk of money.

---

I don't want a large chunk of money...I want to be able to use my own music as a ringtone, same as my wife does on the same plan with a different phone.
Allow me to clarify for those who continue to call me "stupid" for supporting this suit:
There are three fundamental issues at at hand here:
1.) "Hacking" the SIM to use other carriers than AT&T
2.) Installing third party apps
3.) Using one's own music as a ringtone
I think #1 is NOT ok. Apple has a right to protect their relationship with AT&T. The other carriers passed on the deal so too bad for them.
I don't need #2 but I see why people might want that. I'm in the middle on this and if a court decides Apple needs to open the iPhone to developers (which I seriously doubt they will), I'm okay with that. More fun for everyone. If not, I'll hold out for Apple to eventually release an SDK.
I'm 100% behind issue 3. Whoever said this is like demanding a CD for free after buying the LP is misinformed or doesn't get it. Using that analogy would mean you woudn't have a right to rip a CD and put it on your iPod, and you'd have to buy everything all over again from the iTunes music store to adhere to copyright law...that just isn't so and no amount of repeating it here will make that the reality.
I just got my iPhone 2 weeks ago. My wife got a Nokia phone as part of our new AT&T family plan. Her phone is capable of using music I've written as a ringtone, my iPhone isn't. Her phone can do Bluetooth file transfers, my iPhone can't. Since Apple broke Ambrosia's iToner application AND denied me the ability to use my own music as a ringtone, they have essentially told me to use what iTunes shovels as ringtones or deal with it. They don't even offer me a means to pay a dollar for the PROCESS of putting my own music on the phone as a ringtone, they simply shut me out completely. On that premise alone I hope that this lawsuit is able to open up the ringtone dilemma for everyone. I dont' want money, I want my own music to use as ringtones. This lawsuit may be a means to achieve that.
Nobody can prove at this point that Apple's move was malicious but I'm confident that under full disclosure they will be shown to have done so. Everything seems to point that direction, but we'll have to see how it plays out in court to know for sure.
For those arguing that courts don't prove anything, I can't help you. You either believe in our judicial system or you don't. This is not the forum to discuss the merits or justice of our legal system.

---

This is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind. The issue is a simple one the critics overlook: it has been held that ringtones are separate and distinct works subject to licensing fees and copyright protections, regardless of whether you "own" the music or not.
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?

[Pennywigeon]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

$0.99 = Custom ringtone
We are talking 1 dollar. That is cheaper than a 20oz Coke.
Now really. You paid $599 for a phone but you are to cheap to pay $0.99 for a custom ringtone.
[shaking head]
This logic escapes me........

---

The flip side is why is it that a giveaway phone can support custom ringtones but a $400 phone marketed as the ultimate iPod can't? Just because something costs a lot doesn't mean we should expect to pay a lot for accessories.

---

It is the RIAA that is making everyone pay for the ring tone not Apple. Apple is making sure all their t's are crossed because as the third largest music retailer if they violated copyright law by allowing people to make custom ring tones off of purchases the RIAA would have Apple in court suing them for everything. Imagine, a woman has to pay $9,000 per song. Imagine Apple having to pay $9,000 for every song they have ever sold........
So those that want free custom ring tones I kindly point to the RIAA and their greed that is preventing it. Apple is just following the law to the letter. By consumers complaining to Apple and demanding the ability to make custom ring tones without paying $0.99 is asking Apple to break the law for consumer convenience. I think many consumers are missing that point. Apple is only refusing to NOT break the law as it is currently written. (See RIAA and what constitutes what the RIAA thinks as ownership of a song).
As for the other accessories they are within range for an upscale "hot item".
All I ask is for people to not blame Apple for FOLLOWING the law. If you don't like it ask for the law to be rewritten.
:-)

[DS9Sisko]

Quote:

---

Interesting info. Nokia is now also in the music business. It will be interesting to see if they disable the "free" ringtone feature on their products. They do operate the music service through a separate legal entity, so maybe something in their structure will enable them to continue doing so.
That said, this issue seems to raise a lot of hairsplitting questions. What if the ringtone is one and the same with the music file? I.e. the legal question seems to say that a copy of a file used as a ringtone is separate and distinct from another copy on the same device used as music file. Also, is there a legal view that says that a hardware product can be present for the sole purpose of allowing someone fair use?

---

While I haven't checked this out on my own, I didn't know that Nokia was in the music business. Are they a retailer, like Apple and Amazon? Either way, I stand corrected regarding my comments about that specific company.

[DarrenForbes]

I think that Kurtster (sp) was talking about music that he personally wrote. He owns the copyright and wants to install it as a ring-tone but the iPhone will not accept it. There is clearly no problem with a breach of copyright. So I guess that would be a bit annoying.
As for proving that Apple deliberately damaged/disabled iPhones, the only scenario that is likely to give proof is an internal written or recorded instruction to Apple programmers. "Hi guys, this is Jobsy. Yeah I want then bricked. Hear me; bricked! Wuhurr etc." Would the case have any way of accessing Apple internal communications?
What would the discussion board members say if such a smoking gun existed? Not that I think it could of course.

[DS9Sisko]

Quote:

---

I think that Kurtster (sp) was talking about music that he personally wrote. He owns the copyright and wants to install it as a ring-tone but the iPhone will not accept it. There is clearly no problem with a breach of copyright. So I guess that would be a bit annoying.

---

Let me see how long it takes me to extract my foot out of my mouth! LOL...My own fervor over all the bitchin and moaning about bricked iPhones and 99 cent ringtones made me miss that one important detail in his post.
Kurtser, regarding your own music and ringtones, my apologies for misinterpreting your post.
All other points remain the same.
Which brings up an interesting issue: I do sympathize with you in wanting to put your OWN music on your iPhone as a ringtone, but given the parameters that Apple must currently work under (the music labels, the RIAA, copyright law as it applies to ringtones), how would they be able to distinguish between something you or others personally wrote and other ringtones?
Let me say that I don't believe the current legal interpretation is fair, only that it is what it is (until changed) and that my position is that Apple is doing what it needs to do under current law and to satisfy its contracts, not to "penalize" consumers.

[Gatesbasher]

So let's see: Apple is being sued for $1 million for lowering their prices. They're being sued for $1 billion for enforcing the contract they were forced to sign with their (last choice) partner in order to get into the cell phone business at all. Now try to picture the first time some idiot who has installed 50 different pieces of third-party hackery on their iPhone has to make an emergency call, it crashes as a result, and they're injured or killed. Have they ever printed the amount of money Apple would be sued for then? Because it would be all their fault, not the humanitarians who buggered up the phone's firmware six ways from Sunday. Yeah, Apple will allow third-party apps on the iPhone real soon!

[DarrenForbes]

Quote:

---

So let's see: Apple is being sued for $1 million for lowering their prices. They're being sued for $1 billion for enforcing the contract they were forced to sign with their (last choice) partner in order to get into the cell phone business at all. Now try to picture the first time some idiot who has installed 50 different pieces of third-party hackery on their iPhone has to make an emergency call, it crashes as a result, and they're injured or killed. Have they ever printed the amount of money Apple would be sued for then? Because it would be all their fault, not the humanitarians who buggered up the phone's firmware six ways from Sunday. Yeah, Apple will allow third-party apps on the iPhone real soon!

---

Following the pattern I guess that they would be sued for $1 trillion.

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
Originally posted by KPO'M

Quote:

---

consumers (who are the ones signing up to a 2-year contract and paying Apple $400 upfront) can and should express displeasure at the products shortcomings, particularly since the majority of them are fixable with software. If the iPhone doesn't meet someone's needs, but an iPhone with simple modifications does, then better for Apple to know, and hopefully they incorporate those features into new products.

---

Apple and I agree... http://www.apple.com...ack/iphone.html

Originally posted by KPO'M

Quote:

---

As a producer, Apple doesn't "owe" us anything, but neither do consumers "owe" Apple anything

---

Exactly.

BTW, Apple has started opening up to third party developers... http://www.apple.com/webapps/

[marktech101]

Let's step back and look at a few figures.
Cost of an Apple iPhone: $399.99
Average month of cell phone use: $50-60
Cost of a month of AT&T service for iPhone: $59.99
Average cost of a ringtone: $1.99 - $2.99
Cost of a ringtone for an iPhone: $0.99
Amount Apple and AT&T are being sued for: $1,200,000,000.00
I don't know about you, but I see a discrepency. One man bought two Apple iPhones. They worked and still work fine; they are not broken. This same man is suing for twelve hundred million dollars because he simply wants to use his cell phone in a diffenent country and get free ringtones for it. He's actually saving money on the ringtones, paying an average cell phone usage fee, and paying a premium for the ultimate cell phone. If he's not satisfied with the way the phone is now, then that sucks for him. Sorry, bud. For that same figure, 1,200,000 of the world's poorest children can be outfitted with laptops of their own. Suing for a billion dollers because you are a complaining git is not the way we do things here in the states, or is it?

[sEaMoNkeY]

When you buy an iphone, you know it only works on AT&T. You know it doesn't support 3rd part apps. So what do you do.? Of course! You sue. Lame!!! If you don't like the iphone's network, or the blocking of 3rd party apps, there are plenty of other phones for you. You're perfectly free to buy something else. Seriously. Has anyone who ever heard the phrase " enjoy what you have"? Well, MAYBE that applys here. Pretty much every cell phone locks you to a single carrier, so why pick on apple? Take the razr, for example. That only works with verizion, and I'm pretty sure you can't write your own apps for it. Stop bothering apple you greedy little whimps!
Now that my rant is done, I'll leave. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SeanoVox]

Quote:

---

Most other phones in its price range do support third party applications.

---

So why buy an iPhone? get the moto Q or the blackberry or a treo, but don't get an iPhone.
the all do what the iPhone can't
Sean

[Beaubarre]

Quote:

---

The US needs to implement a "Loser Pays" amendment to their legal system like that used in other parts of the world (e.g. Australia). This would kill 99% of the frivolous law suits in that country. And no need for counter suits.
If I was a US citizen I would be outraged at the cost that these sort of suits impose on the economy. It's no wonder insurance over there is so high. As an example, the compulsory third party insurance I had to pay on my car when I lived in the States was almost 20 times higher to what I would pay in Australia.
In a country where freedom is paramount why would they enslave themselves under such a system?

---

In fact I think it's more two things which are in US law which are not in other countries law:
1) class actions, whereas in other countries each individual has to file his own suit (but class actions can be a progress if limited to consumer rights groups for example because they do fill a need if used properly)
2) punitive damages on civil suits, in France for example, if you file a civil suit and you win, you are only paid your prejudice you have and this is calculated in a conservative manner (ex: for iphone it would be at most price of iphone + AT&T bills, no money for moral hardship or stuff like that, you cannot "win" more than what you "lost" because of the problem).
Punitive damages exists for penal suits, but the money go to the state not to the plaintiff which gets only his prejudice cost, because the idea is that punitive damages is to punish the perpetrator so that he doesn't do it again but not enrich the plaintiff.
I guess there are no more idiots in US than in Europe and it's more the law which is broken (to the delight of US lawyers I guess).

[Kurtster]

Now I'm apparently immature to go with my stupidity. I seriously wonder what has become of the community of mac users i've been so proud to be a part of for over 20 years. It used to be that one could disagree with Apple and before long features and technology were introduced that brought us closer together and gave Apple enthusiasts something to be proud of. Today it sounds like one must take a loyalty oath to even be considered worthy of debate. Apple is a phenomenal company. They are not perfect and right on every issue.
If one of these genius know-it-all lemmings can show me where on the iTunes music store I can download the song I wrote for my wife on our wedding day, in an iPhone compatible ringtone format, I'll give them AND Apple a dollar.
If Apple can"t tell I"m the copyright owner, that"s not my problem. My wife"s free Nokia phone doesn"t seem to care who owns it.

[greekdish]

Quote:

---

Now I'm apparently immature to go with my stupidity. I seriously wonder what has become of the community of mac users i've been so proud to be a part of for over 20 years. It used to be that one could disagree with Apple and before long features and technology were introduced that brought us closer together and gave Apple enthusiasts something to be proud of. Today it sounds like one must take a loyalty oath to even be considered worthy of debate. Apple is a phenomenal company. They are not perfect and right on every issue.
If one of these genius know-it-all lemmings can show me where on the iTunes music store I can download the song I wrote for my wife on our wedding day, in an iPhone compatible ringtone format, I'll give them AND Apple a dollar.
If Apple can"t tell I"m the copyright owner, that"s not my problem. My wife"s free Nokia phone doesn"t seem to care who owns it.

---

Give us a break. This has nothing to do with the Mac community. This has everything to do with people being greedy and absurd. This has nothing to do with being a Mac fanatic. Did people sue Apple 20 years ago because Apple didnt license MacOS to run on Intel computers?? No, they didnt. People here are going to debate whats right or wrong, and you are wrong, period. 99% of the people agree this lawsuit is frivolous. Why cant YOU see that?
No one cares if you wrote a song and cant upload it to your iPhone to use as a ringtone. Wahhh. Now if you said you loaded the song to play as an iPod related song, and it didnt work, then yeah, you would have a legit problem because Apple advertised it so. The iPhone is supposed to play mp3's and such. But thats not your problem...its because you cant use it as a ringtone. So tell us Mr. Lemming...where does Apple say in their agreement or ads that you will be able to use any mp3 you want as a ringtone??