Apple, the RIAA, and Ringtones

pilsner.urquell writes "Apple's interest in defending the rights of the consumer has cost them a lot of grief in the ringtone market. 'John Gruber of the Daring Fireball cites Engadget, which reported that the RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so. It won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't derivative works, meaning they didn't infringe on the copyright of the songwriter.' The piece goes on to explain the tense relationship between Apple content holders regarding ringtones and other pieces of IP, such as in the recent withdrawal of NBC."

Comments

I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[jonwil]

Playing an audio file from your phone through speakers requires different permissions than playing the same audio file from the same phone through the same speakers in response to a phone call event... How screwed up is that?

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[ArCh3r]

You are new to this country I see.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Professor_UNIX]

Pretty soon we'll need to buy one DVD per DVD player and they'll have some kind of activation thing where the first time you play it ties it to that DVD player if we keep going down this road.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Yeah, and neither of those events generates a royalty for the artist. Welcome to CrazyLand.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Zontar The Mindless]

Pretty soon we'll need to buy one DVD per DVD player... Sssshhhhh!! They'll hear you...

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[lupis42]

We can hope, however, that this demonstration of ridiculousness gets the attention of a judge finally.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[pushing-robot]

Pretty soon we'll need to buy one DVD per DVD player and they'll have some kind of activation thing where the first time you play it ties it to that DVD player if we keep going down this road.

I remember that.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Eivind Eklund]

As far as I've understood, BluRay already has support for that. They just don't use it - yet.

Eivind.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[phoebe]

My Sharp SX633A follows through with this, it supports Mp3/AAC/AAC+/MPEG4,3GP audio file/container formats but only the polyphonic 3GP can be used for the actual ringtone. The vodafone website graphic even lists "MP3 ringtone" support, but in fact its only for playback as music, not as an actual ringtone for the phone. Utterly retarded.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[maxume]

"need"?

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[antek9]

Playing an audio file from your phone through speakers requires different permissions than playing the same audio file from the same phone through the same speakers in response to a phone call event... How screwed up is that?

Well, somehow this rule seems to apply to Apple phones only. Most other phones will be happy to play anything playable as a ringer.

Note to consumers: Don't pay for ringtones! Help stop those stupid commercials on TV by making their business model fail. This might be one of the rare occasions where an organized boycott might actually make sense and work out fine.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[bhima]

Soemwhere I saw the M.A.F.I.A.A.'s own lawyers say if you had rights to play a given song, you had rights to use it as a ringtone. This is just a case of crazy over the top greed. So it's business as usual.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Drathos]

You must not have used a Verizon phone before. Even if the phone itself is capable of playing any old mp3 as a ringtone, Verizon specifically disables this so you have to buy ringtones through their service.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[MoonBuggy]

Well, somehow this rule seems to apply to Apple phones only. Most other phones will be happy to play anything playable as a ringer.

Idiotic as I think the concept of paying twice for a song and the right to use it as a ringtone is, it would be true to say that Apple is the only phone company with a vested interest in not pissing off the music industry. I'm not saying I like the decisions Apple's made with the iPhone, but it does appear that in this case at least they were simply having their hand forced by the tenuous relationship they have with the recording companies.

Now I'd just like to know if they have any excuse for selling a phone that's network-locked even though it's cost is not subsidised by the network.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Mr2001]

Even if the phone itself is capable of playing any old mp3 as a ringtone, Verizon specifically disables this so you have to buy ringtones through their service. Well, they don't make it easy, but you can still put your own ringtones on. All you have to do is get a USB cable for the phone and download BitPim, which can easily manage ringtones and/or directly edit the filesystem for most VZW phones.

If you don't want to do that, you can even email the ringtones to your phone (your 10 digit number @vzwpix.com), although MP3s will be converted to QCP in the process and lose some quality, and you'll be charged 25c for the message unless you have a picture messaging plan.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Tim C]

Wow. I am constantly amazed at the crap US mobile phone users seem to have to put up with.

If I want to get a file on to my phone (Sony Ericsson K800i with Orange in the UK), I connect it to my PC using the supplied USB cable and drag and drop it using Explorer. If it's playable, I can use it as a ring tone.

Pay for ring tones? I understand that people do, I've just never really understood *why*.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[CastrTroy]

That feature may have been disabled by your cellphone provider. Cell phone providers do this stuff all the time. They disable the ability for you to load your own content onto the phone, so they can sell you the content. From what I understand, they make pretty good money doing it. What I would wonder is, if they provided the means for doing it, and actually provided a website with tons of content, couldn't they make more on ads on that website, as well as increased user base? They could also have related purchases. So if you buy th latest ringtone by the backstreet boys, they could also try to sell you the CD, or the actual song. Maybe free ringtone with the purchase of an album. Seems like a much better way to manage the thing than charging $3.00 for a ringtone or $1.50 for a 320x240 wallpaper for your phone. I guarantee that every 13-19 year old would immediately switch to that phone company if the air time was still at competitive rates.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[nine-times]

I think that the RIAA/MPAA absolutely want a pay-per-device or even a pay-per-listen/pay-per-view business model. In fact, it sometimes seems like they think they deserve to be paid whether you're using their product or not. For example, Universal has demanded to get a cut of consumer electronics (like the Zune and iPod) just on the off chance that those electronics might be used to play music from Universal.

Paid for doing nothing: it's great work if you can find it.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[suv4x4]

Pretty soon we'll need to buy one DVD per DVD player and they'll have some kind of activation thing where the first time you play it ties it to that DVD player if we keep going down this road.

It's already like that, in the form of intengible, locked-to-this-machine DRM downloads.

You realize in 10 years DVD's maybe won't even be published anymore.

We're about to enter the next level of digital right management hell now.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[catbutt]

Well just as food for thought / playing the devil's advocate....what about playing the song to a stadium full of people as part of a performance? Would you expect the fact that you paid for the song to cover that as well?

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[LWATCDR]

Well according to the NFL I can not tell you about the Miami vs Dallas game that I watched last night. Well if I get their permission I can.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[robbiethefett]

I think the only one who will be surprised by that little "trick" will be the content providers.. I know I'd be surprised if I fully expected the method to work, only to see it defeated in days--maybe hours--of release.

Copyright law may be almost hopelessly broke, but the whole DRM bullshit was broken from the get-go.. Silly physics, always proving to be stronger than the apes trying to ignore it's laws.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Lepton68]

Here is the thing: DON'T make separate ringtone files. Have the ring play the orginal file, the full song you have on the phone for listening to as music. You can set a portion of THAT file to play, you can set it to fade in and out, and to play when someone happens to call. Why do this? Because you don't need any new rights to do it. You already bought the rights to play that song. And you can play any part of that song you want, when you want. You are simply automating the process.

Do this, Apple, and there is no basis for charging for a ringtone, no need to negotiate rights to a ringtone, or anything else. Because it isn't a ringtone. It is the original song you have already obtained rights to play as you like. Yes, there will be a lawsuit. But that's how you defend it.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Deagol]

Wow. I am constantly amazed at the crap US mobile phone users seem to have to put up with.

Indeed. There is so little value added to US wireless service that I finally, after 10 years of cell phone ownership, kicked my Verizon account to the curb and liberated myself from wireless hell. Of course, I'm in my mid-30s (married, w/ kids) and no longer hip and socially affluent, so it was quite easy to do. :)

Some day, when I can get unlimited air time w/o roaming charges throughout the entire continental US for the monthly price of a typical land line, I *may* get another cell phone. In the mean time, I'm going to investigate ditching my DSL account in favor of satellite, so I can get rid of my land line, as well. Phones suck.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Greyfox]

My Nokia E70, which I got unlocked from an importer, allows me to set any sound file it's capable of playing as the ring tone. The only reason most US cellphones can't is because the service provider disables the feature so they can charge you $.99 (or $2) to do the conversion of a 30 second sound clip for you.

It seems this ruling says that if you can legally play a song you can legally use a clip of it as a ring tone. IANAL but I think that means that you can safely do the conversion on your own assuming you have the right tools. The tools generally are available given a bit of googling. If you want to stick it to the man I'd suggest using the default ring tones, doing your own conversion or buying a cell phone that hasn't been lobotomized by your cellular carrier. Just ask them for the SIM card and service on a month-by-month basis and buy your own damn phone, I think that's the best option. Don't pay those bastards for something you should be able to do yourself.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[curlynoodle]

It was tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
but happily it failed. Not to say someone else may try again.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[ceoyoyo]

Or you could just buy an unlocked phone that hasn't been disabled by the company. It has the additional benefit that if said company starts screwing you around you can go find another one.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Workaphobia]

It's also particularly sad that we now think of it in terms of a right to play the audio file. Copyright is (should be) about commercial distribution rights, not use rights.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[ceoyoyo]

And you can put your own ringtones on the iPhone (iTunes will even help you do it) by following the instructions linked to in the article.

The point is that it's the music industry and the telecom companies who are foisting unnecessary restrictions on their customers. Yes, they can be gotten around, but they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Workaphobia]

Nah, it'll all be network based. The plus side is you'll have the mobility to play your collection away from home. The downside is they may charge you, monitor you, etc.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[nleaf]

That's if Verizon hasn't disabled the USB capabilities of your phone, like they have with the Motorola Razr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_razr#V3m

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[vimh42]

Indeed they do. And you can go and turn MP3 playing back on. For LG phones it's as simple as pressing OK to open the Menu, press 0, enter the service code which is probably 000000 and then scroll down to Music Settings and turn MP3 on. There are other goodies in there too.

You will also need to purchase a data cable to actually transfer your media from your computer to the Phone and can use software such as Bitpim to make transfer.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[lordofthechia]

Funny you mention that, I still remember DIVX... When I was shopping for a DVD player and saw they were supporting Divx I thought I had stepped into 1998 again (till I realized it was the MPG 4 format no the crappy Circuit City dvd *rental* thing).

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[whyde]

I hereby place into the public domain the concept of a "ring filter", which is activated by an "incoming call" event, and takes several steps:
    * Selects a pre-designated audio source of your choosing, including but not limited to:
        * Audio file (MP3, AAC, ETC.)
        * Video file's audio track (MP4, H.whatever)
    * Indexes to a pre-designated time offset into the audio source, then
    * Applies a series of well-known signal processing algorithms to it, including:
        * fade-in, fade-out, etc.

Along with this concept of the "ring filter", I donate into the public domain the concept of a "ring filter database" (RFDB), which catalogs "useful or interesting" sets of SOURCE/INDEX/FILTER settings that, when applied to well-known source material, wind up having the effect of acting as a "ringtone".

Buy the song once. Store it once. Use it in many ways, as you see fit.

(I know, there's already something called a "ring filter". So sue me.)

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[arminw]

.....You realize in 10 years DVD's maybe won't even be published anymore......

This will only happen if "the next great thing" is as much better than normal DVD's as these are to VHS tapes. Nothing of such a quantum leap is on the horizon. The new HD systems are nice, but are not nearly as compelling over normal DVDs as these are over VHS tapes.

Maybe all DVDs will be gone when 90%+ of all households have 100Mb/s or faster network connections.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[AwaxSlashdot]

You're new to this planet I see.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, the phone company is really giving you a great deal by giving you a discount on that phone.

Actually, when I bought mine the price of the unlocked phone was a little cheaper than what the phone company was charging WITH their "$100 discount". The discount is off the manufacturer's suggested retail. When was the last time you paid suggested retail for a commodity tech gadget?

Then you've got the freedom not to commit to a three year contract (what is that, somewhere between $1000-$1500 on average?). Phone companies will often give you a lot of goodies if they know you're not beholden to them in phone, contract and number.

Oh, and you get ringtones and wallpaper for free.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Dragonslicer]

Just to add to the list of anecdotes, my Samsung D407 from (what was at the time) Cingular allows mp3 and MIDI files for ring tones. Not sure if AT&T has disabled this on new phones in the past year, but I'll be very annoyed if they have.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[arminw]

.....ditching my DSL account in favor of satellite.......

Investigate that move carefully! We had satellite until the phone co. installed DSL Download speed for sat. was almost as fast as the DSL, but the delay (latency) of the 24,000 mile round trips of the signal made for slow surfing and no online games. Sat. was also more expensive than the combination phone/DSL deal we got from the phone company. We get no cell service of any kind at home. We use a cheap prepaid phone when we travel.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[neurovish]

$2,000 for a cellphone? And people were screaming about how expensive the iPhone is/was. In what is surely a first, the Sprint Blackberry 8300 I have will let you use anything it can play as a ringtone...beating out a Europhone in an area of functionality.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[kalaf]

Every time I buy a CDR (in Canada), some of that money goes to the music industry. Just because I use the CDR to back up files doesn't mean they don't deserve that money.

I wrote a letter when they were talking about the levy, saying they can't punish every user of CDR media for piracy. The response was that it was to cover the "fair use" backup copy we are allowed to make. I suggested they add that cost into the price of the music CD, but apparently that didn't make any sense...

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[dagamer34]

A 3GP file is just a renamed MP3 file. I know because my Samsung t519 does the same thing. It's also usually limited to 30 sec, but you should be able to play ringtones on your phone after you rename the file extension. Yes, it's really that simple.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Breakfast Pants]

Uhhh Virgin mobile anyone?

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Mr2001]

They don't disable the USB capabilities. Apparently you need to do a "seem edit" to be able to copy ringtones to the V3m (link), but it connects via USB and communicates with the PC just fine.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[Yvan256]

It depends on how you define "better".

MP3, for example, is not better than CD. Not in audio quality anyway. But it is better at letting us have a library of music at our fingertips, and most people don't seem to care (or even hear) the loss of audio quality.

People are already doing the "next great thing" with video, too. Some are doing it with iTunes purchases or DVD rips in H.264/AAC playing through their AppleTV from their PC/Mac via iTunes. Others are doing it with DivX/Xvid DVD rips playing through their modded Xbox, turned into a media center that's even better than Microsoft's own Xbox 360 (using, with such irony, the previous-gen Microsoft console). Others are dedicating a whole computer to the task with MythTV.

The "next great thing" is already here, and it's the same for DVDs as it was for CDs: computerized library. People are willing to give up a bit of quality for easier/faster access to their media.

And the "lower quality" problem is only a matter of increasing the data rate as storage capacities go up and prices go down. Twenty years ago nobody would even have though that we'd be "wasting" hundreds of gigabytes only to store music files. In twenty years it will be stupid NOT to waste hundreds of terabytes to store hi-def movies.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[arminw]

.....is only a matter of increasing the data rate .......

That's basically what I said. For regular DVD video the present Internet data rate is marginal for most people and unusable for Hi-def TV. Storage capacity is ahead of delivery capacity. That will change only when someone with money is willing to invest some of that in order to make even more money. The technology to do so is available today.

The holy grail for entertainment companies is to have a system like for movie theaters. Every single set of eyeballs and ears pays for every viewing or listening, no matter where and on what.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[CFTM]

Yeah, they tried that already and the market responded by not purchasing it. One of those instances were the free market actually corrected the collective stupidity of Movie Execs.

Re:I never knew copyright law was THIS broken

[dynamo]

VERY screwed up. It's just temporary bullshit that society will work out. In the meantime, I feel free to ignore it. Just like everyone else.

Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[Apple Acolyte]

They want to have their revenue cake and eat it too, and they don't even want to cut the original authors in. They are an unnecessary drain on the digital marketplace, a dinosaur of the 20th Century. Eventually these cartels will be replaced, since the goods they offer have little compelling reason to be sold in physical formats. It's a just a question of time before key producers decide it makes sufficient financial sense to bypass them completely.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[rufty_tufty]

From TFA
"Apple makes very little from sales of music in iTunes; the vast majority of revenues are funneled back to the record companies, which then devise how to avoid paying their talent and keep as much as they can."

Looks like the author of the article agrees with you. Even if the article does seem as biased as a slashdot poster...

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[mwvdlee]

Having key producers bypass the middle men would be a good start, but it would die out as soon as those producers stop. What you'd need is a new type of middle man that can help new artists get noticed without owning the artist; a sort of music service company.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[SCHecklerX]

It's a just a question of time before key producers decide it makes sufficient financial sense to bypass them completely.

Like Prince?

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[TheRaven64]

CDBaby are almost like that, but they're being very slow adapting to the Internet age. They still require you to mail them physical CDs, for example, when for a lot of people it would be much easier to just upload their album, cover art, etc. For downloads, they don't need a physical copy at all, and for CD sales it would be easier to have CDBaby handle the duplication.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[mwvdlee]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just the distribution channel?
Another major "job" of traditional music companies is to handle public relations and marketing for the artists. There needs to be a viable alternative to this. Actually the model wouldn't need to change that much; just keep ownership of the music with the artists and have the current companies work for royalties.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[CastrTroy]

Maybe Apple needs to be dealing with better record labels. eMusic sells songs for about $0.30 a song. Half goes to the artist/label, and half goes to eMusic. They're probably making more per song than Apple is. And the artists, because they are indie labels, are probably getting more per song too. And the customers are getting more songs for their money. That's what a song should cost. Although a song for a quarter would be nice. Make the purchase an non-decision. If you like it download it. With songs costing $0.99 they make me stop and think about whether I want to buy the song or not, same with CDs for $15. If things were priced cheap enough, like $0.25 for a song, or $5.00 for a physical CD, then people would just buy everything they like, instead of having to decide whether or not the purchase is actually worth it. I've spent more money on eMusic in the past year than I spent on CDs in the past 5 years, because I actually feel like I'm not being ripped off.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree. .25 a song AND they keep a record that I purchased it so I can redownload it in the future for cost (.10?, .05?).

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[CastrTroy]

Redownload for cost? the cost of bandwidth is probably less than .5 of a cent. eMusic keeps records of the songs you buy, and you can redownload your music as much as you want. I don't know how iTunes gets away with such high prices, and such bad service. Besides, I'm pretty sure Apples keeps records of what you download. I hear if you complain enough they'll let you redownload stuff. I would hate to have a hard drive crash, and lose a bunch of music. Sure you can back it up, but even if you do that once a week, there's still a week's worth of music you have to rebuy.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[mrchaotica]

There needs to be a viable alternative to this.

The problem with that idea is that it's still important for artists to get radio airtime. And pretty much all the radio stations are owned by a few big companies (e.g. ClearChannel) which are chummy with the RIAA. And that radio station cartel is supported, aided and abetted by the FCC.

In other words, to break the RIAA we also have to break the FCC.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[Znork]

"There needs to be a viable alternative to this."

Why? I dont see any value added by the marketing. It just distorts the market, ensuring that anything that isnt minimum common denominator music will get far less than its fair share of market size, market space and revenue (see payola, channel control, cost of entry, etc).

The unbalanced incentive and revenue multiplication effects of marketing and monopoly rights is largely what has caused the cultural poverty and economic disparity within the music market sector, and removing it entirely would be a huge benefit for the vast mass of less than mass-marketed artists.

If you mean the actual spreading of knowledge about the existence of artists tho, social networks such as last.fm, pandora and the like do a good job of 'marketing'. With the advantage that they dont cost anything and actually reccomend music according to your taste, rather than what a cokesnorting RIAA exec thinks you should pay for to support his habit.

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[MillionthMonkey]

Another major "job" of traditional music companies is to handle public relations and marketing for the artists. There needs to be a viable alternative to this.

Like a web page or something?

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[mwvdlee]

Because you have visited all the gazillions of web pages out there?

Re:Entertainment Cartels Want it All

[Kattspya]

Without any particular knowledge about CDBaby I would guess that it's their way of not having to deal with total crap. If you don't even care enough to mail in a CD your music is unlikely to be of much value and would only take up space on the server.

Either that or they're too cheap to implement a good system.

Art.

[matt me]

Of course, ringtones aren't art, are they? The nokia bastardisation of tarregas grand vals.

Re:Art.

[arivanov]

They are art. The art of annoyance.

You can also use them for performing art. If they are really annoying you can score a 3 point hitting a suitable bucket at the other end of the office (filled with waste water from that kitchenette floor mop if possible). If that does not qualify as performance art the performance thrown by the person who put "The Winner Takes it All" by Abba as a ringtone will. Especially afer he has fished the phone out of the bucket.

So, it's free?

[Carewolf]

If a song as a ringtone isn't a derived product, and RIAA can makes ringtones of popular music without infringing the copyright of the artists that means we (anyone) can also make our own ringtones of popular music without infringing anyones copyright...

Re:So, it's free?

[richie2000]

No, it's just a different copyright, one that's owned by the RIAA. The RIAA gets the laws that the RIAA pays for.

Re:So, it's free?

[Carewolf]

Answering my own comment after RFTA:

Derk Nek of Epplegacks explained that--unfortunately--what the RIAA actually won in the case cited by Engadget was instead the right to collect money for ringtones without distributing those fees to the artists they represent. There was no establishing that ringtones are not protected intellectual property, so the RIAA will continue collecting royalty fees, because distributing songs or portions of songs requires mechanical rights. Playing a ringtone might also--in the mind of the RIAA and the letter of the law--require performing rights.

Though it doesn't get any less fucked up by this explaination.

Re:So, it's free?

[fastest fascist]

A ringtone you download specifically as a ringtone might be copyrighted by some party. But if ringtones are indeed NOT derivative works, and not covered under the original piece's copyright, then, as long as you can legally make a ringtone out of a piece of music you possess, that ringtone you made yourself should be free for you to use and distribute as you please. If the original -> ringtone copyright link is broken, then the only party who can possibly claim copyright over the ringtone is whoever made it.

That said, I find it very hard to believe that is actually the case.

Re:So, it's free?

[KingOfBLASH]

No that won't work. Don't you know that these days fair use only applies to the RIAA?

Re:So, it's free?

[kocsonya]

The interesting bit is that if the RIAA manages to get paid for ringtones without even pretending to give a single cent back to the artist, how are they going to run their 'ringtone privacy makes artists starve, think about the artists, the future of culture depends on your vigilance' campaign?

The whole ringtone thing is just daylight robbery anyway. Don't know about the rest of the world and not really interested in general (my mobile can play any MP3 for ringtone and it's set to normal telephone ring anyway), but here in Oz AFAIK a ringtone costs you something along the AU $5 mark. Considering that the same song from the Net (legit) costs you something like US $1 (~AU $1.20)...

Re:So, it's free?

[richie2000]

Yeah, but this was about ringtones made by, and distributed by, a RIAA member. I'm sure they'll find a way to only let authorized (paying) parties create ringtones.

Re:So, it's free?

[CastrTroy]

But what is a ringtone? How long can it be? What quality can it be recorded at? If I want my ringtone to be the entire song, encoded in MP3 at 128 kbps, then is that still a ringtone? And can people trading music on P2P or other networks now argue that they are just trading ringtones, which they are legally entitled to do?

Re:So, it's free?

[Io Alpha]

does it also mean, that if people start to share "ringtones" instead of "music" via p2p that they can't be prosecuted anymore?

Re:So, it's free?

[pressman]

"If a song as a ringtone isn't a derived product, and RIAA can makes ringtones of popular music without infringing the copyright of the artists..."
Of course the record label can do this because they own the physical rights to the songs... not the artist. The artist typically own the performance and publishing rights. The label can do anything they want with the master recording even if the band doesn't want them to. Now, if the band were to wholy, or jointly own the physical rights to the tracks, it would be a whole different ballgame.

Weird, that

[Dolda2000]

Yeah, I found that strange, too. I could more than well understand a ruling static something like ringtones being freely distributable due to being so much shorter and of so much lower quality than the original song, or something like that. But not being a derivative work of the original song? Does Copyright Office actually have some kind of point here that I don't see, or are they just being stupid, or have they been bought by the MAFIAA?

Re:Weird, that

[EvanED]

No, the submitter either didn't RTFA or felt like being misleading. Engadget did report that, but they were wrong, as the article explains in the very next paragraph:

Writing about Apple's iTunes ringtones, John Gruber of the Daring Fireball cited Engadget, which reported that "the RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so (surprised?), and it won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't 'derivative works,' meaning they didn't infringe on the copyright of the songwriter."

Engadget, known for shooting from the hip rather than the brain, didn't really understand whole story. From its report, Gruber concluded, "So if you have the right to play a song, you have the right to use it as a ringtone on your phone."

Gruber blamed a "complicated, confusing mess of a ringtone policy" on Apple, and suggested the company should have simply handed out tools to create ringtones from any users. Incidentally, that's apparently what Apple was going to do back in January.

Derk Nek of Epplegacks explained that--unfortunately--what the RIAA actually won in the case cited by Engadget was instead the right to collect money for ringtones without distributing those fees to the artists they represent. There was no establishing that ringtones are not protected intellectual property, so the RIAA will continue collecting royalty fees, because distributing songs or portions of songs requires mechanical rights. Playing a ringtone might also--in the mind of the RIAA and the letter of the law--require performing rights.

Re:Weird, that

[GeckoX]

What we need is for the Artists to revolt against this. It goes way way too far. They already get screwed by the MAFIAA, and now the MAFIAA got a legal standing that they are allowed to make money off of the artists work, but have no obligation to pay the artists.

These assholes, in theory, are supposed to be working FOR the artists. The ONLY reason the MAFIAA exists in the first place is because of the artists...No artists...No music...No money to collect royalties for.

The MAFIAA needs to be taken out back and shot. It's the humane thing to do after all.

Re:Weird, that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a lot of prominent artist actually HAVE a ban on converting their music to ringtones. If you have an Abba song as ringtone, you are problably breaking the law.

Re:Weird, that

[GeckoX]

Yes, but at whose choice?

It's one thing for an artist to decide they do not want their music for ringtones...agree or not, it is their right.

But that has nothing to do with the MAFIAA making money off of ringtones without paying the artists. This has nothing to do with whether ABBA is willing to allow their music to be used for ringtones or not.

Re:Weird, that

[Anonymous Coward]

Abba

I'm sorry, I thought you said prominent.

Re:Weird, that

[rubberglove]

well, if I ever hear 'dancing queen' blaring out of a cell phone on the bus, I'm going to break something...

Re:Weird, that

[MechaShiva]

So what are the odds Apple starts their own label and cuts out the middle man?

Re:Weird, that

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not so sure it is their right, or should be. An artist who creates a work can demand fair compensation for it, but that artist doesn't really have the right to demand the work be used in specific ways (outside of not being copied or redistributed) after it's sold. The artist doesn't have the right to tell me what sort of device I can use the work on.

In fact, they can't even specify that I'm not allowed to make a derivative work of satire.

Re:Weird, that

[Mister Whirly]

"If you have an Abba song as ringtone, you are probably breaking the law."

Yes, the laws of GOOD TASTE!

Re:Weird, that

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, and they could call it "Apple Corps Ltd." and start a division called "Apple Music". I'm sure nobody would have a problem with that. Oh, wait...

Re:Weird, that

[GeckoX]

No, you're correct mostly...the only reason I allow for this reasoning is that ringtones are publicly aired. You are most certainly NOT entitled to start broadcasting someone elses work just because you bought the CD...it is at least arguable that this could include ringtones.

Please note that I did not actually specify whether I agree with that stance or not...just that legally, there is a point to be made within that particular context.

From my standpoint...I'm not making any money by using someone's song as a ringtone. And in fact, I'm arguably providing free advertising for the artist. To that end, I think ABBA is being bloody freaking stupid to not allow this use...but again, that's just my opinion and not the legality involved. ABBA may very well have the right to limit use in this case.

Re:Weird, that

[ceoyoyo]

You'd have a good point if it were a whole song. But a ringtone isn't. They're clips, and the use of short excerpts of copyrighted works are generally considered to be fair use (and I believe are legally protected as such in many countries).

Plus a ringtone is low quality, likely to be interrupted, and it's purpose isn't public performance (well, it's not supposed to be - some people seem to think it is). ABBA doesn't have the right to tell me not to open my windows while my stereo is playing. They also can't stop me from taking my portable stereo camping and listening to it, even if a few people in the immediate area can hear it. And those examples are with full songs, not excerpts.

You're not arguably providing free advertising to the artist, you ARE. We shouldn't even be discussing whether artists should be able to restrict the use of their songs as ringtones because they should be begging us to do so.

Re:Weird, that

[kylemonger]

You'd have a good point if it were a whole song. But a ringtone isn't. They're clips, and the use of short excerpts of copyrighted works are generally considered to be fair use (and I believe are legally protected as such in many countries).

Case law is mixed on this, however. NWA lost in Bridgeport v. Dimension even though the sample was modified until it was unrecognizable (and the original sample wasn't what anyone would call melodic or even recognizably music anyway).

Re:Weird, that

[ceoyoyo]

That case involved reproduction a a clip of someone else's song to be used in another song for commercial purposes.

If you allow that a ringtone is public performance then really any use of speakers that are audible in a public place is a public performance. Headphones when you leave your house!

Re:Weird, that

[SeaFox]

Yeah, and they could call it "Apple Corps Ltd." and start a division called "Apple Music". I'm sure nobody would have a problem with that. Oh, wait...

Have you tried reading your own links?

"On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential."

Re:Weird, that

[MechaShiva]

Yeah, you're right. The name is the biggest obstacle to that working out. How silly of me.

Apple already has a proven distribution method in place and a range of devices to play that content back (iPod, AppleTV, etc). Is it really that far off to think they might consider becoming an end to end provider and include exclusive content that they produce themselves?

Re:Weird, that

[zurtle]

How rare. I use ABBA's Dancing Queen* on my cellphone as an alarm to wake me up in the morning.

So am I broadcasting it if I'm sharing the bed with other people?

* = It takes me back to a time at uni. A friend, on his 19th birthday, got horribly drunk and couldn't walk home so I carried him on my back all the way up a hill. The whole time he was singing Dancing Queen while trying not to vomit down the back of my neck. I guess he got the tune stuck in my head. (9 years later?)

Re:Weird, that

[mstone]

The fact that ringtones are protected IP doesn't have any particular bearing on whether people need to pay twice for them.

The article had an example of a movie where someone gets a call on their cell phone and plays a custom ringtone. The movie producers had to remove that scene from the distribution DVD.

There are four major differences between that situation and Apple's ringtone policy, though:

1. Making copies of the movie would also make copies of the unlicensed, protected IP (the ringtone).
2. Distributing the movie would put copies of the protected IP into the hands of people who had no previous license to use that IP.
3. The movies were sold for profit, so the DVD vendor would be making money on the distribution of the unicensed copies of the ringtone.
4. It's easy to rip further high-quality, unlicensed copies of the ringtone from the DVD.

iPhone ringtones differ on all four points.

1. A ringtone doesn't create a copy of unlicensed IP. You bought a license to use the music when you bought the original CD or iTunes track.
2. Converting a song to a ringtone doesn't put a copy of the protected IP into the hands of anyone who doesn't already have a license to use the music.
3. Ringtones aren't sold by the people who use them, so there's no question of financial gain.
4. There's no way to argue that 'playing a ringtone' makes it easy for unlicensed people to rip copies of the music.

In short, the only real difference is whether I play a snippet of music through the headphones or through the speaker. Aside from that, the only grounds the labels have for charging another license fee would be if the ringtones were 'derivative works' of the original song. And as Gruber pointed out, the RIAA itself says they aren't, because if they were, the RIAA would have to pay the artists royalties for the ringtones per se.

Re:Weird, that

[ceoyoyo]

I think it would be easier to stop the RIAAs encroachment on fair use before it comes to that.

Re:Weird, that

[Mister Whirly]

"The settlement includes terms that are confidential."

Yes I did read the links, and know the history. See that last line, about terms that are confidential?? That means Apple Corp Ltd. had a problem with Apple using their name, and Apple had to give them piles of money to do so. Thus reaffirming my original statement, so thanks!

Wait, they own what?

[Aladrin]

Since when does the RIAA own the copyrights to anything? How can they possibly collect money on copyrights they don't own if they aren't representing the copyright owner?

According to TFA, they won a decision not in court, but simply at the Copyright Office. I don't see any links to this decision itself, and I don't have time to search for it with the insignificant amount of information we are given, so I don't have any idea what this actually says... But I can't see how the Copyright Office is able to give distribution rights other than the information that something is or is not covered under copyright law. They cannot say it's not copyrighted and then authorize the RIAA to collect money, and they can't say it's copyrighted and give the RIAA permission to ignore it and not pay the copyright owner.

Anyone got any more -real- information, instead of just a link to site that links to a site that claims something that isn't cited at all?

Re:Wait, they own what?

[rufty_tufty]

Nope it's more than that, the RIAA has literally got it's cake and is eating it. The case states (apparently) that not only can they collect revenue from ringtones without paying the artists, but that the ringtones would still be protected by copyright.

From TFA:
"what the RIAA actually won in the case ... was instead the right to collect money for ringtones without distributing those fees to the artists they represent. There was no establishing that ringtones are not protected intellectual property, so the RIAA will continue collecting royalty fees, because distributing songs or portions of songs requires mechanical rights. Playing a ringtone might also--in the mind of the RIAA and the letter of the law--require performing rights."

All this seems to say is that the RIAA can prevent you from creating ringtones and can create them without paying the artists.
Every claim they ever made about being there to protect the rights and the income of the artist has just been blown out of the window.

Re:Wait, they own what?

[speedlaw]

the riaa is a front organization, taking all the bad press, and leaving ":the record company:" out of the negative spotlight

Re:Wait, they own what?

[ceoyoyo]

The RIAA, or rather it's member organizations, own the copyrights. The first thing the artist signs away in those recording contracts they all wish for is their copyrights.

However, the contracts specify that the artist gets paid (sometimes) for giving up their copyright. It sounds like the RIAA arranged it so ringtones fall into one of the we-don't-have-to-pay-you-squat-for-this loopholes in the contracts.

Re:Wait, they own what?

[Shawn Parr]

Since when does the RIAA own the copyrights to anything?

The record labels, whom the RIAA represents, own the mechanical rights for the recordings. The musician usually retains the copyright for the song itself (i.e. the lyrics and the harmonic and melodic 'recipe' that is the song), but the recording that goes onto a CD/iTMS/Napster/etc. is owned by the label.

So with a ringtone, apparently the RIAA companies can collect royalties on the recording, without having to pay out royalties for the song itself. In reality what this means for a signed artist is that income from the ringtones will not help pay off the debt they have with the label that must be paid in full before they start to see residuals.

Pretty slimy, but did we expect anything less? In reality the labels probably were cooking the books to hide this revenue anyway, they do in a lot of ways, but with the copyright ruling they can leave this one on the books normally and not have to train their accountants in a new book cooking item.

Re:Wait, they own what?

[VGPowerlord]

IANAL

I'm still not sure how that doesn't work to our (the people's) advantage.

Essentially, the court just said that a ringtone counts as part of the song it was taken from. That works to our advantage, because it just confirmed that it's legal for us to take a portion of a song we've paid for and use it as a ringtone.

Obligatory Link

[Nymz]

The Right to Read

Derivative

[MadUndergrad]

So ringtones aren't a derivative work.

This means we should be able to create our own ringtones, the artists and media cartels be damned, right? And distribute them freely?

So if that's the case, why are tabs derivative works? Huge archives of fan-made tabs have been taken down. What makes tabs so special compared to ringtones?

Re:Derivative

[EvanED]

RTFA. That way you'll be more informed than the submitter... in the very next paragraph from where it talks about that, explains that the Engadget report cited was wrong, and in fact that's not what the copyright office decided.

Re:Derivative

[*weasel]

Yes, No.

If a ringtone isn't a derivative work, then yes, we can make them all we want (provided we have a legit copy of the song to start with). But no, we can't distribute them, for the same reason we can't distribute the original song. Their not being derivatives doesn't mean they aren't covered under copyright, it just means they're covered under the original song's copyright. The RIAA liked this, because it meant they could whore out any track they had mechanical rights to, as ringtone fodder, without having to renegotiate anything with the artists.

Tabs are different because they're a separate fixed form (written vs recorded) reproduced in whole (vs a slice of the original recording); it's the same for sheets in general and lyrics. (something the RIAA has been slow to come down on, but it'll happen. Just as soon as they figure out how to monetize a lyrics database.

Also, I would like to say that the concern about performing rights is a joke. Sure, performance rights have been used by ASCAP to shake down businesses that play music for their customers and the occasional giant outdoor party. (e.g. annual block party) But the idea that someone would use a 30 second ringtone to 'perform' a song for an audience is absurd on its face.

The purpose of the ringtone is to be heard by the phone's owner. In the bizarre edge cases where people make ringtones of entire songs and play them, on purpose, to entertain a crowd is no different than people using an ipod, boombox or music-playing phone to do the same, right now. There is clearly no need to cut ASCAP in on all ringtone sales for the same reason there is no need to cut them in on all CD sales. ASCAP is likely just so used to getting whatever they want with a nasty legal brief or two that they honestly think it's worth their lawyers fees to take a shot.

Re:Derivative

[profplump]

Their not being derivatives doesn't mean they aren't covered under copyright, it just means they're covered under the original song's copyright.

That's exactly the opposite of what "not being derivatives" means, at least in the context of new works and copyright.

There are three options here:
1. The new work is an exact, complete copy of the original, and simple copyright rules apply.
2. The new work is a derivative of the original work and cannot be distributed without permission from the original copyright holder.
3. The new work is completely independent and the original copyright holder has no claim to make against it.

Common sense dictates that short bits of a work, while they may be allowable under fair use, are derivative works. There may or may not be a legal ruling to the contrary. Regardless, if something is legally a non-derivative work there is not claim for the non-existent original copyright holder to make -- there is no original copyright holder, beside the author of the new, completely original work.

Re:Derivative

[*weasel]

1. The new work is an exact, complete copy of the original, and simple copyright rules apply.

Ringtones aren't complete copies - but even abbreviated copies enjoy the copyright protection on the original work.

2. The new work is a derivative of the original work and cannot be distributed without permission from the original copyright holder.

Which we agree they are not - they're not a variation on the recording (remix), nor an extension of the recording (recut), nor a re-recording by another artist (cover), etc.

3. The new work is completely independent and the original copyright holder has no claim to make against it.

Which they most certainly are not. Furthermore, That interpretation would mean anyone could make and sell ringtones of any song anywhere. The RIAA would be furiously suing, lobbying and protesting a ruling that was anywhere close to that.

Please explain

[greyblack]

What are these things you call ringtones? I recall something called that used on cellphones, but havn't they been replaced by mp3-files long time ago?

By the way, I live in Europe

Re:Please explain

[Corporate Troll]

So, you don't get advertisements of Jamba and all those other scum? Lucky you... I also live in Europe and indeed, my wifes phone can play MP3s as ringtones. (Mine is too old and doesn't have such a functionality) She just doesn't use those, since she's a technophobe and using Bluetooth to transfer an MP3 is asked too much.

On the other hand, she wouldn't buy ringtones either...

Ringtones are targeted to people that can't figure out how to connect their phone to their PC and absolutely need "that cool song" on their cellphone. Read: rich teens.... The are not for anyone reading slashdot, nor are they for the likes of my wife... Once you understand that, you know why at this side of the pond, one still can buy ringtones.

Ringtone fun

[RalphSleigh]

A couple of weeks back I got a new phone, connected it to my computer via a USB cable and synced some MP3s via windows media player, which I then set as my ringtone, or even choose one per contact. Had I been feeling technical I could have even used audacity to get a nice 30 second sample, and used that . Or if I ran linux I can set the phone to appear as a mass storage device instead of windows media sync and copy them that way (it also has modes to act as a modem and for usb printing). This is the norm in the UK (and most of Europe) these days.

All I can say is that if apple want their iPhone to do well over here its going to have to be nice and open as well as 3G.

Re:Ringtone fun

[Corporate Troll]

The norm?.... Prove it to me. Don't say "I do it and most of my friends do it", because you're reading slashot.

I just have one link for you.... Explain me why those bastards are still in business if everyone uses MP3s as ringtones?

Re:Ringtone fun

[RalphSleigh]

Those outfits are still around, but really don't have the clout (or as many annoying adverts, I can't remember the last time I saw one) they possessed a few years back. It looks like they are now selling licensed stuff like simpsons crap and are no longer selling themselves as the one and only route onto your phone. I don't know anyone who has brought stuff off them since the annoying amphibian and the hard to cancel text service stunt they pulled.

Re:Ringtone fun

[Corporate Troll]

True... I don't know anyone either that used it... I'm however realistic enough to understand that people around me might just be a bit better informed, and those who aren't usually know to find me for advice.

I'm just surprised they still are in business. Their advertisements are the worst thing on TV. (With the overall quality of TV, that's not exactly a compliment)

Fair Use Rights In America Amendment

[EzInKy]

That is what this country really needs. The FURIAA would basically reaffirm the First Amendment by ensuring that Congress shall make no laws restricting the free sharing of information among the people.

Re:Fair Use Rights In America Amendment

[chuckymonkey]

We do not need Vin Deisel in congress.

Re:Fair Use Rights In America Amendment

[sqrt(2)]

I just faced palmed at your post. Worse than that is I thought of that joke before reading your reply.

Re:Fair Use Rights In America Amendment

[postillion]

I wasn't aware of the First Amendment guaranteeing that intellectual property is free to the people.

Re:Fair Use Rights In America Amendment

[EzInKy]

I wasn't aware of the First Amendment guaranteeing that intellectual property is free to the people.


Copyright law restricts how ideas may be expressed.

Yes and no

[tkrotchko]

Re-reading the article, it seems like there is no issue making the ringtone from a song you have, but to use it would require a public performance license, which you don't have (and don't shoot me, I'm only reading the article). So the record companies really pulled a fast one on both consumers and the musicians.

Re:Mod parent funny

[sanmarcos]

Apple did not change the firmware to lock out open source users, they added a simple SHA1 hash to better avoid corruption if a sync is interrupted. The hash was cracked in one day. Furthermore the labels forced Apple to put DRM in its products.

RTFA... if you can

[Bazzargh]

Somewhat offtopic, but often Slashdot warns if TFA is pdf or flash. In this case, the article has style="visibility: hidden;" on the text of the article, so that it only appears when you turn javascript on (or turn off CSS). You're all paid-up geeks, so you're all surfing the web with noscript whitelisting... right?

The words obnoxious, useless and stupid spring to mind.

Re:RTFA... if you can

[mkiwi]

You're all paid-up geeks, so you're all surfing the web with noscript [noscript.net] whitelisting... right?

If we did that, it would make if awfully difficult to visit some of our favorite porn sites. ;-)

Re:Mod parent funny

[antek9]

Furthermore the labels forced Apple to put DRM in its products.

That may well have been the case with the iPod etc. Concerning the iPhone, did the labels force Apple to put DRM into their products the same way they don't force Nokia, Samsung, Blackberry and so on?

Just curious, because my Blackberry has none of that. Any of my MP3s will do as a ringer.

Re:Am I the only one?

[TheRaven64]

Am I the only one that can feel my brain slowly melting each time I read a roughlydrafted article? Yes. The rest of us learned not to click on links to roughly drafted long ago. If you have problems remembering to do this, add the following line to your user CSS file:

A[HREF*="roughlydrafted.com"]:after { content: " [IDIOT WARNING]"!important ; color: red }

ringtones weren't derivative works

[nurb432]

Even if you can identify the song via the tone?

Come on RIAA, you cant have it both ways.

Defense?

[ratboy666]

Your honour, I was just distributing high quality ring tones, produced by converting audio CD into mp3 format, and, as has been argued by the RIAA, the ring tones are not derivitive works; therefore no copyright violation has occurred.

We argue estopel, and the defense rests.

Re:Defense?

[Poorcku]

you mean estoppel? :) sorry had to...

Ringtones - the most important thing in the world?

[clarkkent09]

I just googled "ringtones" and it came up with 112 million results. Going by the first 3-4 pages, most of them seem to be either selling or offering "free" ringtones. Some comparisons:

bread: 78 million
oxygen: 91 million
global warming: 80 million
world peace: 2.8 million
liberty: 95 million

But, fortunately:

beer: 128 million

Whew... close

nice job Slashdot

[crayz]

Article summary quotes text that is then shot down a paragraph later as incorrect. Try this instead:

Ask Not For Whom the Ring Tones.

Writing about Apple's iTunes ringtones, John Gruber of the Daring Fireball cited Engadget, which reported that "the RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so (surprised?), and it won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't 'derivative works,' meaning they didn't infringe on the copyright of the songwriter."

Engadget, known for shooting from the hip rather than the brain, didn't really understand whole story. From its report, Gruber concluded, "So if you have the right to play a song, you have the right to use it as a ringtone on your phone."

Gruber blamed a "complicated, confusing mess of a ringtone policy" on Apple, and suggested the company should have simply handed out tools to create ringtones from any users. Incidentally, that's apparently what Apple was going to do back in January.

Derk Nek of Epplegacks explained that--unfortunately--what the RIAA actually won in the case cited by Engadget was instead the right to collect money for ringtones without distributing those fees to the artists they represent. There was no establishing that ringtones are not protected intellectual property, so the RIAA will continue collecting royalty fees, because distributing songs or portions of songs requires mechanical rights. Playing a ringtone might also--in the mind of the RIAA and the letter of the law--require performing rights.

Why pay for ringtones

[tsa]

If ringtones are not derivative works then why do we have to pay for them anyway?

Re:Why pay for ringtones

[Quiet_Desperation]

If ringtones are not derivative works then why do we have to pay for them anyway?

Because the marketplace is willing to.

Another great article and consumer's rights

[pbooktebo]

One thing the article doesn't cover is the fact that consumers have a legal right to "make their own" ringtone from music they own. According to this article by Sasha Frere-Jones in the New Yorker, consumers can create their own ringtones from music they own legally:

"Or you can do it yourself: some new cell-phone models can be connected to a computer by a data cable, allowing you to create master tones from MP3 files at home. However it is done, transferring music that you own to your phone is legal under copyright law."

source: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/07/050307crmu_music
By the way, this is one of the best articles on ringtones, covering the technical advances from monophonic MIDI to compressed audio, and the impact on the aesthetics of ringtones. I teach a class on music technology, and the first assignment is to have students compose and create their own ringtone (not by ripping from a CD, actually creating their own). I use the New Yorker article to get everyone up to speed on how big ringtones are in the world today.

Re:Another great article and consumer's rights

[smellsofbikes]

The New Yorker has become my favorite magazine in the last couple of years -- while I learn more from New Scientist and the like, it's mostly party knowledge ("Did you know that only four complete mastodons have ever been found?" yeah, I'm a riot at parties) while reading the NY is like reading Slashdot at +6. They consistently write interesting, introspective, and sometimes even funny things about economics, medicine, and quite often about copyright/trademark stuff. And the cartoons are *brilliant*.

Re:Another great article and consumer's rights

[tpholland]

I teach a class on music technology, and the first assignment is to have students compose and create their own ringtone (not by ripping from a CD, actually creating their own).

If you're interested in this kind of thing, you may be interested in this CD put out by the experimental music label, Touch. The ringtones were created by a wide selection of sound artists and musicians; the album points towards a vaguely disturbing future where the ringtone would be the highest form of musical endeavour.

Still, it's fun to bemuse your enemies by sticking a Gilbert and George or Ryoji Ikeda ringtone on their phone when nobody's looking...

War of the Clones

[Doc Ruby]

Ringtones derived from the song (usually by a human interpreter) aren't derivative works controlled by copyright, but a human interpreter performing the song is a derivative work?

Copyright law economics will replace all musicians with machines. Especially because all the new that music record corps are pushing on us sucks worse than a machine, usually because it was made by a clone.

Re:War of the Clones

[VGPowerlord]

Well, I interpreted the decision to mean that, if a ringtone isn't a derivitive work, it's considered part of the same work.

Which means a ringtone of said work is legal for you to have if you have the original song.

Re:War of the Clones

[Doc Ruby]

How come the record companies charge me for a new copy of a worn-out or upgraded recording?

I could understand the logic when I bought a physical copy. But if I own the CD, why am I paying Apple for a lossy copy of it when I download it from iTunes? At the very least, why does Apple have the privilege to limit the number of backup/relocated copies of a song I bought?

Re:War of the Clones

[VGPowerlord]

Assuming that you're in the US, you'd have to ask the idiots... er... senators and representatives that passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that, as I can't answer the logic behind them passing it.

So if a ringtone doesn't infringe the artist

[Maxo-Texas]

then why can't we make our own ring tones instead of using RIAA's?

Re:Mod parent funny

[Arabani]

they added a simple SHA1 hash to better avoid corruption if a sync is interrupted. No, the hash was designed to lock out 3rd party apps, plain and simple. If it was merely for "data integrity", why design it so that a perfectly good iTunes DB from one iPod won't work on a different iPod? Data integrity does not imply locking data to a single device. Furthermore, SHA1 hashes that incorporate some hidden salt are not "simple". In fact, nothing about SHA1 is "simple" - that's why it's called a cryptographic hash! Granted, the salt was found rather quickly, but my gut feeling is that it was due to brute force testing of all possible salts, rather than the hash being "simple".

mod parent up informative

[argent]

mod topic down overrated? :)

Subject should be "warning: javascript required"

[argent]

Interesting hack.

No, I don't surf with javascript disabled. I've read all the articles about how I should, haven't found them compelling. But I agree with you that it's reasonable to ask /. to put "warning: javascript required" on the article. You also should have made that your subject, so people reading here would get the picture quicker. :)

"Defending the rights of the consumer"? Apple???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple's interest in defending the rights of the consumer..."

You're talking about the same Apple that happens to be the world's largest seller of DRM-infected music, right?

Wrong

[SuperKendall]

Blu-Ray does not support any technique that can lock content down to a unique instance of hardware, not even BD+ can do that.

Re:Am I the only one?

[LarsG]

That's a beautiful hack, snarfed. :-)

Would you happen to have a fix for mac fanboys modding me flamebait for pointing out what should be blindingly obvious, too?

Also largest non-DRM

[SuperKendall]

You're talking about the same Apple that happens to be the world's largest seller of DRM-infected music, right?

Yes, and also the worlds largest online seller of DRM Free music.

Your point?

Re:Also largest non-DRM

[Wakko Warner]

Of course, someone was going to point out the DRM-free canard. Thanks for taking the initiative. You left out the fact that about one percent of the 5 million songs available on iTunes are DRM-free. You also left out the part where Apple secretly embeds user information in the DRM-free tracks.

Re:Also largest non-DRM

[SuperKendall]

Of course, someone was going to point out the DRM-free canard.

You don't appear to understand the meaning of Canard very well:

"Canard is French for duck, and is often used to refer to a deliberately false story"

How is saying iTunes Plus is DRM free a Canard? It has no DRM. Apple sells them. The End.

Thanks for taking the initiative.

Always happy to throw a wrench into the workings of closed-minded people such as yourself always out to repeatedly make a point, even if it's no longer a valid point... I imagine in a few years you'll understand what has happened here.

You left out the fact that about one percent of the 5 million songs available on iTunes are DRM-free.

Your source for that WAG? It's EMI music, which is certainly larger than 1%, but not yet all EMI music, so I cannot figure out the exact percentage. But the point is that Apple offers that option now and one can assume the track count in that format will thus grow.

Even if the track count were exactly one (1), my point would stand. Apple sells DRM free music, to a very large audience.

You also left out the part where Apple secretly embeds user information in the DRM-free tracks.

Well since watermarks or unique metadata in no way control what you can do with files from a technological standpoint I would pretty much have had to be an idiot to raise that point, now wouldn't I?

Oh, you raised it. My bad.

Re:Also largest non-DRM

[toQDuj]

You left out the part where nothing about the embedded user information in the tracks is secret. It's just there. not in code. Not really a secret now, is it?

And hey, you also left out the fact that they are at least _doing something_ in terms of offering DRM-free tracks. For a market leader, that's quite a big step to take. Could it be, perhaps, and bear with me here, for this is a wild guess, that they don't actually have PERMISSION to sell the other tracks DRM-free? Perhaps because it is not their property?

B.

Re:Also largest non-DRM

[toddestan]

Yes, and also the worlds largest online seller of DRM Free music.

I'm pretty sure Amazon would have them beat there. Same with allofmp3.com, or are they offline again?

Re:Also largest non-DRM

[Wakko Warner]

How much are you paying Steve Jobs for the privilege of blowing him?

Re:Also largest non-DRM

[SuperKendall]

How much did it hurt when Gates implanted your control probes?

fair use ringtone solution

[blakieto]

Owning a song provides one with "fair use", and within that fair use you can place your songs on various devices, such as a phone. www.phonezoo.com enables you to convert any song you own into a ring tone, for free. It's an ad supported service.

If I may make another suggestion for consumers

[Glytch]

Please set your phones to vibrate when appropriate. People around you will appreciate your courtesy.

And this is slightly offtopic as it doesn't relate to ringtones, but are there any phones on the market with variable vibration rates? (And get your minds out of the gutter.) The one in my LG is far too loud. It would be be nice to be able to tone it down so that I can just barely feel it. A CDMA phone would be preferred as there's only three mobile providers where I live, and the two CDMA networks (Telus and Aliant) are slightly less evil than the GSM network (Rogers).

Re:"Defending the rights of the consumer"? Apple??

[Quiet_Desperation]

And it's also one of the most liberal of the many DRM schemes out there. The few things I have bought from iTunes were easily unDRMed even without cracking anything or using special software. This might account partly for the fact that they are the largest. With the new lossless compression it's even better. And without that DRM, they wouldn't be able to sell anything. Blaming Apple is like blaming the supermarket for the bag of salad with the E. coli in it.

Apple and RIAA deserve the bashing

[dont_run]

The article about Apple, RIAA, and ringtones was very informative, but it departs from a premise that's not always true.

And here it is: what if the sounds I want to use as ringtones are my own creation, or public domain, or licensed under a CC license, or cleared by means other than an iTunes purchase?

And what about new business models? What if some upcoming artists (or established ones like They Might be Giants) want to release samples and allow them to be used as ringtones and copied around?

The author mentions that people are used to think they can do anything they want with the "music they own". Well, he forgets that sometimes those people do indeed own that music (or broad rights to it).

The truth is, complicated as Copyright law may be, Apple and the RIAA went too far. Way too far. Those companies behave as if there is nothing other than their rights to look after and I deeply resent them for that (as do most music lovers) and they deserve the bashing.

Re:Apple and RIAA deserve the bashing

[zmal]

And what about new business models? What if some upcoming artists (or established ones like They Might be Giants) want to release samples and allow them to be used as ringtones and copied around? Having actually seen a recording contract coming from the music industry, one of the "standard" clauses they include involves the artist signing over publishing rights to their music in all current and future formats. That'll pretty much cover any new business model.

And I thought...

[Ian.Waring]

... that ringtones often made more money for the companies than the original song itself. Are RIAA members really depriving the artists that supply the content to them to sell? That's quite a broken business model...

Ian W.

Re:Mod parent funny

[prockcore]

Apple did not change the firmware to lock out open source users, they added a simple SHA1 hash to better avoid corruption if a sync is interrupted.

Does this make any sense? If sync is corrupted, the hash will be wrong, and the ipod won't play ANY of the music that is on it. Seems like it just exacerbates corruption.

Why can't I produce my own ringtone?

[rajid]

I play Middle Eastern music and I'd like to use a recording of my own group as my ringtone. Apparently, RIAA has set things up such that I can't even produce my own ringtone! I resent that!

Re:Why can't I produce my own ringtone?

[ceoyoyo]

Excuse me, I'm a RIAA inspector. Do you have a license to create music? The guild frowns upon unlicensed music creation and punishes it severely. I think I can help you out though. Just sign this contract and you'll be okay.

Derivative works and licensing

[darksabre]

The ringtones are not derivative works but they do however have the same copyright protection as the original song. This means that the record labels' original rights to distribute and charge for those songs (and duty to compensate the artist) apply to the ringtones. This prevents the artists from being able to negotiate a higher royalty for ringtones which is what was being attempted and has now been shot down.
So the artists are not being stiffed any more than usual they still get their royalties.

Copyright and Ringtones

[stevewahl]

First, IANAL. But I do pay close attention to copyright laws, they affect all of us.

Second, the ruling on ringtones not being a derived work: it probably means that the ringtone is just another mechanical copy of the song, for which the record labels would have to pay whatever fee they've already negotiated with the artist in their current contracts, instead of being a derived work of a different sort which would require new negotiations with each artist.

I know that's not what the article says, and I haven't researched it. But it's what makes sense. (Yeah, yeah, since when does making sense have anything to do with copyright law?)

Third, if you have a song on your phone and a ringtone, the ringtone is kept in a separate file. It is a copy of the song, subject to copyright laws (because you've made a copy). This is necessary because the ring mechanisms in the phone always play the whole file, from the begining.

What we need instead is phone ringers that will use an existing, full length song file, but start playing at an offset into the file, and only play part of the file. Then you only need one file on the phone, and the whole question of paying twice is moot.

Do Performance Rights Come with Liablity?

[Erris]

Playing a ringtone might also--in the mind of the RIAA and the letter of the law--require performing rights.

Hmmm, an interesting concept for something that is impossible to copyright to begin with. Of course, this is the country that fined Girl Scouts for performing "God Bless America" without permission.

Another interesting legal concept is Performance Liability. I mean, what if someone is hurt during the performance? Who's fault is it? For instance, if I program my cell phone to ring "Thriller" in a crowded bar and get beat to shit for it, is the RIAA responsible for inciting a riot or am I? Do I have to pay for medical and clean up costs or do they? I tend to shy away from things that don't offer complete indemnification these days.

The Lawyers are not just whistling Dixie!

Re:Am I the only one?

[Budenny]

No, you're not the only one.

Some of us have been approached recently by a shadowy organization trying to raise money to deal with this problem. Apparently they want to raise enough money that Daniel will absolutely have to accept it. Then they propose to assign him some enormous mind boggling task involving writing something humongous in assembler to a deadline of a year or two. It is their hope that he will then be a) too busy b) too tired to keep up this flood of stuff. The response seems to have been encouraging. A number of those approached are willing to pay substantial amounts of money for anything that will put a stop to this.

One of those approached remarked that he would rather have someone put a bucket over his head and beat it with a broom handle, than have to read another of Daniel's articles. He would rather contract Montezumas revenge in addition, if the article were about what Apple really intends, has done, will do, or why it is better and has greater market share than anyone realizes.

But that was just one person, of course. He may not be representative.

Bwaa World Peace

[Greyfox]

But "Goat porn" clocks in at 1.9 million, so I guess world peace shouldn't feel TOO bad...

Ringtone Market?

[CopaceticOpus]

The really dumb thing about all this is the fact that there is a "ringtone market" in the first place. There's no technical reason that you can't just supply a sound from your own mp3 library, or use a simple tool to extract a clip from a CD that you own. However, the cell phone industry is carefully constructed to extract as much money from people as possible.

Why anyone would want a 15 second song clip to play when they get a phone call is a separate question. It annoys the people around them, and it's a good way to turn an enjoyable song into a pestering sound.

Re:Ringtone Market?

[meringuoid]

Why anyone would want a 15 second song clip to play when they get a phone call is a separate question.

Remember the days before custom ringtones? When everyone had one of the same five or six Nokia tunes?

Scene: a crowded lift. A telephone rings. EVERYONE reaches for their pocket.

If you hear a phone ringing nowadays, you know immediately whether or not it's yours.

Re:Ringtone Market?

[freedom_india]

I don't think u got what the parent was trying to say.
The parent was not questioning the need for a custom ring-tone. The parent was questioning the need for "buying" a ringtone when you could your own mp3 by ripping a CD.
BTW, the theater example is good.
That is why in Boston they put up the announcements before the movies "The only sound we like is the sound of silence."

RIAA is for the labels, not the artists

[johnpaul191]

seriously, they are for the artists in name alone.
the problem is that the big labels sign on with the RIAA to protect THEIR interests. some bigger artists are slowly working on cutting out the middleman, but they are taking baby steps. the thing is that the majors still have the power to promote the hell out of an artist/band and if a new artist/band tries to stand up to this, the label will just find somebody else willing to sell their soul for a chance at fame.

at Apple's last iPod press event, Steve Jobs said that roughly 1/3 of Billboard top releases for 2006 were not even released on CD, digital only. granted i think a lot of those numbers are based on things like American Idol performances, but that means that some entity like American Idol/Fox/whatever can bypass a major label to get them distribution in brick+mortar stores (or even physical products at Amazon.com).

while things like commercial radio and MTV are still prominent ways to sell music, it seems like the time is coming that a huge band (like say GreenDay for example?) could start or sign with a label that is run like the indie labels they started with (profits split 50/50 between the label and the band). the extra money the artist would make could easily pay for them to hire a better promotion company. i say Green Day just because they spent years on indie labels, so they would be directly aware of the difference in revenue sharing. the indies don't have the machine that the majors do, but i think that era is fading. something as stupid as myspace can promote a band to a younger audience.

"Fair Use" not defined in law?

[Hjalmar]

Overall the article was ok, but this line bothers me:

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. This is wrong, at least in the U.S. Heck, a quick look at Wikipedia's article on Fair Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use will point you to 17 U.S.C. s 107, and cites relevant Supreme Court cases.

Re:Mod parent funny

[ceoyoyo]

Probably. Nokia, Samsung and RIM don't have any significant business arrangements with the music industry so it's pretty hard for said industry to force them to do anything.

Apple on the other hand depends quite a bit on not irritating the RIAA TOO much, for the continued functioning of the iTMS. Besides, are any of those phones purchased through AT&T? Most of the phones in the world are capable of using mp3s and jpegs as ringtones and wallpaper but the providers who sell them disable that functionality, just like they disable the ability of the phone to work on another network.

The RIAA could also be extra concerned about the iPhone because loading media on it is so easy. Most other phones are a bit more of a pain for the non-technical user to put their own ringtones onto, but the iTunes infrastructure makes it end to end child's play with an iPhone.

Ringtones are retarded anyway

[Stormwatch]

Why don't people have phones that sound like real phones? You know... RRRRRRING RRRRRRING. Not a crappy-sounding excerpt from some badly composed, poorly played, awfully sung, insanely overcompressed piece of noise that passes as music these days... NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

Re:Ringtones are retarded anyway

[drifterusa]

Besides some obvious answers like "because they can [have songs as ringtones]," or "because it's cool," or the novelty factor of having some control over technology, or to personalize a mass-produced object, ringtones serve a need, which is to determine whose phone is ringing. When the phones stayed in one place, a standard ring was all that was needed, but now that they're mobile, with multiple phones scattered around a room, how else would you easily determine which phone to answer and who should answer it?

Granted, I wish people had better taste and some sensitivity to the issues involved, but that's true with most things in life.

If ringtones aren't derivative works...

[Rhipf]

and "they didn't infringe on the copyright of the songwriter" then shouldn't the average person make a ring tone from any song without having to pay for it? I realize this is a radical idea but if RIAA already won a court case to this effect the precedent is there for everyone. If RIAA doesn't have to pay the artist for such use why do consumers?

Re:Ringtones - the most important thing in the wor

[nbast]

You didn't search on "iphone", 169 million results. :)

porn

[biscon]

Hmm:

Porn: 128 million

That makes Beer and Porn the most important things in the world.
Kindda already knew but its nice to be sure.

Re:porn

[chgros]

Sex: 534,000,000

Fair use is for RIAA only

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, so 'fair use' applies to the RIAA, but apparently not to anyone else...

Re:Ringtones - the most important thing in the wor

[dwye]

"War" clocks in at 591 million. Gee, I didn't know that many people liked that "Low Rider" that much :-)

Re:Ringtones - the most important thing in the wor

[Crag]

537,000,000 for sex
1,520,000,000 for internet

Ok, take aim at your foot, steady... FIRE!

[clambake]

"It won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't derivative works."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No, your honor, those 38 terabytes of music that the RIAA caught me hosting on that p2p network are ringtines, in mp3 format, and created by me, and thus I own the copyright... They are, in fact, not derivative works of any kind, and the fact that the RIAA had them at all means they have been infringing on my copyright. Furthermore, I'd like to announce the opening of awesomeringtones.com.

Re:Mod parent funny

[Slashcrap]

Apple did not change the firmware to lock out open source users, they added a simple SHA1 hash to better avoid corruption if a sync is interrupted. The hash was cracked in one day. Furthermore the labels forced Apple to put DRM in its products.

At the risk of sounding slightly inflammatory, I do feel obliged to point out that you're a lying little fuck. Also, I pray that the Slashdot community won't consider it flamebait if I share with you my fervent hope that you will one day choke to death on Steve Job's cock.

Theft

[HermMunster]

To charge you twice for the same song is theft. Just because the song is played upon the ring of a phone vs playing on the same device as a song should make no difference. It is pure theft to charge you two times for the same content. If it fraudulent to do this to the customers.

Re:Mod parent funny

[toddestan]

Actually, it's Apple Inc. we're talking about here. It seems like Apple Inc. is becoming less and less interested in their computers nowadays.

Author of TFA doesn't understand Fair Use at all

[LionMage]

I called the author of the article out on that point. First off, let me quote the relevant section of the article to establish context:

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. If the recording industry were to sue an individual for copying music from their CDs onto their iPod, they would likely lose because the idea of fair use generally determines that consumers can use their own music in reasonable ways.

Unfortunately, fair use has not been upheld in clear court precedents or in law to the point where it can really be called a right. This leaves things enshrouded in a grey fog where consumers assume that anything they can do with "their music" is fine, while the music industry seeks to find new ways to sell its products.

Let's dissect those two paragraphs. A simple Google search yields the following reference as its first result: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Let me quote the salient points from the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair[...]

So, what have we learned about TFA?

1. The author of TFA claims that fair use is not actually defined in law. This is contradicted by Section 107 of Title 17, U.S. Code. Section 107 even helpfully enumerates examples of fair use.
2. The author of TFA claims that there have been no clear court precedents upholding fair use. In fact, there have been many, too numerous to list here, but I'll simply mention the landmark case of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia which established that the RIO, and all subsequent MP3 players, are non-infringing devices used for space shifting. It is because of this legal precedent that we have a market segment for MP3 players at all.
3. The author of TFA totally misses one of the oldest and best-known prior legal precedents establishing the right to time-shift and space-shift, the infamous Betamax case, Sony vs. Universal City Studios
4. The author apparently doesn't know how to do basic fact checking using a resource like Google.

The article was great right up until the section on fair use, and I couldn't really stomach reading the rest of the article because the author clearly didn't bother checking any facts. Whether that's due to laziness or some twisted personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, I couldn't say. I thought maybe this article was written from a European/British perspective (since fair use is not an established right in the U.K., for example), but no, he's using American spellings and seems to be writing from an American (albeit ignorant) POV. Sad, really.

The info about the dispute between Apple and NBC is interesting, as it explains Apple's comments about needing to charge almos

Mincing words

[SuperKendall]

Fine, downloadable online DRM free music. You knew what I meant.

Re:"Defending the rights of the consumer"? Apple??

[MacWiz]

Originally, iTunes only played mp3 files. DRM was added at the insistence of the cartel. If Apple had not created a DRM scheme, they would have been denied the licenses to sell the songs in the first place. And keep in mind that the labels really wanted individual tracks to be at least $2.49 each.

IMHO, it's too bad Steve Jobs didn't tell them to take a flying leap. The RIAA would be in even deeper shit than they already are had Apple not sold 3 billion songs for them. The second largest seller of digital tracks is eMusic (just over 100 million songs sold last I heard) and they don't have RIAA tunes.

That would leave the RIAA's digital sales in the hands of...uh...WalMart?

I'm Putting Up a Free Ringtone Site.

[darkonc]

I think that the RIAA just shot themselves in the foot here.

If ringtones aren't derivative works, then the RIAA companies aren't the only group that is allowed to put up ringtones.

anybody can put together ringtones from their favorite song and make them available on the 'net (or anywhere else that suits their fancy).