Slashdot Mirror


ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings

gerddie notes a piece up on the EFF site outlining the fairly outlandish legal theories ASCAP is trying out in their court fight with AT&T. "ASCAP (the same folks who went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire) appears to believe that every time your musical ringtone rings in public, you're violating copyright law by 'publicly performing' it without a license. At least that's the import of a brief (PDF, 2.5 MB) it filed in ASCAP's court battle with mobile phone giant AT&T."

461 comments

  1. Someone... by Abreu · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...needs a cup of tea and a lie down

    --
    No sig for the moment.
    1. Re:Someone... by jd · · Score: 0

      Yorkshire Tea, PG Tips or Tetley Tea?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Someone... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Earl Grey hot and sweet.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    3. Re:Someone... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      For the ASCAP, they can take cup of Botulinum toxin and ...

    4. Re:Someone... by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 1

      Tea? No, they need a hefty dose of cyanide washed down with Foaming Liquid Drano(tm).

    5. Re:Someone... by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

      Red Rose! Remember this commercial with the Marquis Chimps? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXEQhsZrkM8

    6. Re:Someone... by severoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Another word for "composer" is "handicrafter." Another word for "publisher" is "typesetter." So ASCAP should change their name from "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers" to "American Society of Skilled Handicrafting, Authoring and Typesetting Specialists."

      Short form: ASSHATS.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    7. Re:Someone... by spikedvodka · · Score: 4, Funny

      come on... it's
      "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    8. Re:Someone... by DevConcepts · · Score: 1

      Short form: ASSHATS.

      GMTA. Where are my mod points when I need them?

    9. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. Just so long as whoever serves them their tea makes sure there is lots of arsenic in it.

    10. Re:Someone... by houstonbofh · · Score: 0

      I have mod points, but I already commented to another post. Damn... What a waste.

    11. Re:Someone... by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Nah, something that doesn't taste of dishwater; Assam.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    12. Re:Someone... by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"

      That line is the property of Paramount Pictures. Please remit settlement payment of $5,000, or hire legal representation.

    13. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I got an email from ASCAP on this, since I am a member...

      Whether you are someone that is just starting out, struggling to get your music heard or an accomplished music creator with an extensive catalogue, nothing we do is more important than advocating for your copyrights and the livelihood that they can provide. No other performing rights organization is advocating across such a comprehensive platform as ASCAP, from legislative efforts in Washington to copyright education in American schools. Additionally, we've brought a dozen legal actions with digital companies whose business models do not include fair payment for the use of your music.

      You may see or read accounts of our legal actions from those arguing to limit your potential income. Not surprisingly, they misstate our efforts on your behalf. When it comes to the wireless carriers and ASCAP, here are the facts:

              * ASCAP is in Federal Rate Court with the two largest U.S. wireless carriers. We are seeking to ensure that they pay you a share of the substantial revenue they derive from content using your music. This includes the delivery of full track songs, music videos, television content, ringtones and ringback tones.
              * All this content generates revenue for the carriers, whether sold a la carte or on a subscription fee basis or bundled with voice, data and messaging services.
              * With respect to ringtones, ASCAP seeks to license the wireless carriers' transmissions of your music. ASCAP is not seeking to charge consumers. In fact, ASCAP has been licensing wireless carriers and ringtone content providers since 2001. Now, the carriers want to avoid that payment.
              * Wireless carriers make billions of dollars in a variety of ways from ringtones including per tone charges and multiple additional charges surrounding the transmission of ringtones. These billions are more than sufficient to cover a reasonable payment to ASCAP members and to allow the carriers an ample profit margin.
              * Bottom line, we are striving to license those that make a business of transmitting your music. This holds true for any medium where businesses have been built on the back of your music, whether terrestrial broadcast, satellite, cable, Internet or wireless carriers providing audio and video content. To be completely clear, our approach has always been to license these businesses, not to charge listeners.

      As ASCAP approaches the mid-point of 2009, we are gratified that more people choose membership in ASCAP than any other American performing rights organization. Nearly 100 new members are elected every day bringing our total membership to 360,000. Unlike the other U.S. performing rights organizations, we are a membership organization. As such, we have an obligation to represent all members in the pursuit of fair compensation for the use of their music.

      It really skirts around what's actually in the briefing. Basically ASACP is claiming that because AT&T controls the distribution, use, and "performance" (by triggering the ringtone when a call comes in) that they are responsible for public performance royalties.

    14. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"

      That line is the property of Paramount Pictures. Please remit settlement payment of $5,000, or hire legal representation.

      No, it is property of the writers of ST:TNG, Patrick Stuart, and Paramount Pictures.

    15. Re:Someone... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Basically ASACP is claiming that because AT&T controls the distribution, use, and "performance" (by triggering the ringtone when a call comes in) that they are responsible for public performance royalties.

      If AT&T is making money off of Joe Songwriter's composition, I don't have a problem with requiring AT&T to pay Joe a royalty.

      The basic idea behind performance royalties -- play my songs all you like, but if you make money off then, you owe me a cut -- is a good one, even if ASCAP and BMI are poor implementations of it. I have been arguing for years in favor of royalty right replacing copyright.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That line is the property of Paramount Pictures."
      That line is the property of Paramount Pictures. Please remit settlement payment of $5,000, or hire legal representation.

    17. Re:Someone... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"

      That line is the property of Paramount Pictures. Please remit settlement payment of $5,000, or hire legal representation.

      No, it is property of the writers of ST:TNG, Patrick Stuart, and Paramount Pictures.

      The words would be property of the writer, though I'm not sure exactly how something like this would work out if multiple writers used the same line. Only the performance of it would be the property of Paramount, and as far as I know, nothing is really the property of the actors, they just receive whatever royalties are set in their contracts.

    18. Re:Someone... by malkir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear AC, I do not have any money so am sending you this drawing I did of a spider instead. I value the drawing at $5,000 so trust that this settles the matter. Warm regards.

    19. Re:Someone... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's stretching it quite a bit, I do believe that in this case the RIAA would be the group that has the relevant rights. In this case, yes somebody should be paying money to somebody, but not to ASCAP for the performance, to the label for the recording.

    20. Re:Someone... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 0

      Sorry all out of tea...would a bullet do ??

    21. Re:Someone... by Spugglefink · · Score: 2, Informative

      The words would be property of the writer...

      No, they'd be property of Paramount too. It doesn't necessarily have to be done that way, but in practice writers don't generally get paid unless they sign contracts assigning the rights to their work to the party with the checkbook.

    22. Re:Someone... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      For the ASCAP, they can take cup of Botulinum toxin and ...

      ... look really pretty when they die.

    23. Re:Someone... by numbski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, they're simply (continuing) to live up to their name!

      When I was in college (went to a small christian college in IL), the students were doing a self-led 10pm worship that was nothing but singing. I was the only guy on campus that owned an accoustic bass guitar, so I was asked to play along with the other guitarists, and agreed. We basically sang whatever praise and worship songs people started singing, and the guitarists went along with it and ad-libbed.

      Well - about 2 weeks after we started this, the college got a letter from ASCAP demanding performance payments. I kid you not - someone on campus turned us in. For doing praise and worship in a private group. The girl scouts around a camp fire at least is a large enough organization that I can almost see it, but someone on campus was just feeling spiteful, and even after explaining the situation ASCAP would not back down and threaten to sue us if we continued.

      So we couldn't do it anymore. :(

      Absolute idiocy. If ever a group was aptly named, ASCAP has done themselves a service at least in that department.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    24. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Still, they won't be happy when they realize that the "spider" drawing bears an uncanny resemblance to a hand giving them the finger.

    25. Re:Someone... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I welcome this idea.

      If only we could execute people who dont shut their stupid phone up within a reasonable time frame we would be on easy street.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    26. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I would say that drawing is at least worth $6000. Please send this fine artist change!

    27. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another word for "composer" is "handicrafter." Another word for "publisher" is "typesetter." So ASCAP should change their name from "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers" to "American Society of Skilled Handicrafting, Authoring and Typesetting Specialists."

      Short form: ASSHATS.

      If I could mod you into god status, I would. That is just genius friend.

    28. Re:Someone... by kalirion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Excellent. Don't forget to check if they scan/copy the image, as you may be entitled to $50 mil in statutory damages.

    29. Re:Someone... by tixxit · · Score: 1

      * With respect to ringtones, ASCAP seeks to license the wireless carriers' transmissions of your music. ASCAP is not seeking to charge consumers.

      Because, surely, the wireless carriers would never think to recoup that cost by charging more. I think somebody really doesn't get basic economics.

    30. Re:Someone... by afabbro · · Score: 1

      With respect to ringtones, ASCAP seeks to license the wireless carriers' transmissions of your music. ASCAP is not seeking to charge consumers. In fact, ASCAP has been licensing wireless carriers and ringtone content providers since 2001.

      So they charge the carriers, but not consumers. I think it's real sweet that the carriers pass the hat around the office every year to pay for these charges, rather than passing them on to consumers.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    31. Re:Someone... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Well, my ringtone is a recording of frogs going "greedeep... greedeep..."

      Although I actually don't necessarily have a problem with paying the beasties royalties, I do have some difficulty establishing the exchange rate for frog dollars.

    32. Re:Someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, why wouldn't deeply a religious person not turn you in for breaking the law? Pay the fees if you owe them, go to court if you don't think you do and counter sue them.

  2. RIAA by arizwebfoot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:RIAA by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones

      To the RIAA, I say fucking bring it. They can search my phone every way they want they won't find any illegal music on there. Some of us use our phones for - can you believe it - communication, rather than entertainment. Hell I'll save them the time, then can send me the money they'd pay their assmonkey lawyer and I'll send them my phone in exchange. Then I'll take that money and buy myself a newer phone and send them a thank-you card.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of us use our phones for - can you believe it - communication, rather than entertainment.

      Incredibly narrow minded from someone on a tech site. Cellphones aren't just phones anymore. My phone has 5 megapixel camera, opera mini as browser and full Java support. And it's not a high end phone.

      I do use it to take pictures (including from political rallies to which I actively take part), SSH to my computer when I need to do something when on the road, check the latest news...

      And believe it or not, I don't want anyone to search it without a permission from a court.

    3. Re:RIAA by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some of us use our phones for - can you believe it - communication

      But at some point you probably sung Happy Birthday to your child over the phone. As an unauthorized public performance that allows the RIAA to sell your children into slavery. This is all covered by the brief filed in their case "RIAA vs. All of Humanity".

    4. Re:RIAA by geekboy642 · · Score: 5, Funny

      My phone has 5 megapixel camera, opera mini as browser and full Java support. And it's not a high end phone. ... SSH to my computer ...

      My phone has none of that. Stupid cheap plastic junk. It does, however, have dozens of probably infringing ringtones. My favorite is a redub of Aerosmith's "Eat the Rich" that goes "Fuck the RIAA". The meter doesn't quite scan, but the point gets across.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    5. Re:RIAA by Klistvud · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geez, I should stop whistling popular tunes to myself while in public areas. Bad, bad habit! Some RIAA or ASCAP jerk may overhear me and sell me into slavery to the Third World. On the other hand, there I'll be allowed to whistle at least!

      --
      Intellectual Property: an immaterial non-entity, most fiercely contended by those with no proper intellect to speak of.
    6. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is perfectly normal to admire simplicity. That by itself cannot be used to accuse someone of being narrowminded. All the extra shit (data plans, music, wallpapers, media upload storage, apps, etc.) costs money anyway. I enjoyed my cellular service back in 2001-2002 when I paid $35/month and had a Nokia 5165, a candybar phone with simple backlit LCD which did nothing but make and receive calls. I think adding ringtones was possible, however they would've been MIDI and I've no idea how you'd load them up.

    7. Re:RIAA by spikedvodka · · Score: 2, Funny

      hey, if you're going to do that, at least quote the obligatory xkcd

      http://xkcd.com/479/

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    8. Re:RIAA by GlibOne · · Score: 1

      "But at some point you probably sung Happy Birthday to your child over the phone. As an unauthorized public performance that allows the RIAA to sell your children into slavery." Happy Birthday Warner claims that U.S. copyright won't expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it. There you go.

    9. Re:RIAA by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.

      If i cut a ringtone from a song I own as mp3, its probably an illegal copy to them.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    10. Re:RIAA by supersat · · Score: 1

      You're confusing ASCAP/BMI with the RIAA. The RIAA represents rights holders of audio recordings, while ASCAP/BMI represents rights holders of songs themselves.

      They're both scum, though.

    11. Re:RIAA by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Incredibly narrow minded from someone on a tech site. Cellphones aren't just phones anymore. My phone has 5 megapixel camera, opera mini as browser and full Java support. And it's not a high end phone.

      I do use it to take pictures (including from political rallies to which I actively take part), SSH to my computer when I need to do something when on the road, check the latest news...

      And believe it or not, I don't want anyone to search it without a permission from a court.

      And mine has all that as well, but all I use is the phone. All I want is a phone and bluetooth. The camera is useless since taking the pictures off the phone costs money. The net access is similarly castrated. Give me a good phone and a good computer, not a half assed version of both.

    12. Re:RIAA by easyTree · · Score: 1

      My favorite is a redub of Aerosmith's "Eat the Rich" that goes "Fuck the RIAA".

      Would you mind uploading that to a torrent site of your choosing and pasting the link? Ta :D

    13. Re:RIAA by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      For downloaded ringtones, doesn't the RIAA get their cut anyway?
      Isn't it already legal to play up to 15 seconds of copyrighted music publicly? The radio stations do it all the time.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    14. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chill dude. it was a joke.

    15. Re:RIAA by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Oh well, guess my standard bell type ringer is going to go. Where can I find a Metallica ringtone at for free?

    16. Re:RIAA by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well my mobile phone doesn't have polyphonic or mp3 ringtones, doesn't have a camera, doesn't have GPS, doesn't have a touchscreen, doesn't have the ability to send/receive MMS, doesn't have a memory card slot, doesn't run linux, doesn't have a very good battery life.

      A mobile phone for me is an annoyance, I don't turn it on very often now because I've learnt that people keep phoning me asking for favours/help much more often than to see how I am/do I want to go to the pub etc. If I want to talk to people for any length of time I go over and see them in person.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    17. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because of the USA system of pairing cellphone operator with the actual cellphone.

      Here in Finland, home of Nokia, there isn't anything like that. You practically always buy phone and service independent from each other and really, it works well. As long as there is a single decent operator in the area and you like any single phone model in the existence, they'll work together. You don't have to tie yourself to some shitty operator who has exclusive deal to certain phone models, etc.

    18. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.. someone else that uses their phone as a phone. My Nokia 6210 has worked fine for the past 7 years and see no reason to upgrade.

    19. Re:RIAA by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Wait... I have a child?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    20. Re:RIAA by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      My phone has 5 megapixel camera, opera mini as browser and full Java support.

      From my point of view, those are all useful for communication functions.

      And none of them require Xzibit's greatest hits to be played on your phone's speaker, nor are any of them enhanced in any way by having the complete Lynyrd Skynyrd box set.

      Of course you are free to do as you wish with your phone. However, as I said, if the RIAA thinks for some reason that it would be worthwhile to search my phone, I'm willing to cut out the middle man. They can have my phone if they give me the legal fees that they would pay their lawyers to sue for it.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    21. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you forgot to add, "And furthermore, GET OFF MY LAWN!"

    22. Re:RIAA by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The camera isn't useless and on most newer phones taking the pictures off is as easy as buying a $10 Micro (or mini) SD card and adapter and just getting them off there. Although data plans are priced way to high for what you get, with a modern phone (iPhone, Pre, or G1) you can browse the net just fine about the only problem is if you want Flash which isn't supported on a lot of phones. Heck, even Opera Mini or Opera Mobile gives you a halfway decent experience.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    23. Re:RIAA by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      How about I have no illegally downloaded or obtained music on my phone, but the RIAA still cannot search it in ANY way until they get a warrant and have to submit to the proper procedural and regulation requirements that any government agency would have to.

    24. Re:RIAA by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      How about I have no illegally downloaded or obtained music on my phone, but the RIAA still cannot search it in ANY way until they get a warrant and have to submit to the proper procedural and regulation requirements that any government agency would have to.

      Allow me to clarify.

      I am in no way opposed to what you suggest. However as I have nothing illegally obtained on my phone, I am offering my phone to the RIAA in exchange for the money they would pay their team of slimy lawyers to write up the case against me. The end result would be the same for them; they'd still spend lots of money and have nothing to show for it. But this way I get the cubic yard of cash instead of their lawyers.

      BTW, not sure if you meant to say this by "any government agency", but the RIAA is not a government agency.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    25. Re:RIAA by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wait, we already pay AT&T and others to download ring tones and for the right to play those songs. I'd hate to think people were giving AT&T money for the privilege of violating copyright when they could have violated copyright for free...

      As far as I understand it, ASCAP doesn't own any copyrights and it's just a middle-man that makes royalty collections more convenient. So if the original artist is fine with the arrangements with AT&T and Verizon and others, then it's none of ASCAP's damned business to step in and get some money on the side.

    26. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to pay to take pictures off your phone?

    27. Re:RIAA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've often thought that someone should come up with a Public Domain "Happy Birthday" song to replace the covered-by-copyright one. Since "Good Morning To You" (the song that Happy Birthday is based off of) is in Public Domain and is only 1 note away from Happy Birthday, we could base it off of "Good Morning To You." Of course, there would be more of a chance of the RIAA opening a torrent search site than of the new Happy Birthday song catching on.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    28. Re:RIAA by Machtyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have to pay to use the bluetooth capabilities to interface with a $5.00 bluetooth USB adapter on your desktop or laptop, then you have the wrong phone.

      Similarly, I have a phone with an adequate camera, bluetooth, Internet capabilities and Java, but I only use the phone, text messaging and camera. The data plan is still too expensive.

    29. Re:RIAA by adminstring · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just sing the words "Happy Birthday" over and over to the tune of "Oh Christmas Tree". That way there's no question that it's public domain. I figure if it's my birthday, I get to pick the tune, right?

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    30. Re:RIAA by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      They renamed file-sharing into "piracy". When do we start renaming copyright claims into "extorsion" ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    31. Re:RIAA by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you don't need a better phone, you need better friends.

    32. Re:RIAA by RubberDogBone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't put it past them. Soon enough, they'll go after anything with ears. Dogs can sort of sing. Cats sort of howl, sometimes musically. And songbirds! Holy crap, not only can they make loud musical performances in public, they can also hear songs on the radio, copy them, and add those songs to their performances!

      They also steal the sounds of ringtones, TVs, car horns, sirens, other birds, and they play them back constantly. And they migrate, thus violating regional copyrights and territory licensing. Sometimes people feed them too which is aiding and abetting!

      Face it, birds are the biggest thieves of music of all time.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    33. Re:RIAA by Drgnkght · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm guessing he is a Verizon subscriber. They cripple the firmware of their phones. Basically any feature of the phone which might be used to avoid paying for one of their services is disabled. Bluetooth is usually limited to headsets for example. If you want to send a picture or audio file to another phone (without using any 3rd-party tools, i.e. BitPim) you will need to send it as a MMS message. They charge you for that, by the way. (I used their service in the past. I didn't realize they did this at the time or I wouldn't have signed up.)

    34. Re:RIAA by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Ha. Then they bring out cardinal richelieu: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

      You do have six lines of text on your phone, do you?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    35. Re:RIAA by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that one here is the head of their pirate bay, and king of all pirates, across all species: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuFyqzerHS8 :D

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    36. Re:RIAA by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wait, this video is of that bird is even better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOFy8QkNWWs&feature=related

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    37. Re:RIAA by ravenlock · · Score: 1

      Except if you happen to want an iPhone, in which case you're tied to TeliaSonera.

    38. Re:RIAA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nope. Only text that was sent to me. Since I can't avoid having text sent to me (it's like trying to avoid having mail sent to you), you can at best drag the person who sent it to me to court.

      Fine by me. People who send me text messages deserve no better. I have a phone for voice conversation. Use it that way if you want to communicate by phone with me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:RIAA by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      They renamed file-sharing into "piracy". When do we start renaming copyright claims into "extorsion" ?

      First step: change the spelling of "extortion."

    40. Re:RIAA by slash.duncan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For that matter, "We wish you a happy birthday" should work, with the "Merry Christmas" version apparently public domain (listed on CPDL.org, choral public domain library).

      --
      Duncan
      "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
      and if you use the program, he is your master."
      R Stallman
    41. Re:RIAA by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      And when they've searched my phone they'll sue me again because mine is too old to use downloaded ringtones, which celarly illegally deprives them of income. Great.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    42. Re:RIAA by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Geez, I should stop whistling popular tunes to myself while in public areas. Bad, bad habit!

      Ooops, you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" button. Expect trouble soon.
      I'd call my lawyer if I were you, just in case.
      And stop whistling too.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    43. Re:RIAA by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Warner claims that U.S. copyright won't expire until 2030 [ ... ]

      Maybe it's just me but I'd be really surprised if that actually ever happened (with a Steamboat Willie sining "Happy Birthday" on YouTube maybe ?).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    44. Re:RIAA by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The camera isn't useless and on most newer phones taking the pictures off is as easy as buying a $10 Micro (or mini) SD card and adapter and just getting them off there.

      It depends a lot on what phone you have. On an iPhone and a Mac, it's even easier to get your photos from iPhone to Mac. Other phones are very inaccessible and require them to be sent by MMS.

      My wife MMSed me a beautiful photo of our son because that's apparently the easiest way for her, but my iPhone doesn't support MMS. I'm not sure who to be angry at for this.

    45. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what I thought until I switched to the iphone

    46. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you get a BB or WM phone if you're on Verizon. Anything with the Verizon OS (Symbian) might as well be a credit card swipe machine.

    47. Re:RIAA by tibman · · Score: 1

      I subscribe to the "phone as a communication device" group. I want a VERY simple and compact phone that i could possibly tether for internet.

      No GPS and no camera, i have far better ones from companies dedicated to making those excellent pieces of equipment. The only thing i would like to see is better communication between devices.. putting map data into a typical gpsr is a battle.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    48. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an LG Voyager on Verizon and I have none of these issues. The firmware on my phone doesn't appear to be crippled, as I am able to make my own ringtones and put them on the phone, and I can load the microSD card with MP3s and pictures (wallpaper) without restrictions. I send pictures and calendar items to my wife's Voyager via Bluetooth. And on top of the voice plan I already had, adding unlimited data and text usage (no metering of my internet, text or picture messages) was only $15/month. I have never bought ringtones, wallpaper or games through Verizon's service, but I have an awful lot of personalized items on my phone that I made for it and put on the phone using Bluetooth or by putting it on the microSD in a USB adaptor.

      Several of my friends have jesusPhones and CrackBerries and they pay a lot more per month for a lot more hassle to do the things that are simple for my Verizon phone.

    49. Re:RIAA by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      my iPhone doesn't support MMS. I'm not sure who to be angry ATT for this.

      I'll give you a hint . . .

    50. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I want is a phone and bluetooth.

      So buy a model that only has phone. They ARE out there, just not usually stocked at the cell phone outlet store since they don't make commission on them.

      The camera is useless since taking the pictures off the phone costs money.

      Really? Here's the five most common methods:

      1. Text message to a friend who has a data plan to upload them for you.
      2. Text message them to an email address.
      3. Use the bluetooth capability to directly transfer them to a computer.
      4. Save them to the micro SD memory card (4gigs, $15 dollars) and then use your computer's card reader.
      5. Use the data transfer cable to transfer directly to the computer.

      If none of those work then either your cell phone provider sucks, and/or your phone sucks. Replace one or both.

    51. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and they shit all over my car. OMG!! RIAA birds. It's a conspiracty!

    52. Re:RIAA by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      And believe it or not, I don't want anyone to search it without a permission from a court.

      I don't want people searching it period, why should a bunch of uneducated inbreds be allowed to choose who gets to violate another persons privacy?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    53. Re:RIAA by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      If you have a Nokia you can browse the phone like a hard drive and copy the images, from there.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    54. Re:RIAA by Drgnkght · · Score: 1

      I'll see your LG Voyager and raise you one LG VX8300. Nice phone, but Verizon butchered its capabilities. See this website for some examples of what I talking about. Pay extra attention to the post titled "Make MP3 and MIDI Ringtones".

    55. Re:RIAA by Cyrus20 · · Score: 1

      if your phone has bluetooth then use that to take the pictures off the phone. I can link my phone to my laptop and move my pictures just fine so no money involved taking pictures off my phone

    56. Re:RIAA by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Verizon removes the bluetooth file protocol from the phones they sell. Yes, I can hack it... No, I don't care that much.

    57. Re:RIAA by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Really? Here's the five most common methods:

      1. Text message to a friend who has a data plan to upload them for you.

      Costs money. A text with a picture does not just count as a text...

      2. Text message them to an email address.

      Costs money. See above, and e-mail gateway is more.

      3. Use the bluetooth capability to directly transfer them to a computer.

      Removed by Verizon.

      4. Save them to the micro SD memory card (4gigs, $15 dollars) and then use your computer's card reader.

      Best option, and still not free. Also, big cards are not seen by all phones. But the best option... And a PITA. My slot is under the battery.

      5. Use the data transfer cable to transfer directly to the computer.

      None available for my Verizon phone, or my ATT blackbery. (without hacks)

      If none of those work then either your cell phone provider sucks, and/or your phone sucks. Replace one or both.

      Can't. I live in the US. They all suck, and only get sucky phones.

      Which goes back to just getting a phone for what they do best. And getting a netbook for what it does best. (Hit it is not a desktop replacement, but is a much better "smart device" than any phone. Sucks to talk to people with, however.)

  3. I recommend they come ask me in person. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 0, Troll

    I look forward to breaking my wrist or knuckles.

    Then I'll give them the address of the local biker gang's hangout so they can go there and enforce this rule.

    If it is for the dopes that pay for ring tones, well that won't matter anyway--- I roll my own from 30 second mp3 cuts.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh I don't know if you can really blame them. If they can successfully sue then it's entirely the law's fault (or the judge for badly interpreting it). If they have no legal standing then the case will be dismissed or the judgment denied. What's everyone so angry about? Anyone can bring a case, no matter how outlandish.

      We can get really mad at the RIAA for scaring people and ruining lives, but this group isn't suing teenagers. They're suing AT&T, with almost $300 billion in assets. Excuse me if I'm not terribly concerned about one of their legal teams having a little more work to do to fight off this frivolous lawsuit.

    2. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, anyone has the right to their day in court. On the other hand, it is most certainly the fault of the law if the cost of failing in a malicious or frivolous lawsuit is so minor and the rewards of success are so great that there is every incentive to flood the system.

      The system must protect itself if it is to fulfill its alleged role of protecting society. The moment corporations can DDoS the legal system for fun and profit is the moment the legal system stops protecting anyone.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by piojo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh I don't know if you can really blame them. If they can successfully sue then it's entirely the law's fault (or the judge for badly interpreting it)... Anyone can bring a case, no matter how outlandish.

      I can't agree with that. If someone engages in frivolous lawsuits, that's a reflection on their principles. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's an appropriate thing to do. There are plenty of ways I can be a jerk without breaking the law, but I'm still a jerk.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    4. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look forward to breaking my wrist or knuckles.

      So you plan to masturbate furiously when they arrive?

    5. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eh I don't know if you can really blame them. If they can successfully sue then it's entirely the law's fault

      Exploiting loopholes is surely something you can blame someone for. If a good lawyer sees a loophole, they should feel a desire to close it, not exploit it. I'm reminded of a law professor I had (BTW IANAL) who described a friend who mowed a two-foot strip of his neighbor's lawn a fraction of an inch lower than the neighbor until the neighbor stopped mowing it. Then he planted a tree in that same strip. After a few years, he sued to essentially steal the land from his neighbor because he had been improving it and maintaining it. The law was on his side. My law prof was telling the tale as an example of an unintended loophole, but he was laughing about it like it was the best practical joke ever.

    6. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Conception · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think a solution to this is if you bring a suit against someone and lose, you pay court costs. Might keep some folks from filling, but would also deal a pretty handy blow to frivolity.

    7. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      We can get really mad at the RIAA for scaring people and ruining lives, but this group isn't suing teenagers. They're suing AT&T, with almost $300 billion in assets. Excuse me if I'm not terribly concerned about one of their legal teams having a little more work to do to fight off this frivolous lawsuit.

      If it really goes anywhere, It would be a hell of a fight since both are goning to put up the best argument money can buy.

      Notice not "the best argument that is based on facts or substantial evidence" or "the best argument." but "the best one money can buy"

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    8. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      I think it's less to do with this one case as it is to do with the fact that the ASCAP's litigation history makes the RIAA look like the EFF.

      Their legal theories often sound as if they were created by a Bizzaro version of Jack Thompson, one who doesn't have a hard on about video games but instead simply wants to ensure anyone who makes noise in any way pays the ASCAP for it.

      As the summary mentioned (but linked a horrible site for backup), these ARE the people who went after summer camps to force them to pay an annual fee under the assumption that the campers would be singing around campfires or while on hikes. They are also the folk who went after open mic nights, even when the event organizers indicated that only orginal songs would be sung.

      I'm mad, regardless of who they targeted, because the ASCAP seems to play the "throw as much shit at the wall as possible and see what sticks" game. That's not how the legal system should work.

    9. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No..but that does give me another idea besides punching them really hard.
      Not sure I can piss on demand tho.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      It would also discriminate against the poor by ensuring that only people with money can get justice in court. Should we make defendants pay for their public defender if they're convicted?

    11. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Talk to me about that kind of injustice when it's in a criminal case. Corporate law is necessarily extremely complex and only very experienced lawyers can navigate it.

    12. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by jd · · Score: 0, Redundant

      How about:

      • If the defendant claims frivolous lawsuit, and the plaintiff shows it isn't, the court can penalize the defendant for wasting court time.
      • If a lawsuit is shown to not merely be frivolous but actually willfully malicious, the plaintiff faces fines comparable to those the defendant would have faced if found guilty.
      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would also discriminate against the poor by ensuring that only people with money can get justice in court.

      Um, no. If the 'poor' person has a good case, they will win. If they win, they don't have to pay.

    14. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But it inhibits perfectly valid lawsuits, in which both sides honestly feel they are in the right and need to have a judge to make a decision between two legally valid yet contradictory positions (because the law isn't perfect).

      Instead you should amend this to have the Bozo rule. That is, at the end of the suit, if the judge says "what a bunch of bozos", then those guys have to pay the legal fees of the winning side.

    15. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If the 'poor' person has a good case, they will win.

      Unfortunately, such an ideal of justice does not always match reality.

    16. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It would also discriminate against the poor by ensuring that only people with money can get justice in court.

      As opposed to the status quo, in which the side with the most money generally wins?

    17. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      There are rules about barratry, or vexatious litigation in England and Wales. They are rarely invoked as denying someone access to the legal system is a fairly serious step, for obvious reasons.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    18. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by u38cg · · Score: 1

      That's not a loophole. It's a pretty well established principle of land law that if you maintain exclusive possession of a piece of land for a certain length of time, treating it as your property, you can then claim ownership. This is a good thing - it makes sure someone uses the land instead of letting it lie fallow. Still, the case you describe is rather cheeky.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    19. Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      You can blame them for being asshats. Everyone is so angry about their obvious BS, and trying to trample all over individual rights.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  4. What about radios, etc? by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does this mean if I have a radio with speakers in a public place I need to pay some kind of fee? I know that businesses which have radios that their customers can hear pay a license fee, but what about people, say, on the beach listening to a boom box? If they don't have to pay a fee, why should people with cell phones or their providers pay a public performance fee?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does this mean if I have a radio with speakers in a public place I need to pay some kind of fee?

      Yes, it does.

      I know that businesses which have radios that their customers can hear pay a license fee, but what about people, say, on the beach listening to a boom box?

      Their situation is no different. The law doesn't distinguish between a business playing the radio and any other person playing the radio; you aren't exempt from the insane restrictions of copyright just because you aren't making money.

      Pretty fucked up, huh?

      The only reason that part of the law is (sometimes) enforced against businesses and never against people with boom boxes on the beach is that businesses are easier to keep an eye on and they tend to have more money.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    2. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it does.

      No, it doesn't.

      From 17 USC 110(5):
      [The following is not an infringement:] except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless--
      (i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
      (ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;

      Their situation is no different. The law doesn't distinguish between a business playing the radio and any other person playing the radio

      Sure it does, beyond a certain point. At the low end of the spectrum, there's no need to make such a distinction, because all parties are exempt who follow the rules.

      Once again, faulty and idiotic legal interpretations from the ignorant.

      ASCAP just wants money from the carrier's commercial ringtone sales. It's got nothing to do with anything else.

    3. Re:What about radios, etc? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait, this might be a good thing -- wouldn't you like to see all the a-holes that drive down the road with the volume on 11 pounding out the bass so load it makes their mirrors rattle get fined by ASCAP for their "public performance"? I sure would!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever consider being a poster-boy for the "I am not a lawyer" fund? It's posts like yours, (and the morons who modded you up) that remind us all to stuff our foots in our mouthes.

    5. Re:What about radios, etc? by pbhj · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      (ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;

      In the hypothetical boom-box situation then the music is being further transmitted (as sounds waves in the air) to the public. Ergo, you've contradicted yourself here and the GP is correct that use of a radio with speakers in public is infringing activity.

      Aside: Under UK law if you watch a movie (that you've a license to watch) in a school and the movie contains songs in the soundtrack then you're infringing the songwriters copyright (according to The PRS Limited). I think Copyright Law is my favourite type of idiocy.

    6. Re:What about radios, etc? by spacefiddle · · Score: 1

      (ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;

      Like a boom box on a beach? (Alas, Aliteration this Ain't.) How is blasting your tunes to anyone who passes by not "further transmitted to the public," unless they're talking about radio or cabled transmission only...?

    7. Re:What about radios, etc? by bipbop · · Score: 1

      Oh god, that is the worst abuse of the word "transmitted" I've seen in the last twenty minutes. Um. Is the law seriously interpreted that way? That's twisted, if so.

    8. Re:What about radios, etc? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So then why does ASCAP hit up small restaurant owners who bring a radio from home and play it at work?

    9. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law is invariably "seriously interpreted" in the most absurd way eventually, regardless of intent. That's why you should try to avoid writing them at all.

    10. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their situation is no different. The law doesn't distinguish between a business playing the radio and any other person playing the radio

      Sure it does, beyond a certain point. At the low end of the spectrum, there's no need to make such a distinction, because all parties are exempt who follow the rules.

      Offtopic and a little trollish: This lack of distinction at the low end actually got the U.S. in a bit of trouble at the WTO. It seems that the European Communities (along with Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Switzerland) didn't think that an outright "homestyle" exemption was allowed under existing trade agreements, so they complained.

      The United States lost.

      Rather than changing the law (which Congress doesn't want to do), the United States agreed to make a lump-sum payment for a European performing rights society (see the 26 June 2003 Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement) and make a bunch of pointless reports that all say something like "The US Administration will work closely with the US Congress and will continue to confer with the European Communities in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter."

      So why is the U.S. government willing to shell out money and waste time so that small businesses can play music royalty-free, but makes it possible for copyright owners to sue file sharers for $750 to $150,000 per song? Maybe it is because the small business owners ask more nicely.

    11. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the hypothetical boom-box situation then the music is being further transmitted (as sounds waves in the air) to the public. Ergo,

      No. Further transmission is retransmission, as defined in section 101 and clarified in the committee notes. "Sound waves" in the air are not transmissions; a loudspeaker is not a transmitter.

      This is further clarified by Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, and Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151.

      Please stop with the outlandish displays of ignorance.

    12. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Offtopic and a little trollish: This lack of distinction at the low end actually got the U.S. in a bit of trouble at the WTO

      No, not strictly true. If you read the WTO decision, 110(5)(A), the section I quoted, was upheld as a valid exception to the Berne/TRIPS Art. 11 rights.

      110(5)(B), which is the more complex exception passed by the small business lobby and the expanded codification of the Aiken rule, was the portion that the US lost. This is all found in the WTO Panel Report, DS/160/R.

      Rather than changing the law (which Congress doesn't want to do), the United States agreed to make a lump-sum payment

      No, the terms of the settlement do indeed require the United States to change its domestic law to comply with its international obligations. The US to date has not done so.

      Maybe it is because the small business owners ask more nicely.

      It's because the small business lobby isn't deluded and scattered into shooting themselves in the foot left and right. The progressive copyright lobby groups exist, but they do not support complete abolition, and Slashdot's membership does its very best to torpedo every proposed change and submitted bill for reform, including proposals for personal use exemptions, revised statutory damages for P2P infringements, and statutory codification of LOC exemptions. In that respect, the RIAA/MPAA and Slashdot are a united front.

    13. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 2

      No. Further transmission is retransmission, as defined in section 101 and clarified in the committee notes. "Sound waves" in the air are not transmissions; a loudspeaker is not a transmitter.

      All right, then why are businesses hounded for playing the radio for their customers? Those businesses aren't making a "direct charge" to see or hear the transmission.

      Please stop with the outlandish displays of ignorance.

      If we're ignorant, then how about enlightening us instead of just calling names?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    14. Re:What about radios, etc? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      ASCAP just wants money from the carrier's commercial ringtone sales. It's got nothing to do with anything else.

      Not true, it also has to do with an odd mindset where one talks with one's lawyers before talking to one's brain.

    15. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the RIAA has done it yet, but people HAVE been sued over this exact issue. The Performing Rights Society sued a garage in the UK over their music playing loud enough that customers could hear it and claimed that made it a public performance. and the judge didn't just throw it out laughing

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

    16. Re:What about radios, etc? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually Yes you do.

      ASCAP and BMI both firmly believe that short of listening on headphones or at a low volume in a soundproof room you OWE THEM money...

      Anyone that has ever dealt with those terrorists knows how big of scumbags they really are.

      If they get a snif of you, they can easily outspend you in court. They effectively are the BSA of the music world. they only exist to extort money out of people.

      90% of the mobile DJ services in the USA are operating "ILLEGALLY" as far as ascap and bmi are concerned. You have to pay a performance fee for every use of every track, or buy a blanket license (which is what they always push) for the far more affordable $10,000 a year price for a fricking small time local party DJ.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, based on prior public use of air wave transmissions in public places, aka radio. This practice is also supported by movies and newscasts where a 'boom box is used in public and starts festival like dancing by the people nearby. Ok, sentence one of my statement can be used in court no problem, sentence two, well it is stretching it a bit, but could be argued by a decent lawyer that it is allowed because the entertainment industry showed us by example to play our music loudly to create a festive mood.

    18. Re:What about radios, etc? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Random assholes will exploit any situation to the maximum detriment of the innocent. That is what makes them assholes.

    19. Re:What about radios, etc? by gv250 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please stop with the outlandish displays of ignorance.

      Ewe muss bee gnu hear.

    20. Re:What about radios, etc? by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      In the UK, most record labels have an arrangement with the organisation PRS, granting it power to legally pursue people who 'perform' the licensed music in a public setting. (This power comes from UK copyright law, not from some PRS self-derived magic mojo.) For businesses, this allows them to pay a single orgnaisation a single fee for a great deal of licensed content (a good thing if one considers the current state of copyright and performance licensing to be apt). For everyone else, they have kind of become a bogeyman who goes after anybody that performs 'any song ever', as most 'modern' music would be associated with PRS. Of course, they don't have any powers to pursue people who perform songs that aren't licensed to PRS. For example, if you wrote a song yourself. There's no reason why they would have any sort of power related to that song; they have no relationship with you. Same goes for most of the songs you see on Newgrounds, as another example. As far as I know, most of the folks on Newgrounds release their content under CC while retain full rights for themselves.* A lot of people don't know this though. PRS website: http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/default.aspx * Although, God knows what Newgrounds attempts to appropriate in their sign-up terms.

    21. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All right, then why are businesses hounded for playing the radio for their customers?

      Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?

      This kind of synthesized proposition is meaningless because the question and the response will inevitably be about different things. You're referring, I assume, to anecdotal reports of over-aggressive conduct by collection societies. That's par for the course in the business world, end to end, whether copyright is involved or not.

      If we're ignorant, then how about enlightening us instead of just calling names?

      How about not making statements you have no authority to make, and presenting them as fact? How about not asserting challenges alleging an "inconsistency" without possession of the requisite knowledge to establish it? Pose responses in the form of a question if you don't know what you're talking about.

      Making it look like your arguments are factual and supported by reality when they are not is simply ignorant.

      The assertion that a loudspeaker is a transmitter is expressly rejected by law and practice. Moreover, it would give the entire statutory section a scope of exactly zero. There is no other word than "ignorant" to describe a person making such a flatly fallacious assertion. Stumbling over oneself to issue a correction or an argumentative challenge, when the information they pose is both incorrect and nonsensical, is a disservice to knowledge. You want enlightenment? Learn to seek it constructively.

      If you consider being called ignorant when you make such a grand display of it to be "being called a name", that's your issue, but coming from someone whose discourse regularly includes the word 'fucking', I place little weight on comments of tone and etiquette. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. It can only be an insult to someone who purports to have that knowledge in the first place, when it is clear s/he does not.

    22. Re:What about radios, etc? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The word "transmitted" has a very specific meaning in the Copyright Act, and this isn't it.

      From USC Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 101:

      To "transmit" a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re:What about radios, etc? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Businesses fall into the "except as described in (B)" exception, which explicitly removes that exemption for certain commercial businesses.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    24. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?

      From ASCAP:

      8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

      Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment.

      Perhaps I was mistaken and should've referred to recordings instead of the radio. The page describes exemptions, but they only apply to radio and TV broadcasts, and only to certain businesses and speaker setups: you still need a license if your business covers 3750+ sq ft and has more than 6 speakers, for instance.

      How about not asserting challenges alleging an "inconsistency" without possession of the requisite knowledge to establish it?

      How about not lying by omission by ignoring the licensing requirements for music recordings and the size- and speaker-count-based exceptions to the radio and TV exemptions?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    25. Re:What about radios, etc? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Where can I read these "committee notes"? Any place online?

      Also since you seem fairly informed on this topic, besides reading through Title 17 what else should I read to get a more solid understanding of copyright law? (e.g. top 50 copyright cases)

    26. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The assertion that a loudspeaker is a transmitter is expressly rejected by law and practice."

      Maybe so, but this just illustrates how silly this entire exercise has become, this portion of the copyright law in particular.

      Of course a loudspeaker is a transmitter. The loudspeaker receives an electrical signal and retransmits it on a different set of frequencies. How is this any different from a radio station sending the same signal into an antenna? Is it different because you can't hear the latter? Please.

      I realize you're just posting with your attitude because you are more 'qualified' to interpret the law - or at least think so - than everyone else. I'd like to assert that this is part of the problem the rest of us are so irritated about - in this case especially, the law has taken obvious fact and reclassified it in some non-obvious arbitrary way. What's been gained? The establishment of some group of mealy-mouthed assholes to lord it over the rest of us ignoramuses.

      The fact that there can even be disagreement over what the law means is enough for me to want to ignore it.

      And yes, I posted as AC. There is no LB (lazy bastard) option.

    27. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps I was mistaken and should've referred to recordings instead of the radio.

      Yes, you were. There are different rules for prerecorded sources.

      How about not lying by omission by ignoring the licensing requirements for music recordings and the size- and speaker-count-based exceptions to the radio and TV exemptions?

      And there you go again!

      The square footage and equipment limitations are not for 110(5)(A). The requirements for 110(5)(A), the radio on the beach, are, as listed, a single receiving apparatus of the kind commonly used in private homes. The limitation is the number of receiving apparatuses: one. There is no square footage requirement at all. It is neither a lie nor an omission.

      The square footage requirements are for 110(5)(B) use, which are entities not using a single receiving apparatus of the kind commonly used in private homes. These are bars, restaurants, gas stations, etc. with multi-room, multi-speaker setups, walls of televisions and so on. They are subject to size and equipment limitations if they are claiming the free exemption. If they have more speakers, more displays, or larger displays, then they have to arrange for an express license.

      At this point, your displays of ignorance have reached comic levels. You didn't even bother to read, let alone think, before you came back, once again, with your baseless, argumentative, ignorant assertions. It's astounding.

    28. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      My parents' restaurant was approached by BMI last year (BMI represents the artists that ASCAP doesn't).

      They were told we have karaoke 1 night a week so they sent us in a nice form to fill out asking if we have hold music, how many radios we have in the establishment, how many nights of karaoke we have, if we play any "music channels" like MTV/CMT/GAC/etc, if we have bands at any time and if we ever charge a cover charge, do we have a jukebox and is it covered by the JLO (yet another music licensing organization). Each one of those things was were so much to them (from 25 cents a seat to a % of the cover charge). Since we only did karaoke 1 night a week their little worksheet informed me that that was worth $35.00 (35 cents for 100 seats allowed by the fire marshall). However, their MINIMUM license fee was ~$400.

      They started calling me 3x a day for a week straight. They were suspicious that our hours were different from theirs (we do dinners from 4-10pm EST) and they started hammering me with all sorts of questions about our radios. They thought it was odd that we stopped pplaying radio in our place after we lost the 6th one to lightening (we live in what is often called the Lightening Capital of the World here in FL). I asked how they could charge us for listening to a radio music that the radio station already paid to play and they told me that NOT ONLY is it considered a 'public performance' but also if *ANYONE* could hear a radio in the kitchen it would be a SEPARATE license--yes, that includes the cooks/dishwasher. At that moment the CSR got rather snotty when I laughed over the phone asking "What would be the point of playing a radio no one could hear?"

      Long story short: we still had to pay the $400 for a license that they, themselves, admitted to only being worth $35 to them. Ironically, we got a 10% discount for paying it all at once (meaning our discount was more than the whole thing was worth to them)

    29. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? If you ask for a catalog of transmitters, you expect to see speakers in that catalog? Common sense and usage disagrees with you.

      The only thing that's absurd is walking into a room of non-theoretical scientists and calling a speaker a transmitter. Everyone who works in radio and television would give you rather strange looks.

      The dictionary shows normal usage:
      Radio. a device for sending electromagnetic waves; the part of a broadcasting apparatus that generates and modulates the radiofrequency current and conveys it to the antenna.
      3. the part of a telephonic or telegraphic apparatus that converts sound waves or mechanical movements into corresponding electric waves or impulses.

      That's not a speaker.

    30. Re:What about radios, etc? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Its always been that way if people can hear your stereo, just never is enforced.

      Technically, if you have friends over for a party and bring out your CD's, its a violation too. The radio might be ok in that situation tho, not sure.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    31. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      The square footage requirements are for 110(5)(B) use, which are entities not using a single receiving apparatus of the kind commonly used in private homes. These are bars, restaurants, gas stations, etc. with multi-room, multi-speaker setups, walls of televisions and so on. They are subject to size and equipment limitations if they are claiming the free exemption.

      Yes, that's what I said: businesses are, in some cases, required to pay for a license to play music for their customers, even when they're only playing the radio. Thanks for confirming it.

      At this point, your displays of ignorance have reached comic levels.

      Wow. That's quite a statement, coming from someone who thinks the existence of copyright is the only reason software companies haven't developed "software that wrote other software" and made human programmers obsolete, and that it's impossible to contract someone to perform labor unless that labor results in a salable product.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    32. Re:What about radios, etc? by fredklein · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?

      http://www.opuzz.com/2007/08/ascap-initiates-lawsuit-for-playing.html

      "Are you a business owner or manager? Are you aware it is illegal to play copyrighted music on the premises (for example, music on hold, in-store music) without a music license?"
      "Last week in Seattle two dozen venues were cited in a lawsuit by ASCAP for failing to properly license their music. "

      http://www.ascap.com/press/2007/073107_infringement.html

      "New York, NY, July 30, 2007: The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) today announced that it has filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states.

      In each of the cases filed today, the business establishment has publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP's songwriter, composer and music publisher members without obtaining a license from ASCAP to do so."

      http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

      "8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

      Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment." ...
      "10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?

      Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner."

      etc.

    33. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what I said: businesses are, in some cases, required to pay for a license to play music for their customers, even when they're only playing the radio. Thanks for confirming it.

      A fact never disputed. What's your point?

      That's quite a statement, coming from someone who thinks the existence of copyright is the only reason software companies haven't developed "software that wrote other software" and made human programmers obsolete, and that it's impossible to contract someone to perform labor unless that labor results in a salable product.

      Ah, so in surrender you turn to straw men and fallacious ad hominems. It's disappointing, if not surprising, to see your ignorance spread to reading comprehension in general.

      Neither of your propositions are supported by the content of those links. Sensationalism, distortion, and distraction are just not viable responses. Sorry.

    34. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      All circumstances falling outside the scope of the exemption discussed here.

      Your first link cites no source, and is actually just marketing an alternative service, and your subsequent links deal with ASCAP overstatements dealing with circumstances outside the "radio on the beach" question originally posed.

      Find one in that pile that was using a single receiving apparatus, who was actually found to be legally obligated to pay ASCAP, and we'll talk.

    35. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if somebody sings along, THEN you have a problem.

    36. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so in surrender you turn to straw men and fallacious ad hominems.

      Nah, no strawmen or fallacies there, just your own statements preserved for public amusement. I will admit it's an ad hominem, but that's hardly inappropriate in response to your own. You want to talk about comic ignorance, well, now yours is on display.

      Neither of your propositions are supported by the content of those links. Sensationalism, distortion, and distraction are just not viable responses.

      Heh. Apparently denial is a viable response to embarrassing facts though, huh? "Move along, people! Nothing to see here!"

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    37. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      You want to talk about comic ignorance, well, now yours is on display.

      All that's on display is your foolish and juvenile personal ax to grind and a pervasive lack of knowledge and insight.

      I invite people to read those threads and see for themselves how your distortion and ignorance permeates through it all. Embarrassing facts? Hardly.

      Programmers wouldn't exist without copyright? "Impossible" to contract for labor without a salable product? Nonsense and fine examples of your intellectual dishonesty.

    38. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      You can find the house reports just by Googling for them, but any good statutory supplement intended for practitioners will have them compiled.

      If you want to understand copyright law, first be prepared for the fact that you can dig deeper into complexities than any sane person ever world. Second, I'd recommend picking up a used, older edition copyright casebook used in introductory law school courses (these can be found on Amazon for about $20). Copyright is an advanced elective in most law schools, so the editing will leave out a lot of the legal basics, but it's a valuable resource for a curious lay person. The fact that the cases and statutes are edited and presented in thematic units is much more helpful than anyone attempting to read past about section 108 of Title 17. Just beware throughout that you're probably making assumptions as you go along that may or may not be correct, since it won't be readily apparent to you which terms are legal terms of art, and it takes a good deal of practice in the field to get a real grasp on it. Most attorneys don't even know much about it--it's not tested on the Bar at all.

      "Journalistic" reports of copyright history are also a poor source of information, since they tend to be modern arguments advanced through the search for appropriate historical support, rather than an honest historical overview of copyright.

    39. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Programmers wouldn't exist without copyright?

      "Without IP, your company [...] would pay smarter and cheaper programmers in places with lower standards of living to do that work for it. They would have no obligation to you as an employee if they had no IP interests to protect. [...] What would you do if the companies, realizing that programmers still wanted to be paid for the time it took for them to write software, decided to develop software that wrote other software?" --mr_matticus

      "Impossible" to contract for labor without a salable product?

      "You stipulate that you want to be paid for your time--but you see, your time is only worthwhile if a controllable product is produced. If you can't control the product, you've got nothing to latch onto in a dispute." --mr_matticus

      Nonsense and fine examples of your intellectual dishonesty.

      Yes, I agree they were nonsense. But, since you wrote them, they can hardly be examples of my anything.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    40. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      "Without IP, your company [...] would pay smarter and cheaper programmers in places with lower standards of living to do that work for it. They would have no obligation to you as an employee if they had no IP interests to protect. [...] What would you do if the companies, realizing that programmers still wanted to be paid for the time it took for them to write software, decided to develop software that wrote other software?"

      Taken from a section about the pervasive foundational structure of IP in the export market and the reliance on US IP to minimize the trade deficit. It was a rhetorical question, and one that certainly does not stand for the proposition that the elimination of IPR necessarily leads to the elimination of programmers. The context is clear in your omissions:

      "Without IP, your company would not generate as much money, would not have as many employees, and would not pay those employees anywhere near what it does now. It would pay smarter and cheaper programmers in places with lower standards of living to do that work for it. They would have no obligation to you as an employee if they had no IP interests to protect. You'd also not have even gotten off the ground. How would you finance your education, and could you afford to work for next to nothing (and be paid after the fact) long enough to make a reputation where you might be lucky enough for someone to seek you out for a project every once in a while? Your only hope to have gainful employment would be if you could somehow prevent people from becoming as skilled as you. Those 6 billion people you currently don't compete with, thanks to your privileged status as an American with particular training? They'd be happy to do your job for half the price. Outsourcing is a great thing for consumers, but it's terrible for employees, so it has to be conducted in a balanced way."

      "You stipulate that you want to be paid for your time--but you see, your time is only worthwhile if a controllable product is produced. If you can't control the product, you've got nothing to latch onto in a dispute."

      And where does that say that no contract in no circumstance could ever exist for labor as a service? It doesn't. The discussion there posed a question involving a contract for a product, viz. a motion picture. It was not a general discussion about the law of contracts or labor without production. The intellectual dishonesty is plainly evident.

      You just can't have a discussion without resorting to trolling. Ever. I knew I recognized your UID from somewhere. It's just remarkable the lengths you'll go to when you can't win on substance. I'm truly tickled that you are so desperate as to resort to flamboyant context games and misstatements to distort and distract from the topic you've all but forgotten. The readers haven't.

    41. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      The context is clear in your omissions [...]

      Actually, all that extra context does is further illustrate your ignorance. Employers already look to hire the cheapest programmers they can, often from overseas. Copyright has nothing to do with outsourcing: a lack of copyright wouldn't make it any easier to hire cheap overseas programming labor, and certainly wouldn't make it any easier to write software that replaced human programmers.

      And where does that say that no contract in no circumstance could ever exist for labor as a service? It doesn't.

      Actually, it does, right between the opening quote mark and the closing quote mark. I'm sure you'll see it if you try reading the quote with your eyes open.

      In fact, you went on to say, "Time itself isn't worth anything; you can't sue someone for being deprived of time" -- that, of course, would mean that a contract for labor is invalid. Which it isn't.

      The discussion there posed a question involving a contract for a product, viz. a motion picture.

      Actually, no, it didn't. It involved a contract for labor, specifically for writing software. But since you've got an eye for context, you knew that already, right?

      It was not a general discussion about the law of contracts or labor without production.

      It was a discussion about a specific kind of labor without production.

      The intellectual dishonesty is plainly evident.

      I'll say!

      I'm truly tickled that you are so desperate as to resort to flamboyant context games and misstatements to distort and distract from the topic you've all but forgotten. The readers haven't.

      Well, one thing the readers will definitely never forget is how you've repeatedly embarrassed yourself. :)

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    42. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Actually, all that extra context does is further illustrate your ignorance. Employers already look to hire the cheapest programmers they can, often from overseas. Copyright has nothing to do with outsourcing: a lack of copyright wouldn't make it any easier to hire cheap overseas programming labor

      Wow. You're still not even reading. Copyright has a great deal to do with outsourcing; the question isn't whether it's easy to hire cheap overseas labor, but whether or not revenue can justify not doing so. But please don't let reality get in your way.

      "Time itself isn't worth anything; you can't sue someone for being deprived of time" -- that, of course, would mean that a contract for labor is invalid. Which it isn't.

      Time is not labor. Lost time has no value.

      A contract for labor is breached when the labor goes without reimbursement, not when the clock ticks by. Don't let that stop you.

      Actually, no, it didn't. It involved a contract for labor, specifically for writing software.

      You're correct, it was for the product of an image editor, not a motion picture. My mistake. It was, after all, two years ago. But by all means, keep going.

      It was a discussion about a specific kind of labor without production.

      A software product is a product. It was not labor without production. Oh, those pesky facts again.

      Well, one thing the readers will definitely never forget is how you've repeatedly embarrassed yourself.

      Notice how you still can't return to the topic? I still encourage people to read your invariable resort to trolling and distortion. Embarrassing, indeed.

    43. Re:What about radios, etc? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. According to ASCAP's own definition:

      A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

    44. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      A contract for labor is breached when the labor goes without reimbursement, not when the clock ticks by.

      So you've come around? When I said previously that a contract for programming labor could be enforced against someone who refused to pay for the labor, you said the person who performed the labor would have "nothing to latch onto in a dispute". Glad to see you've realized the error in that.

      A software product is a product. It was not labor without production.

      Oh dear, here you go again. I suppose you think mowing lawns isn't labor without production either because it results in a "mown lawn product"? I guess if all you know is products, it must be hard to wrap your mind around the concept of hiring someone to perform a service, like writing code or cutting grass -- but trust me, it's quite common.

      Notice how you still can't return to the topic?

      The topic of businesses being required to pay a license fee for playing music in public, even from radio or TV in many cases? I thought we were in agreement on that.

      I'm not disputing your legal cites. Apparently a person playing music on the beach with his own boom box is, in fact, in a different legal class than the businesses that are required to pay when they play the radio. My mistake.

      I still encourage people to read your invariable resort to trolling and distortion.

      I also encourage people to scour my posts for any hint of such things. And when they can't find it, I encourage them to read the rest of the thread I linked to -- the quotes I pulled aren't even close to the most ignorant or nonsensical things you said there.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    45. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      So you've come around? When I said previously that a contract for programming labor could be enforced against someone who refused to pay for the labor, you said the person who performed the labor would have "nothing to latch onto in a dispute". Glad to see you've realized the error in that.

      No. Just no.

      You said that you could contractually obligate a million individuals to pay $40 for an image editor, a product. But if you could not own the product, as you also proposed, you could not make such a contractual obligation. You did not offer a situation in which you were being hired for your services; you offered a scenario in which you promised to deliver a product. In said hypothetical, if you could not own the product, you could not enforce that contract, just as someone who doesn't own rights in the land can't enforce an action for trespass.

      How you jump from there to the grossly moronic "you said you can't ever contract for labor only" straw man is quite the contortionist mystery.

      I suppose you think mowing lawns isn't labor without production either because it results in a "mown lawn product"?

      More intellectual dishonesty, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's either that or you really are that stupid. Providing programming services is certainly possible, just as contracting for lawncare labor is possible. That's not the scenario you established, and it's not the case now.

      You can continue to distort and lie and grind your ax, but now I'm just bored with you.

    46. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're ignorant, then how about enlightening us instead of just calling names?

      I'll chime in: As a patent attorney, I can tell you it doesn't do a lick of good to explain anything here. Seriously, Slashdotters are so anti-IP it's like screaming into the wind for all the good it does. I've given up at this point. I imagine I can't be the only one.

    47. Re:What about radios, etc? by galaxia26 · · Score: 1

      I applaud your proper use of sentence structure and phrases outside the more common vernacular in constructing a sound and logical criticism of another's comment. It's very refreshing.

    48. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      As a patent attorney, I can tell you it doesn't do a lick of good to explain anything here. Seriously, Slashdotters are so anti-IP it's like screaming into the wind for all the good it does.

      Even people who disagree with the law can still understand it. "Know thy enemy" and all that.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    49. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You said that you could contractually obligate a million individuals to pay $40 for an image editor, a product.

      Perhaps that was how you misinterpreted it, but that isn't what I said.

      In context, with phrasing throughout the thread like "A programmer gets paid every time he writes code", "you've demanded that someone foot the bill (up front) for the entire cost of your services", and "your labor is utterly worthless" -- not to mention my harping on the idea that musicians and programmers should be paid for their labor, and the direct comparison in that very sentence with auto mechanics who charge for their labor -- it would've been impossible for you, in good faith, to interpret the contract bit as referring to products rather than labor.

      You can continue to distort and lie and grind your ax

      Yes, try to paint me as the one who's been distorting and lying. Maybe you'll manage to fool someone one of these days. Good luck with that. :)

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    50. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      So you now assert that, in that hypothetical, you would enter into one million contracts, agreeing to provide $40 worth of labor to each Offeree? That's your retcon? I don't think you're being honest with yourself, let alone the rest of the world. It's quite plain what you said, and it had nothing to do with contracting for labor. You simply didn't understand the implications of your own statements. You were attempting, through either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance, to "correct" an assertion that you'd need to raise $40M in private money to pay for a $40M project--a serious problem, because of the substantial financial and legal risk that any entity, whether a wealthy individual or a group of investors, would assume. If you truly believed you'd be contracting for the project in that scenario, you wouldn't have needed to correct anything, but you rejected the $40M labor and services contract and said you could "obligate" one million people to pay $40 each for the image editor.

      Nobody would enter into an agreement for $40 of labor toward a $40M product. All that consideration would support would be a snippet of code (that again, your hypothetical also denies proprietary interest in, and thus would not be enforceable). They'd enter into a $40 agreement for access to the product, though.

      The point you failed to grasp two years ago is that you can't enter into one million, $40 contracts unless you are providing one million discrete things, be they products or services, chairs or mowed lawns. What you'd actually be doing in that situation is not entering into one million, $40 contracts, but rather ONE $40 million contract to provide ONE complete product to one million users, and the Offeree would comprise a class party comprised of those one million people. But then as now, you were too busy being contrary and dishonest to think. You thought you were offering a clever counterargument to the need to execute a $40M contract to pay for a $40M project, but instead you just failed to understand how contracts work. There is no theory of obligation to selling a divided whole without first owning the whole. You can't contract with individuals for undefined sums of money and undefined returns. You can contract with a collective entity of individuals, who are all taking a share in the total cost--but you rejected the latter approach in favor of the fallacious former.You didn't frame your hypothetical correctly. You didn't understand the consequences of your error. You came back two years later on an unrelated matter and distorted the exchange in a sad attempt at an ad hominem because you couldn't deal with yet another defeat on your showing of copyright ignorance. You can't bring yourself to stop whining and move on because it's personal for you. Get over it.

      One could certainly offer your services as a programmer outside of a product offer, such as agreeing to clean up clutter, doing some updates or bug fixing, or even just being placed on retainer for odd jobs. That's not at all the same scenario, though, as trying to get a court to grant a remedy on a contract to provide a new, finished product in a fictionalized world where proprietary interests in intellectual works is actively banned. Moreover, how would you even prove your performance of $40 of labor for that person? As soon as the project were completed, everyone in the world would have the right of access, whether they contributed or not. You'd have no power to demand payment; you can't contract to sell what isn't legal to sell. If on the other hand you were permitted in such a world to contractually limit access rights just to those who have contributed (or to grant them more rights based on that fact), what you'd have just done is recreate copyright, except without the limitations of statutory copyright you'd abolished. An Offeror's power is significantly broader without

    51. Re:What about radios, etc? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      When you speak to me sounds are sent from your vocal apparatus (a biological device suitable for copyright infringement ;0) via the process of compression and rarefaction of the air to my receiving means (ears) potentially transferring (ie communicating) information.

      The law is a wonderful thing. I'll accept your reading of 17 USC, but the UK situation is contrary.

      I think the UK code mentions something about being commercial. For example if staff listen to a walkman at work then they're allowed by The PRS, however if they share a walkman ("hey listen to this") then The PRS (majority collection company) demand a license fee. This is certainly how rights holders in the UK act out the law here.

    52. Re:What about radios, etc? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      So if somebody sings along, THEN you have a problem.

      Lol, hadn't thought of that one ... they have censorship on Big Brother (a "reality" TV show) where is a housemate sings they have to blank it out or pay a licensing fee.

    53. Re:What about radios, etc? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Wanna bet? Too many vague words there, they can go after you if they want. ( ie, never enforced )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    54. Re:What about radios, etc? by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Give it up. You've been completely pwned. Quite moving the goal posts.

    55. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

      ASCAP files suit agains the Boy Scounts and Girl Scouts.

      ""They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary." "

      Songs on the list include "God Bless America" and "This Land is Your Land".

      DIAF, ASCAP!

    56. Re:What about radios, etc? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Find one in that pile that was using a single receiving apparatus, who was actually found to be legally obligated to pay ASCAP, and we'll talk.

      But that's the point - who has the money to take ASCAP to court? When ASCAP comes calling and makes a claim that I owe them $400, I compare that with the minimum that it is likely to cost me to talk to a lawyer - $2k to $5k. It is disingenuous to argue that there has been no legal test of the ASCAP claims, when no one has the money/time to actually test them.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    57. Re:What about radios, etc? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Funny, I see a lot more slashdotters calling for revised IP laws, but still generally in support of IP, than I do patent attorneys admitting the system is completely broken and counter-productive.

    58. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop with the outlandish displays of ignorance.

      oblig: You must be new around here.....

    59. Re:What about radios, etc? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      At this point, your displays of ignorance have reached comic levels.

      But at the same time, you come across as being as much of an asshole as Jack Thompson.

    60. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said, sir!

    61. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      It's quite plain what you said, and it had nothing to do with contracting for labor.

      Again, the original text is right there for everyone to see. You're not doing yourself any favors by lying when the evidence of your lie is so readily available.

      The point you failed to grasp two years ago is that you can't enter into one million, $40 contracts unless you are providing one million discrete things, be they products or services, chairs or mowed lawns. What you'd actually be doing in that situation is not entering into one million, $40 contracts, but rather ONE $40 million contract to provide ONE complete product to one million users, and the Offeree would comprise a class party comprised of those one million people.

      And if some of those million people refused to pay? They'd be in violation of the contract, yes?

      BTW, you misspelled "ONE complete service".

      You can contract with a collective entity of individuals, who are all taking a share in the total cost--but you rejected the latter approach in favor of the fallacious former.

      Actually, I didn't. What I wrote was "as long as I have a binding agreement with everyone who promises to pay". If there's one interpretation that makes sense, and another that does not, it's hardly my fault when you choose the one that doesn't make sense. Nor is it a sign that you're participating with honesty and good faith.

      You didn't frame your hypothetical correctly.

      Even if that were the case, knowing my intent then as you did now, you could've corrected it and posed a reasonable counterargument. "You can't have a million contracts; you can have one big contract, but here's why that won't work..."

      But instead, you chose to put your foot in your mouth by claiming a contract for programming services couldn't be enforced because there was no controllable product.

      In fact, you didn't even mention this supposed fault at the time, you just steamed ahead with that "you can't sue someone for depriving you of your time" load. You seem to have made this quibble up just now to excuse your nonsensical response back then. That's a retcon.

      You came back two years later on an unrelated matter and distorted the exchange in a sad attempt at an ad hominem

      I was just pointing out that you're in no position to talk about anyone else's "comic levels of ignorance". Maybe I was wrong, maybe the mr_matticus of two years ago has left and been replaced by someone a little more credible... but so far that doesn't appear to be the case.

      Moreover, how would you even prove your performance of $40 of labor for that person?

      1. Their signature is on a contract for me to perform the labor.
      2. I performed the labor.
      3. Proof!

      As soon as the project were completed, everyone in the world would have the right of access, whether they contributed or not. You'd have no power to demand payment; you can't contract to sell what isn't legal to sell.

      See, here you go again. We both know the contract is for labor, and I thought we both agreed labor is legal to sell, but apparently you've changed your mind yet again. (Could it be that I'm just so persuasive that I caused your beliefs to wrap around to the other end of the spectrum?)

      There's just no way to save your foolish exercise in selective quotes, straw mans, and false attribution

      And yet you keep trying to save your own false attributions. Hmm.

      The thread stands on its own; anyone can go back and see exactly what was said and by whom. Frankly, I think I might've been doing you a favor by not quoting the other bits of your posts.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    62. Re:What about radios, etc? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If you're a patent attorney, the current system is productive.

    63. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Again, the original text is right there for everyone to see.

      Yes, it is. You rejected the $40M contract in favor of one million $40 contracts. If that was for labor, as you suggest, the legal meaning of that would obligate you to perform $40 of labor for each individual person. As with copyright, your level of ignorance simply blinds you to that.

      And if some of those million people refused to pay? They'd be in violation of the contract, yes?

      If you hadn't mis-corrected and created one million separate contracts, yes. But since you claim to have one million separate contracts, no. Those contracts would be unenforceable.

      BTW, you misspelled "ONE complete service".

      The difference between a service and a product is that a product is a creation that stands alone. A book is a product; writing the book is a service.

      Actually, I didn't. What I wrote was "as long as I have a binding agreement with everyone who promises to pay". If there's one interpretation that makes sense, and another that does not, it's hardly my fault when you choose the one that doesn't make sense.

      But the point, then as now, is that you can't have one million binding agreements for one-millionth of an image editor. It's the fact that you explicitly rejected the overall service contract (the interpretation that makes sense) in order to pose a nonsensical one that is at issue.

      One cannot simply ignore your counterargument because it makes no sense, unless you're admitting that you had no clue what you were talking about and were flat-out wrong.

      In fact, you didn't even mention this supposed fault at the time, you just steamed ahead with that "you can't sue someone for depriving you of your time" load.

      That would qualify as "mentioning" it. You could not, in that scenario, sue someone for depriving you of your time.

      1. Their signature is on a contract for me to perform the labor.
      2. I performed the labor.

      Their signature is on a contract for you to provide a $40 share of a $40M project. You can't own the project. The contract is enforceable. You can sign whatever you want, but you can't have an enforceable contract for something that is illegal.

      Again, you insisted on having one million contracts. You're the one that introduced the nonsensical interpretation, and now you're insisting that I should have ignored it because CLEARLY you weren't really disagreeing with me if your interpretation made no sense.

      Sooner or later, you will have to move on with your sad life. Your loss is compounded at each turn, and it's obvious that you have absolutely nothing to gain by returning here time after time to troll.

    64. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      But that's the point - who has the money to take ASCAP to court?

      That presumes ASCAP would actually follow through, which it never has in cases where the exception clearly applies. It goes for maximum PR value and a non-zero chance of victory. Threats of legal action are not legal action.

      It is disingenuous to argue that there has been no legal test of the ASCAP claims

      That is incorrect. There has been a test, and they've lost. There's 30 years of case law for it.

      There's a reason why they demand $400, and it's because they know people are likely to cave if they don't know what they're doing. The price is set like any other business--high enough to generate revenue and low enough to be less costly than potential alternatives. It's why printer ink costs just about as much as a new printer and why electric razor heads cost about half to one-third as much as a new razor body. It's called free market capitalism, and these are the consequences, good and bad.

      If you're playing the radio on one stereo you bought at Best Buy in your restaurant, ASCAP (a) probably wouldn't even demand a license of you and (b) you could tell them to buzz off.

      Karaoke isn't the radio, though, and unless you're using Comcast's karaoke channel, it's not a broadcast, so the exemption does not apply. The source of your karaoke recordings should be properly licensed for public performance if you're using it to draw business, but that's a wholly different can of worms and has little to do with the homestyle and small business exemptions being discussed here.

    65. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean if I have a radio with speakers in a public place I need to pay some kind of fee? I know that businesses which have radios that their customers can hear pay a license fee, but what about people, say, on the beach listening to a boom box? If they don't have to pay a fee, why should people with cell phones or their providers pay a public performance fee?

      Technically speaking, yes you would be required to have a public performance license to play it in such situations.

    66. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right, then why are businesses hounded for playing the radio for their customers? Those businesses aren't making a "direct charge" to see or hear the transmission.

      This is why there is a debate.

      1. Playing music, video etc. to a public audience requires (usually) a special license.

      2. "In Public" is generally defined as:
      a) Any "public" place, especially a bar, theatre, business office, or any structure that is open to the public, parks, beaches, etc.
      b) A "private" place like a home, private club, church, etc. if the number of people exceeds a "family" or "personal" gathering size. Most places use local ordinances to determine this number- for example in my town any gathering of 20 or more people can technically be called a "party" under city ordinance.

      3. There are exemptions for small devices, like headphones, small radios, and other devices that are obviously not intended (or well-suited) for a public performance.

      So right there you have several points of contention. And that doesn't even address something like an ipod that can be plugged into a larger system.

      Most of the time this is how these types of things play out.
      1. If it happens in an area that is either a business location, a normal public spot like a theatre or some place like the school football field (during gametime) then it'll be treated as a violation, pretty much cut & dried.

      2. If it happens in a private location (without a large party happening), or in a public spot with a small number of people, like a family gathering at a park, the beach, etc. then it'll probably be dismissed or fall under personal use.

      3. If the person is obviously doing it to provide the media for a large group of people, in any situation, it's also pretty much a done deal he's in trouble.

      All right, then why are businesses hounded for playing the radio for their customers? Those businesses aren't making a "direct charge" to see or hear the transmission.

      True, but they are providing a public performance- and are actually benefitting from the music indirectly, through increased sales. And if you think that's not true, see how long you can keep a bar full of people happy with no music and no TV. I can say as a former bartender, it's not going to be very long.

      If we're ignorant, then how about enlightening us instead of just calling names?

      Further transmission is retransmission, as defined in section 101 and clarified in the committee notes. "Sound waves" in the air are not transmissions; a loudspeaker is not a transmitter.

      Not only did he just educate you, but did so with a reference that will allow you to educate yourself further. I suggest you do so before posting again, as all your points have actually been answered multiple times already.

    67. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      It's the fact that you explicitly rejected the overall service contract (the interpretation that makes sense) in order to pose a nonsensical one that is at issue.

      Again, this is a distortion of what was actually said. I really don't know why you're persisting at this, when anyone can read the original thread and see how it really went. You have balls, I'll give you that, but in an era when the truth is only a click away, I'm afraid balls aren't enough.

      You wrote, "I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC. I'll pay $40, though, and so will a million of my friends", I responded, "it isn't necessary to charge individuals the full price. I don't need $40 million from you, it'll work just as well to collect $40 from you and a million other people", and the discussion of contracting for programming labor proceeded from there. What I rejected was the prospect of charging one person $40 million, in favor of charging one million people $40 each.

      There's a sensible interpretation of that, and a nonsensical interpretation. You chose the nonsensical one, in keeping with your pattern of intellectual dishonesty.

      Again, you insisted on having one million contracts.

      Nope. This isn't just a strawman, it's an outright lie: you're not merely arguing against points I never raised, hoping that readers won't notice the switch; you're explicitly attributing statements to me that I never made. Again, this tactic has no chance of success when the original thread is preserved for all to see.

      Your loss is compounded at each turn, and it's obvious that you have absolutely nothing to gain by returning here time after time to troll.

      I wouldn't gain anything by trolling, that's true. But I do gain something by exposing your dishonesty, and so does every other Slashdotter.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    68. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      True, but they are providing a public performance- and are actually benefitting from the music indirectly, through increased sales. And if you think that's not true, see how long you can keep a bar full of people happy with no music and no TV. I can say as a former bartender, it's not going to be very long.

      The law doesn't require you to get permission whenever you benefit from music indirectly. It does require you to get permission for a public performance, in some cases but not others. Some businesses are exempt, depending on what kind of business, how large it is, and how many speakers are installed.

      I realize that I was wrong when I equated a boom box on the beach with a business playing the radio, but the situation isn't as simple as he made it out to be either. Many business are required to get a license to play the radio, and all businesses must get a license to play recorded music.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    69. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      You wrote, "I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC. I'll pay $40, though, and so will a million of my friends", I responded, "it isn't necessary to charge individuals the full price. I don't need $40 million from you, it'll work just as well to collect $40 from you and a million other people", and the discussion of contracting for programming labor proceeded from there. What I rejected was the prospect of charging one person $40 million, in favor of charging one million people $40 each.

      You still remain ignorant of the issue.

      What you rejected was an argument no one was making. Whether one person or one million people is the entity signing the contract, it is ONE CONTRACT. If one million people are entering into $40 contracts with you, you don't have a recovery action against them in your hypothetical world, because what you are selling is illegal. The concept is joint and several liability. You would need that $40M check from me--whether it was me as a wealthy individual or me as a class of one million investors. You could not as you suggested then and idiotically maintain now, individually obligate one million people in $40 contracts.

      What I rejected was the prospect of charging one person $40 million, in favor of charging one million people $40 each.

      AND THAT IS UNENFORCEABLE AND NONSENSICAL. You're pretending that it makes perfect sense, but it does not. If you are charging one million people $40 each, you are obligated to produce for them either $40 of labor (nonsensical; no one is interested in contracting for $40 of labor toward a $40M project) or a $40 product (nonsensical by internal conceit: you banned ownership of intellectual products in the hypothetical).

      There simply is no way to reconcile the fact that in neither case are you accomplishing what you thought you were accomplishing. The mistake was unfortunate enough then, but your ignorance and blind rage is so debilitating now that you felt the need to try it again on a completely unrelated discussion in which you pretend to seek enlightenment, but instead simply hope to smear.

      You didn't have the requisite knowledge to do so then, and you don't now.

      Nope. This isn't just a strawman, it's an outright lie: you're not merely arguing against points I never raised, hoping that readers won't notice the switch; you're explicitly attributing statements to me that I never made

      And I quote, from your very same post: "What I rejected was the prospect of charging one person $40 million, in favor of charging one million people $40 each."

      That, whether you are too stupid or too dishonest to recognize, is one million, $40 contracts. You can't charge "each" person without a separate contract. There is no other interpretation. That you did not then or now know what you were saying is not my mistake, but your ongoing ignorance. No, the proposal you meant to advance was ONE $40M contract with ONE party, a collective party of one million. But in order to make that proposal, you would have to drop your asinine counterargument posture, which you are unwilling to do because you're just that rabid.

      It's not dishonesty. It's just more of your ignorance of the substance and mechanics of the law. There isn't a choice between a sensical and a nonsensical interpretation. You only presented a nonsensical interpretation. Whether you intended it to make sense or not is irrelevant to whether it was legally, logically, and semantically valid.

      You could not, in your hypothetical, individually obligate one million people to pay one-millionth of your labor costs. And yet here you are, continuing to insist on it, without purpose or topical relevance. The only way out for you is to admit that either you were wrong to propose that nonsensical counterargument then, or you're intentionally distorting it now because of your sad and personal vendetta.

      For the love of Aisha, shut up. You could scarcely dig your hole any deeper.

    70. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You would need that $40M check from me--whether it was me as a wealthy individual or me as a class of one million investors.

      When you wrote "I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC. I'll pay $40, though, and so will a million of my friends", you were speaking as an individual, not as a class of one million people. Classes of one million people do not have friends, nor do they post on Slashdot; individuals do. Nice try, though.

      For the record, I would be happy to accept a $40 million check funded by one million people each contributing $40. That's not what I was rejecting, which is clear from context.

      No, the proposal you meant to advance was ONE $40M contract with ONE party, a collective party of one million.

      Funny how my meaning is so obvious now, even though you couldn't grasp it at the time.

      [...] you're just that rabid.

      ...says the guy who has resorted to lying and name calling. Uh-huh.

      Honestly, take a deep breath and read your post again. Then think about which one of us is "rabid" or in a "blind rage". I realize copyright is (was?) the source of your livelihood; maybe I should give you a break if this is such an emotional issue for you.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    71. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      When you wrote "I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC. I'll pay $40, though, and so will a million of my friends", you were speaking as an individual, not as a class of one million people.

      I was also speaking about paying for a product, which is what you've been whining about until you found yourself cornered. Now it suits you to ignore that as well. Nice try indeed.

      For the record, I would be happy to accept a $40 million check funded by one million people each contributing $40. That's not what I was rejecting, which is clear from context.

      Sorry, but it isn't. What's clear is that you expected to individually collect $40 from each user, as you've said several times not only then, but now.

      I'll quote again: ""What I rejected was the prospect of charging one person $40 million, in favor of charging one million people $40 each."

      In your hypothetical, the $40 obligation isn't to you as you insist time after time. The $40 obligation is to each other. Your contract is one, $40 million contract, liable to the Offeree, whether that party is an individual or a group of individuals. They are joint and severally liable (or, depending on the contract, some other style of collective liability) for the whole $40M.

      They're not agreeing to pay you $40, they are agreeing to be one of one million people paying you $40M. You are not providing $40 of labor and services to them individually; you are providing $40M of labor and services to them and a million of their peers collectively as a single entity. They are not individually obligated to you for $40, because you can't create divided shares in an entity that cannot exist.

      Funny how my meaning is so obvious now, even though you couldn't grasp it at the time.

      I did grasp it at the time. It originated from me, with the implication that that model is untenable in most cases.

      Before that discussion was likewise derailed with your clever distractions, is that people are hesitant to enter into such arrangements, which is why that development model isn't widely used today, even though it could and does exist without the abolition of copyright. Most open source business models don't and would not elect to use it, either, preferring to use the copyright on the entirety of the work to create "shareholders" in the product and thus individually obligate them in a fashion that would not be possible absent copyright.

      n your hypothetical, the $40 obligation isn't to you as you insist time after time. The $40 obligation is to each other. Your contract is one, $40 million contract, liable to the Offeree, whether that party is an individual or a group of individuals. They are joint and severally liable (or, depending on the contract, some other style of collective liability) for the whole $40M.

      They're not agreeing to pay you $40, they are agreeing to be one of one million people paying you $40M. You are not providing $40 of labor and services to them individually; you are providing $40M of labor and services to them and a million of their peers collectively as a single entity. They are not individually obligated to you for $40, because you can't create divided shares in an entity that cannot exist.

      You can't pretend your context was anything other than individual obligation and a rejection of a lump sum payment. It is absolutely true that I offered it in that scenario as myself individually refusing to pay $40M for a product, but it is also true that the conversation moved away from that point before you even began to grasp that it doesn't matter whether the "I" in that context was individual or collective--private citizens, whether individually or in groups, are generally unwilling to take on that sort of obligation.

      Honestly, t

    72. Re:What about radios, etc? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      I was also speaking about paying for a product, which is what you've been whining about until you found yourself cornered.

      Come on, I've seen you do better than that. You've refuted yourself simply by repeating the quote: "I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC".

      In English, "to create" is a verb, not a noun: an action, not a thing. Paying someone to create an image editor is paying for a service, not a product. As, again, was clear from context: "paid for writing code", talk of "labor" and "time", etc.

      You are not providing $40 of labor and services to them individually; you are providing $40M of labor and services to them and a million of their peers collectively as a single entity. They are not individually obligated to you for $40, because you can't create divided shares in an entity that cannot exist.

      As the person performing the labor, that's hardly my concern. I have a binding agreement to do work in exchange for money; that's what matters. If I do the work and the money shows up, I don't care who paid which part of it. If the money doesn't show up, I sue, and the particulars of that lawsuit are something for my lawyer to worry about.

      I don't think I'm out of line here: you've made far less attempt to educate yourself on the details of programming than I have on law, for instance, but that certainly never stopped you from speaking about it.

      If you feel the need to celebrate a small victory on this legal point, go right ahead. As long as we agree that some arrangement exists whereby one million people can contract to pay me $40 million total to perform a service, and whereby I'll have legal recourse if they don't come through, I don't really care what you call it.

      You can't pretend your context was anything other than individual obligation and a rejection of a lump sum payment.

      No need to pretend: it's right there in black and white. I said I didn't need $40 million from you; I never said I didn't want $40 million at all, and I expressed no opinion whatsoever on the number of checks it should be spread across.

      It's hardly emotional.

      Well, you do seem to have pulled yourself together since that last post. Kudos.

      You're the one who dug up something two years old in a weak, ignorant, and misguided attempt to smear and distract from your astoundingly poor assertions earlier in the thread.

      Actually, as you may recall, it was an attempt to demonstrate that you're in no position to call out anyone else's "comic level of ignorance". That's all.

      But you press on, not because you have a point or because you know what you're talking about, but because you're a spiteful fool, and yes, at this point, your utter lack of credibility qualifies you for no respect or courtesy.

      "At this point"? As if you've ever shown respect or courtesy? Funny.

      Luckily for you, I have no problem showing respect or courtesy even to someone who lacks any shred of credibility. My goal is merely to put your present statements in context so that others may evaluate them more critically, not to insult or humiliate you. And at that goal, I think I've succeeded, so I'm finished if you are.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    73. Re:What about radios, etc? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      In English, "to create" is a verb, not a noun: an action, not a thing. Paying someone to create an image editor is paying for a service, not a product

      If you pay someone to create a chair, what you get is a creation, a noun, a thing. You get the chair at the end, a product. The labor is incidental to what you've contracted for.

      I don't think I'm out of line here: you've made far less attempt to educate yourself on the details of programming than I have on law, for instance, but that certainly never stopped you from speaking about it.

      An immaterial distraction, since there are no salient details of programming that are in dispute. You haven't made an attempt to educate yourself. You've made an attempt to be contrary, argumentative from ignorance, and petty.

      As long as we agree that some arrangement exists whereby one million people can contract to pay me $40 million total to perform a service, and whereby I'll have legal recourse if they don't come through, I don't really care what you call it.

      Which is quite plainly the point that the previous discussion would have stood for--without your ludicrous distortions and attempt to engage in a personal smear.

      You were mistaken in the way you made your claim, offering it as a counterpoint. You were equally mistaken to resurrect it in an unrelated discussion two years later out of a sad, personal grudge, especially when after all of that effort and your constant annoyance, you have accomplished exactly nothing.

      The fact remains that you could not individually obligate those million people for $40 each in an enforceable contract. You mistakenly insisted on doing so then, and you thought you were being clever to bring it back up. That colossal failure is plainly evident.

      I sue, and the particulars of that lawsuit are something for my lawyer to worry about.

      Then in the future, don't present an argument as fact when you haven't the slightest clue what you're saying.

      I expressed no opinion whatsoever on the number of checks it should be spread across.

      Uh-huh. We can pretend that you never tried to collect $40 from one million individuals. That's fine by me.

      Actually, as you may recall, it was an attempt to demonstrate that you're in no position to call out anyone else's "comic level of ignorance". That's all.

      A failed attempt, given that all it did was point out that your ignorance extends not only to copyright, but to contracts as well.

      Luckily for you, I have no problem showing respect or courtesy even to someone who lacks any shred of credibility.

      So that's what you call your lying and trolling and digging up two-year old discussions that (a) you plainly still don't understand, (b) have no relevance to the present discussion, except further demonstrating your lack of knowledge and disingenuous tactics, and (c) were introduced solely in a painfully misguided attempt to smear because yet again, you could not handle having your utter ignorance laid out.

      My goal is merely to put your present statements in context so that others may evaluate them more critically, not to insult or humiliate you.

      And that context merely highlights the fact that previous dealings with you have met with the same level of ignorance or willful distortion. Job well done, there. You came in here, antagonistic to a fault, and lost every substantive point, so you resorted to ad hominems and distractions and your personal grudge.

      Unfortunately, they did not work.

      I'm finished if you are.

      I'll believe it when I see it. You haven't shown the ability to stop yet, so we'll see.

    74. Re:What about radios, etc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up already.

      you're arguing about a comment from 2007. i get it, he's a liar but you keep going back for more? idiot.

      yhbt. yl!

  5. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normally I might say something like come and try to get it. You're nuts! But in this case, seems how they want to charge AT&T every time my phone rings, I say get 'em ASCAP. I know my rates will rise as a result but work pays for my phone. Anyways, AT&T needs a little smack down once in a while.

  6. Everybody wants to be rich... by msantosn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can't believe why everybody wants to be rich without doing nothing... Really, this is just going insane!

    1. Re:Everybody wants to be rich... by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      I can't believe everybody wants to get rich without doing a thing... Really, this is just going insane!

      There, fixed that for you.

    2. Re:Everybody wants to be rich... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Well, when the media stop pumping into everyone just how special they are, how rich they will become and how little they will have to do to get it all, people will wake up and smell the roses. Until the time that people realize that wealth and power generally come from hard work or extreme talent (or normally both) they will keep clutching at straws to try to take the easy road to achieve the same end result.

      Blame the media who is playing right into the hands of lazy people.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Everybody wants to be rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fo shizzle. I want to be rich from doing nothing.

    4. Re:Everybody wants to be rich... by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      I can't believe why everybody wants to be rich without doing nothing... Really, this is just going insane!

      It's only worth it if you get your chicks for free...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  7. One cannot help but wonder . . . by taustin · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . why these people have not been struck by a meteor. If there were a God in this universe, there would be a meteor.

    1. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by jd · · Score: 0

      A meteor? That's so sick and twisted! It should be a comet, at least.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have just proven that god does not exist. Congratulations!!

    3. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by snStarter · · Score: 1

      You'll have to take that up with the department of vindictive meteorology...

    4. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      . . . why these people have not been struck by a meteor. If there were a God in this universe, there would be a meteor.

      Ah, so this is the reason for the coverup we discussed earlier today

    5. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by meerling · · Score: 1

      No, a swarm small of meteorites. That way you can use pinpoint targeting.

    6. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by Samah · · Score: 1

      . . . why these people have not been struck by a meteor. If there were a God in this universe, there would be a meteor.

      Unfortunately, the concept of meteors potentially striking the Earth has been joint-copyrighted by Touchstone and Paramount on previous occasions.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    7. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . why these people have not been struck by a meteor. If there were a God in this universe, there would be a meteor.

      LOL! Remember that scene in Armageddon when Paris was taken out by that meteor fragment? Yeah......when the meteor strikes ASCAP it will be just like that. Hell, perhaps ASCAP and the RIAA will be together when it happens.

      And I'll be in a lawn chair just out of the blast radius enjoying the view with a bag of freshly popped popcorn. :)

    8. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by jd · · Score: 1, Funny

      That might fall under cluster munitions, though. Oh, they're still legal in the US. You're in with a chance, but you'd better get that meteorite swarm in quick.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:One cannot help but wonder . . . by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read the bible?

      God is the most foul and evil creature in all of fiction, the bastard drowned everyone at least once in the storyline.

      The RIAA would certainly be a creation of GOD.
      I don't know why Satan gets such bad rep.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  8. Suck it, ASSCRAP. by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fine, you pricks. We'll stop providing you with free exposure for your shitty music. Happy now?

    --
    Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
    --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    1. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They probably won't be, but I know I will.

      Keep that shit music to yourself. Phones should sound like phones.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Keep that shit music to yourself. Phones should sound like phones.

      Unless... someone holds a copyright for the actual "ring".

    3. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Fine, you pricks. We'll stop providing you with free exposure for your shitty music. Happy now?

      ASCAP is preparing a report that shows public performances of ring-tones has affected ring-tone sales causing a recent, drastic drop in units sold.

    4. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by jd · · Score: 0

      It would not surprise me if the Trimphone ring was indeed copyrighted.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by siloko · · Score: 1

      they do now ;)

    6. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by RobinH · · Score: 1

      They probably won't be, but I know I will.

      Keep that shit music to yourself. Phones should sound like phones.

      No, cell phones should be on vibrate when you're in public.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll try to remember to stay off your lawn in the future.

    8. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by Fwonkas · · Score: 1

      Or, if you're going to go the route of ringtones, make them really annoying ringtones, like I do.

      Achy Breaky Heart. Hold On. Islands in the Stream.

      I could go on.

      --
      COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
    9. Re:Suck it, ASSCRAP. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The thing is that there are plenty of non-music things for ringers.

      For instance, I used to use the alarm noise from Thief 1 and Thief 2... quite distinct, but still 'fits' a phone. Albeit, 20 archaic sounding phones going off at once.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  9. Legal Motivators at fault by Anenome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Part of the problem is the doctrine that if something isn't actively and legally pursued and protected, you've given up your rights on it. This is what causes companies to send 'cease & desist' orders to fan websites and the like. That's what causes companies to sue the Girl-scouts.

    The idea behind preventing public performance, and the like, is to prevent profiting from a public performance. There's no way that ASCAP can prove that someone's profiting from a cellphone ring-tone going off. They may be able to extract cash from clothing stores that play tunes while people shop, but this one is definitely going too far.

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    1. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are obviously not an attorney and obviously have no legal training, so why don't you not comment on things you know nothing about. Only trademarks can suffer from genericide. Copyright holders can and do selectively choose what to enforce and it has no impact on their rights. A copyright holder could sit back, watch a million people infringe its work but sue you for it cause they felt like it. The only impact it possibly could have is on damages, but even then we have the lovely statutory damages anyways.

      Stick to whatever profession you are actually trained in, thanks.

    2. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that trademarks have to be pursued and protected doesn't change the laws to make copyright and all other forms of IP follow the same law. Different forms of IP have different laws.

      ASCAP is following the course of other seemingly good organizations, such as MADD: Start off with a reasonable idea and use their initial successes to become an ever-growing monster hellbent on taking control or ownership of every aspect of people's lives for which they can find even the slightest excuse for having an interest.

    3. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Tx · · Score: 1

      The reason they are going after this one is not to extract money from the end users. Selling ring-tones is an extremely profitable business, and they want a (bigger) cut of that cash. If they can get this upheld in theory, they will then look to extract the fee from the ring-tone vendors, telcos etc. At least, that would be my guess.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    4. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that it would be arguable that when you buy a ringtone, the extortionate fee for said purchase covers the fact it is played out loud - at least that is a reasonable expectation for the consumer. Probably why they're going after AT&T who presumably sell ringtones.

      As for making your own ringtones, maybe these companies can just fuck right off and die if they want to go after people doing the natural thing with media. Copyright needs an overhaul from first principles to safeguard consumers.

    5. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Itninja · · Score: 1

      Why so much vitriol? Apparently, in your opinion, one actually does need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Here is brief that might give you the pedantic opium you need so badly.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    6. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two key notes here. First, that's trademark, not copyright. ASCAP has nothing to do with trademark enforcement.

      Two, trademark holders don't HAVE to act like assholes to defend their mark. They CAN license it for a penny to the person who's using it harmlessly and it is still defended against infringement (it's not infringement if it's licensed!).

    7. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by jeffasselin · · Score: 1
      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    8. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by corbettw · · Score: 1

      That applies to trademarks, not copyrights. Those are two very different things and we're only talking about the latter.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    9. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously not an attorney and obviously have no legal training, so why don't you not comment on things you know nothing about.

      WHAT?!?! If everyone followed your advice, there'd be no comments and we'd be forced to read TFA! You're trying to kill the whole site!

    10. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. Besides, there's no harm in thinking for yourself even if you have no training in the subject. He has a mind and it's natural to use that mind for solving any problem, not just one that he's "trained" in.

      Personally, I think telling a person not to think about something just because he's not "trained" in it is deleterious for mental growth. Sometimes outsiders can give a fresh perspective into something that would otherwise have not been seen.

    11. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is laches, but most of the cases people get upset about (singing Happy Birthday at a public function, campfire songs, etc) wouldn't invoke laches because the delay doesn't substantially change the defendant's position.

      In the ringtone case, though, if (and it's a huge if) they could get the "public performance" claim to stick, laches could apply.

    12. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two, trademark holders don't HAVE to act like assholes to defend their mark. They CAN license it for a penny to the person who's using it harmlessly and it is still defended against infringement (it's not infringement if it's licensed!).

      I may well be wrong on this, but I believe that you can completely withhold licensing to anyone at all.

      However, if you license to one person, you must license to all at about the same price.There may be differences for very small issues, but I think you can't license to the general public for $5 for a public performance, then ask $5000 for the same level of performance to someone with political views you oppose.

    13. Re:Legal Motivators at fault by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters, Trademarks are not licensed for public performance. Two, since trademarks are all about image and association is part of image, holders of a mark may do what they wish so long as they don't cause it to become generic. That is, Ford may license use of their logo to a club of Ford truck enthusiasts, but would risk the mark becoming generic if they license to general truck enthusiasts.

  10. Not My Phone by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Troll

    My phone just rings. I know it sounds crazy, but some people (OK maybe just me) actually prefer their phones to ring like - well, phones. I don't want to hear the latest hit R&B jingle or other such shit. I want to know that my phone is ringing. And sometimes, when I feel wild, I'll change to a slightly different ring tone that sounds like a different phone.

    If people who are stupid enough to pay for musical ringtones get sued, I say thats just fine with me. I never liked the music that most people play as ringtones anyways. If they start getting fined and sued maybe those people will think twice before turning their phones into random top40 samplers.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not My Phone by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      OH HO! But even that ringing may one day be construed as a public performance. Don't think they won't go there. As it is not a mechanical function of the phone's internal workings, the simulated ringing can be considered a performance, just like any ringtone!

    2. Re:Not My Phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I simply use a normal ringer, but no one pays for ringtones. You take a song you own, and cut out 30 seconds. Set that as the ring tone.
      That shouldn't be illegal.

    3. Re:Not My Phone by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Someone had to compose that lil ditty. He wants his money.

    4. Re:Not My Phone by The+Redster! · · Score: 2

      Obligatory xkcd

    5. Re:Not My Phone by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Just because the ringtone you are using may have been created by some computer guy playing with beeps rather than a professional musician, doesn't necessarily change whether it's covered by ASCAP or not.

      Hell, if I was the engineer that came up with that tune, I'd be suing the telephone companies for just the basic ringtone fee so fast...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Not My Phone by Bugs42 · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, sir, but I simply CANNOT read your post without appending -

      My phone just rings. I know it sounds crazy, but some people (OK maybe just me) actually prefer their phones to ring like - well, phones. I don't want to hear the latest hit R&B jingle or other such shit. I want to know that my phone is ringing. And sometimes, when I feel wild, I'll change to a slightly different ring tone that sounds like a different phone. If people who are stupid enough to pay for musical ringtones get sued, I say thats just fine with me. I never liked the music that most people play as ringtones anyways. If they start getting fined and sued maybe those people will think twice before turning their phones into random top40 samplers. Now get off my lawn!

      --
      Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
    7. Re:Not My Phone by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Just because the ringtone you are using may have been created by some computer guy playing with beeps rather than a professional musician, doesn't necessarily change whether it's covered by ASCAP or not.

      That ringtone came with my phone. The company who made my phone already paid for it. If the person who made it wasn't working for the phone manufacturer, they have already signed away their rights to it to them.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    8. Re:Not My Phone by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "they have already signed away their rights to it to them"

      Did they?

      It entirely depends on what exactly is written in the contracts between the various parties along the line (from the employee/employer to manufacturer/distributor to carrier/end-user), as well as any applicable laws where the phone was designed, manufactured and sold.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Not My Phone by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Don't have simulated ringing, use the vibration motor to hit some sort of bell that makes a ringing sound, it becomes a mechanical function again.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    10. Re:Not My Phone by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Hell, if I was the engineer that came up with that tune, I'd be suing the telephone companies for just the basic ringtone fee so fast...

      You would look like an a-hole and get so much hate for a quick buck? I thought that was a bad thing, then again it is a current business model that "works".

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  11. Perhaps.. by Renraku · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they should realize they already sold 'ringtone rights' and that the very term 'ringtone' denotes a public performance in their eyes..you can't tell someone they need x license to do y, but then say that x license is invalid for the purposes of y.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Perhaps.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not legal advice, IANALQITJ, etc.

      But that's a good point. A damn good point.

      If it's a ringtone you bought as a ringtone, you already have a license for that purpose from the copyright-holding artist or copyright-holding or licensed publisher, and thus you do not need a compulsory licence. As for mechanical copyright, they already got their cut from the sale. Covered.

      Public performance of a ringtone would be entirely implicit in any such specific 'ringtone' licensing. If it isn't, that's ASCAP's fault, because they were certainly in on it when the contracts were being drawn up, and if they didn't say anything then, there may be estoppel in them trying to submarine it.

      They're pulling a ridiculous power-grab here, but it's likely to bite them back hard.

  12. Good news by jimshatt · · Score: 1

    This is good news right? Every time some greedy company or organization does something stupid like this in public, they take a (small) PR hit. At least, hopefully. They get away with it because it's not widely known yet, but I have the feeling people are starting to know more and more about this kind of thing going on.

    1. Re:Good news by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The best part about these not being widely reported, but widely believed: Rumors similar to them will be believed too. Did you hear that potential recording devices count as an audience? Since your iphone counts as an audience, playing your itunes to yourself is a performance for which you should be paying a fee. Am I joking? Maaaaybe I am, Maaaybe I'm not. We just don't know.

  13. What else is there to say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're a bunch of ass-hats. Or caps, as it were.

  14. Flashback... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember joking about this around the time of Napster's downfall. What a horrible age we live in.

  15. No Ringtones by MBCook · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yet one more reason to avoid ringtones.

    Not saying they are correct, just that I hate being forced to listen to someone's obnoxious music every time their phone rings.

    Besides, even if it does count as a performance... doesn't selling a license to a song as a ringtone imply the right to use the ring tone without paying each time?

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:No Ringtones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps - but buying a ringtone rather than just using an existing mp3 file implies being a dumbass.

      - currently using Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights because it's so obnoxious

    2. Re:No Ringtones by shrikel · · Score: 1

      doesn't selling a license to a song as a ringtone imply the right to use the ring tone without paying each time? --

      The problem is that it's not ASCAP who sold you the ringtone. The carrier that sold it to you has no authority to grant you rights to public performance of that ringtone.

      What ASCAP wants is to get a piece of the money from the sale^H^H^H^H licensing of that ringtone.

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    3. Re:No Ringtones by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Not saying they are correct, just that I hate being forced to listen to someone's obnoxious music every time their phone rings.

      But. . . but. . . my ringtone is the Futurama theme!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:No Ringtones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?" -George Carlin

    5. Re:No Ringtones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not saying they are correct, just that I hate being forced to listen to someone's obnoxious music every time their phone rings.

      Damned right. I hate being with people who won't RTFM and find out how to turn the volume down. The ring is at the default max loudness.

      Even worse is when they never put the fucking thing in the same pocket. Every time it rings, they have to rapidly fondle themselves all over to find out where it is. Since it's usually in a pocket loaded with other shit, I get to listen to the goddamned ring for about five cycles.

      Assholes!

    6. Re:No Ringtones by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Eaxctly - I want them to ring so that I don't have to listen to tinny, fuzzy, crackling "songs" as people's ringtones. It'd be even better if it could then be followed up by law suits against all the idiots who play songs through their phones and just wander down the street with some horribly tinny dance/charts track playing away for everyone to hear.

  16. Slippery slope on "public performance" by Basilius · · Score: 1

    They gonna come after me when I've got my car stereo cranked and the windows down?

    I know the people driving around me probably should, but is that really a "public performance?" A ringtone is no different than playing a stereo. It just goes off when you're not expecting it.

    1. Re:Slippery slope on "public performance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I wondered who that nigger who keeps driving past my house is. Turn it down or fuck off home, you black bastard.

    2. Re:Slippery slope on "public performance" by Lunoria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They gonna come after me when I've got my car stereo cranked and the windows down?

      I know the people driving around me probably should, but is that really a "public performance?" A ringtone is no different than playing a stereo. It just goes off when you're not expecting it.

      I really would prefer it if you people could just turn your music down. I don't care if you want to destroy your eardrums listening to crap. I just don't want to hear music so loud it drowns out normal conversations from people on the street.

    3. Re:Slippery slope on "public performance" by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then you need to be at city hall with other residents demanding the city noise ordinances get passed.

      WE had that problem here. They passed an addendum that made it a $100.00 fine to have your stereo cranked in a residential area,It is specifically for noise levels and covers motorcycles without mufflers and other noise makers. $100.00 for the first fine and $1000.00 for a repeat offense. The city is really hard up for cash so the cops are actually enforcing everything they can and they nailed several stupid kids on it, plus a chain of other tickets as they can give you one for nearly anything. word got out fast and now it's quiet again in the neighborhoods.

      Even the idiots on the harleys stopped riding in 1st at 1/2 throttle just to be dick-heads. they now putt quietly through the neighborhoods.

      note: if your bike is so crappy that you have to keep blipping the throttle when you are stopped, get it fixed or buy a bike that can idle. I'm a motorcyclist and even I cant figure that one out other than trying to be a jerk.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Slippery slope on "public performance" by Basilius · · Score: 1

      I really would prefer it if you people could just turn your music down. I don't care if you want to destroy your eardrums listening to crap. I just don't want to hear music so loud it drowns out normal conversations from people on the street.

      See, the thing is, it doesn't have to be THAT loud.

      All it has to be is loud enough for someone else to hear. Could be the person in the neighboring car. If we're both stopped at a light next to each other, it doesn't take a whole lot of volume for my music to be audible in your car. And that, by ASCAP's logic, is a public "performance."

      And you can't tell me you've never cranked your stereo when one of your favorite songs comes on. We've all done it.

    5. Re:Slippery slope on "public performance" by dstates · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are asking the stereo manufacturers to put Doppler radar and a credit card reader into speaker systems so that they can count the number of heart beats listening to a song and bill you accordingly. After all, the Barry Manilow Foundation needs to get paid every time your girlfriend listens to your CD with you.

      --
      Statesman
  17. Copyright law... by Manip · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Copyright law needs a review across the board. By which I mean on an international level.

    Here is my short list:
      - Licences across borders has to be easier
      - Software Patents should be revoked (in the US et al)
      - Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death
      - Public performance should have "fair use" exclusions
      - Heck, all copyright should have "fair use"
      - Damages should be limited to value (e.g. 100% of damages, not 10,000%)

    I'm sure there are other things. But frankly the copyright system as it stands is broken. When web-sites have to buy highly expensive licences in dozens of states and companies are winning millions for a few MP3s something is wrong.

    1. Re:Copyright law... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Copyright law needs a review across the board. By which I mean on an international level.

      Yup. When I see cases like the one posted above I start thinking that the middle ages were quite liberal when compared to what some copyright holders are asking for.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Copyright law... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      -Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death

      How about not? Make them 10 years. You have 10 years to cash in on your ideas. You want to screw the whole world over in a fit of selfish "VIEW ME AS THE ARTIST I AM!" tantrum, enjoy your 10 years, but the government should not support you after a decade of your decadence. This isn't the industrial revolution or some atomic age. This is the information age where ideas are a dime a million. Today, unlike 20 years ago, everyone has access they need to sell an invention within a few days. Exposure is almost instant, and someone will do it better than you did in one year or less, anyway.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    3. Re:Copyright law... by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death

      There is no justification for patents (or copyrights) to last an instant past the inventor's death.

    4. Re:Copyright law... by ChefInnocent · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure there is; otherwise, assassinations would rise tremendously.

    5. Re:Copyright law... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So if you make a billion dollar idea and patent it, I can just kill you and the patent dissolves into the ether? No potential for abuse there. Anyway, are you sure you don't mean copyrights?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death

      There is no justification for patents (or copyrights) to last an instant past the inventor's death.

      Yes there is... you don't want to give competitors an incentive to kill off an inventor just to end a lucrative patent.

    7. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll probably re-think the situation of patents expiring upon the death of the author somewhere in between the part where the bus 'accidentally' hits you, and where it 'accidentally' backs over you.

    8. Re:Copyright law... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing by "Patents should be 70 years..." you mean Copyrights. Because Patents are completely different entities and already have a pretty decent expiration date on them. For Copyrights, I'm a fan of reverting to the original format we had when the Constitution was written. When your work is created, you get 14 years of copyright protection. (I'm willing to keep the "no need to file every thing for copyright" rule.) After that 14 years, you need to apply for a one-time 14 year extension. Otherwise, your work goes into the Public Domain. After that 14 year extension, your work goes into the Public Domain.

      My only concession to the extra-long copyrights that we have now would be a system to phase in the new copyright lengths. Something like items copyrighted just before the new system but under 20 years automatically get a full 28 years while other items slowly get phased into the public domain one decade at a time (starting with the earliest decades). In the end, though, I think that the 14+14 system would be the best.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents have nothing to do with copyright and neither should they be extended past their current term.

    10. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who has never created anything and holds no copyrights.

    11. Re:Copyright law... by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure there is; otherwise, assassinations would rise tremendously.

      Why ? Where's the value in an invention that is no longer patent protected ?

      No to mention - MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL

    12. Re:Copyright law... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      So if you make a billion dollar idea and patent it, I can just kill you and the patent dissolves into the ether? No potential for abuse there.

      Perhaps you can go over the risk/reward and ROI equations on committing pre-meditated murder just to get an invention into the public domain, then explain why any rational person would choose murder.

    13. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly, everyone holds copyrights.

    14. Re:Copyright law... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      "VIEW ME AS THE ARTIST I AM!"

      And patents are not meant for art, but (simplifying and generalizing) the products of engineering: transistors, stronger-than-known magnets, chemicals, kinetic insights (swinging sideways on a swing ~_~), etc.

      Yes, just like there's an art of programming there's an art of engineering (and, heck, an art of medicine). That doesn't mean I think of programmers, engineers or doctors as artists.

    15. Re:Copyright law... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I don't see why it should be related to the inventor's death at all. Assuming it's some sort of "asset", it should be part of the estate and passed to their heirs. Otherwise you'd create a very strange situation where say a dying inventor would rather patent it in the wife/kids' name since they'd hold the patent much longer. A fixed number of years is IMO the best.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:Copyright law... by Rigrig · · Score: 1

      What if someone comes up with a great invention, patents it, but isn't able/willing to mass-produce the thing personally, shouldn't it be possible to sell the idea to some company that is?
      Obviously ideas from people with higher life expectancies would be worth more, since you'd expect the patent to last longer as well.
      I don't think it would be fair for a healty 20-year old to get more money than somebody who just heard he has five years to live and intends to spend that time enjoying the money selling his invention got him.

      I'm not happy with copyrights/patents lasting till the heat death of the universe plus twenty years, but I do think there should just be a fixed duration. 50 years sounds like plenty of time to me to cash in on your ideas, even if you only have one brilliant idea in your lifetime you'd be pretty much on your way to retirement by the time the protection runs out. It's just that I don't feel simply living longer somehow makes your ideas deserve longer protection than people who aren't as lucky.

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    17. Re:Copyright law... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the value is in the invention not being patent protcted? As in, I'm being driven out of the market becauase one of my competitors have a patent on $INVENTION, if I can make the patent go away, I will be better able to compete.

    18. Re:Copyright law... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the value is in the invention not being patent protcted? As in, I'm being driven out of the market becauase one of my competitors have a patent on $INVENTION, if I can make the patent go away, I will be better able to compete.

      In what world do you live where malicious pre-meditated murder is considered a lesser crime than patent infringement ?

    19. Re:Copyright law... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Murder might be easier to get away with then patent infringement. Of course, that depends on the specific murder victim and the patented technology.
      Also, I answered your question "Where's the value in an invention that is no longer patent protected ?", I didn't nescesarily said anything about whether it would be beneficial for any individual to murder anyone.

    20. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why were you modded 5: Interesting when you undermine your own argument?

      Take a beginning band, for instance. For the most part, it takes about three albums for any band to become even remotely well-known enough for people to buy their music. Because there are so many artists today publishing stuff it ebcomes harder and harder to differentiate. So by the time they release their third album, maybe their first albums start to drop out of copyright, so the first ten years of their career, which are usually the most difficult, have been for nought.

      I agree that copyright should not be extended indefinitely (Disney et al) but ten years seems a bit on the short side.

    21. Re:Copyright law... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Have you seen some of the license settlements to come out of patent litigation? $900MM might not be a lot to Microsoft, but a lot of companies wouldn't think twice about hiring a hitman at $10k to avoid paying $900MM. The trick is, you have to get the job done before you get dragged into court, otherwise you'll look very suspicious indeed.

      http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2005/04/23/largest_patent.html

      Year Plaintiff Defendant Settlement ($mm)
      2005 Dr. Gary K. Michelson Medtronic $1,350
      1990 Polaroid Eastman Kodak 909
      2004 Sun Microsystems Microsoft 900
      2004 Intergraph Intel 675
      2004 InterTrust Technologies Microsoft 440

      copied/pasted, click the source if you want formatting.

    22. Re:Copyright law... by phiwum · · Score: 1

      You're discussing two completely different issues: patents and copyrights.

      In particular, did you really mean to advocate a radical lengthening of patent terms? You wrote:

      Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death

      As it stands, most patents are only valid for 20 years (some have different terms in the US, depending on subject matter, I think).

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    23. Re:Copyright law... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Also, I answered your question "Where's the value in an invention that is no longer patent protected ?", I didn't nescesarily said anything about whether it would be beneficial for any individual to murder anyone.

      Actually you didn't. You posited a scenario where an "expiring" patent devalued an invention.

    24. Re:Copyright law... by Draek · · Score: 1

      The problem with the 14+14 system is that it's still far too long for software. Think about it, of all the Microsoft OSes the only one on the public domain today would be the very first edition of DOS that Bill Gates sold to IBM. We'd have to wait for another 11 years to get Windows 3.1 and that thing is barely useful outside of a museum *today*, while for the first version of Photoshop (y'know, the one that ran on monochrome Macs) we'd still have 7 years to go.

      Personally I prefer what many studies have shown to be the ideal length: 15 years, and if you want more than that, sucks to be you. It's still not-ideal for software, but less than that would probably hurt books more than it'd help software, and we'd still have some degree of usable 'abandonware' hitting the public domain.

      I do like your transition idea though.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    25. Re:Copyright law... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Have you seen some of the license settlements to come out of patent litigation? $900MM might not be a lot to Microsoft, but a lot of companies wouldn't think twice about hiring a hitman at $10k to avoid paying $900MM. The trick is, you have to get the job done before you get dragged into court, otherwise you'll look very suspicious indeed.

      So at which point do all the people involved in running the company who made this decision going to jail for life (if not execution), and the company then going out of business, fit into your calculations ?

    26. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No to mention - MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL

      The RIAA/ASCAP/BMI/etc are working on that, just give them a few more lobbyists...

    27. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is one. If a patent or copyright expired with the creator, anybody could ignore the patents and copyrights simply by offing them.

      The solution is to have patents and copyrights each last for a reasonable term (10 or 20 years respectively), regardless of how long the creator lives.

    28. Re:Copyright law... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, I actually did.

    29. Re:Copyright law... by rgarbacz · · Score: 1
      How about following the real spirit of promoting innovations, not protecting monopolies, i.e.:
      • 10-20 years of exclusive monopoly granted by the public in exchange of one's idea publication (from the moment of granting the monopoly)
      • patents are granted as "first come first serve" (the real spirit of promoting innovation, i.e. better hurry with polishing and "announcing" an idea, because someone can be faster)
      • it is no one else's business what one does at home with his purchased items, if it is safe for others (i.e. one can make a coffee machine from his car if wishes, also one can disassemble any piece of code, when wishes)

      Lets not forget that "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. When someone takes your property, you do not have it anymore, but when someone adopts your idea, you still have it, and still can use it to the full extent.

    30. Re:Copyright law... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who has never created anything and holds no copyrights.

      and spoken BY someone who has.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    31. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for making it less convenient, for an interested party, to somehow "facilitate" the copyright owner's departure.
      I mean, you wouldn't cut someone's car's brake lines knowing that, 30 years from now, you'll be able to profit from his inventions.
      If the patent protection disappears just a few days after that, the "facilitated suicide" of the holder may become quite an appealing option for ruthless businessmen.

    32. Re:Copyright law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unethical pharmaceutical company that's already demonstrated it will release a known bad product and bribe doctors to prescribe good products when they're not the appropriate option knows the patent for the VERY lucrative product their competitor is selling is theirs to sell too if something should "happen" to the other company's researcher...

      They have motive and an established disregard for life.

      Consider how Monsanto's extortion can ruin small farms, consider all the white collar crimes that knowingly eliminate hundreds or thousands of jobs for padding their own paychecks.

      That the world of business is filled with the kinds of people who consider the lives of others to be of NO value is an established fact. The last thing we need to do is to tempt a group already going well beyond any reasonable bounds and encourage them to make the hop from "ruin lives" to "end lives".

  18. Obligatory by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

    -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

  19. Better news. . . by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

    . . .if it means the end of musical ringtones.

    1. Re:Better news. . . by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Only in the US

  20. What a crazy world by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Seriously who comes up with this idiotic nonsense. All that will happen is that consumers will spend less money on their music.

    1. Re:What a crazy world by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Please explain how I can spend less than $0 on shitty music?

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:What a crazy world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already get all of my music free. How can I possibly spend any less? (Yes, I steal music.)

      Sincerely,
      The only honest slashdotter

  21. ASCAP is one step away... by swanzilla · · Score: 0

    ...from hustling stopped motorists for change in intersections. For what it is worth, I would like to collect everytime I hear my coworker's Nicklback ringtone.

  22. Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm an independent musician, and hate the RIAA, but ASCAP is more of a musician's union than anything else. They are one of the only groups that truly helps artists get paid for their work, in situations where money is already supposed to be set aside for the artists themselves. I have made a fair bit of cash in royalties from tracks that have appeared on networks like VH1 and A&E -- that is money that would have never been reported to me otherwise. If some network wants to use my track in some show, and generate advertising money off of it, then I think the artist deserves their rightful share. FYI: I am not signed to a major label, and I don't have the resources or connections that those acts have. They also help in situations such as radio reporting in places where I don't even speak the language -- as one example, they discovered my music playing on a commercial radio station in eastern Poland, and were able to retrive the royalties I had earned.

    So, please don't instinctively tar them with the same brush as the idiots at the RIAA. I don't agree with everything ASCAP does, but in general they are a positive force for trying to help the actual creators of content, not the big labels and corporations.

    1. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is true that collection societies are a generally excellent idea - they're one of the few things that actually get the musicians and songwriters any money, and their overhead is not too bad (typically a few percent).

      But sometimes, they do themselves no fucking favours.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    2. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by MrMista_B · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, 'help' the creators of content, by preventing people from listening to it.

      Sorry, but fuck the ASCAP, they're at least as bad if not worse than the RIAA. And if you /support/ anti-artist organizations like the ASCAP, then I look upon you with suspicion.

    3. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      While I respect what you are saying, and agree that some are miss equating the two. I also hope you can see it from the consumer side. Stuff like this makes us at odds with the industry, and as I think we can tell the customer always wins. To you that means people choosing to steal because they believe it is OK based on the treatment they received when they were (paying) customers. Right now the industry you are a part of is dying. When shit like this is being supported by the "industry" are you really surprised we stopped buying your stuff? If this is a reflection of ASCAP or its membership I am proud to say I have not given a cent (directly) to them in years.

    4. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I can respect your position, It's hard not to despise the organization that sues little girls for singing around a campfire ( God forbid they should sing Happy Birthday!)

      I'm not saying they do no good for anybody, but they do seem to be in the habit of overreaching, to the detriment of all.

      Your union doesn't make you look very good.

    5. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by Jaime2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...to retrive the royalties I had earned...

      Exactly what did you do to earn those dollars from the performance in Poland? Had they not played the music, would you have more free time to be with your family or to produce more music? Don't get me wrong, I'm for the fair compensation of artists. However, I believe that society should choose to provide incentives for artists to continue producing works of art. This is a willfull decision to give people a means to live (money) even though they don't produce anything that is physically valuable to society. It is a gift. You seem to believe that that money was rightfully owed to you and copyright law only serves to clarify that fact. The right to be free is natural, the right to be payed for music is not.

      The public tide is turning. If you guys don't act a bit more gracious and keep letting these ruthless organizations do your dirty work, the people of the world may decide you are not worth the investment and go back to the old "patron of the arts" model where you get to be some rich guy's live-in artist.

    6. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or are you just an ASCAP astroturfer? I remember of reading in the news of an independent performer that was charged by ASCAP for performing his own original music. I don't think they are the sugar and light that you portray.

    7. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your informative post out of place. Please do not visit slashdot again. We prefer our torches and pitchforks, thank you. Reasonable discourse on copyright is that way --->

    8. Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA by ovu · · Score: 1

      ASCAP are advocates for artists. Individual artists sign a contract with performing rights organizations - ASCAP, BMI, etc. The performing rights organizations proactively go out and demand/collect payment from businesses that are broadcasting artists' content with no oversight or compensatory obligations otherwise, and then pass those payments on to the artists. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that these organizations are "anti-artist."

  23. Why am I not surprised... by Photo_Nut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard.

    Next, they will sue any device capable of making sounds in public. Phones are just the beginning, how about iPods, car makers, "boom box" (portable stereo system) makers. While I'd love it if the guys blasting their audio in their car would stop the noise pollution when I'm in their vacinity, I don't think suing them for publicly performing a copywritten work will effect change... And I don't think AT&T is to blame here.

    Copyright is a temporary monopoly given to content creators on their works so that they can earn money without being ripped off. It is not intended to be used to stranglehold any company making a device which can play a sound to pay an extortion fee to a group representing content creators.

    1. Re:Why am I not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is a temporary monopoly given to content creators on their works so that they can earn money without being ripped off in order to encourage people to continue creating works for the benefit of the public

      that's an important distinction. the stated goal of copyright is NOT to help content creators - that's just a side-effect. the stated goal is to encourage the creation of work for the benefit of the public. if the public doesn't benefit, copyright is not doing its job.

    2. Re:Why am I not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is a temporary monopoly

      Yemporary, my ass. If I'm 20 yo and write a story or a song, then live to 90, that's 70 remaining years of my life and 70 more after my death -- 140 years total of protection. That's SEVEN FUCKING GENERATIONS!!!

      If that's "temporary", who the fuck are you -- Methusaleh?

  24. iTunes Ringtone Fees by Cboyd0319 · · Score: 1

    Theoretically, if I purchase a song from Apple, and then I would like to make that into a ringtone, I have to pay Apple for that right. Where does that money go? I assumed that they were paying a portion of it to a third party for different playing rights.

    The issue is moot, of course, since http://www.iringer.net/ is free, which makes my ringtones the same.

  25. Begs an interesting question. by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.

    Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance, then why not? Which exception governs it?

    I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Begs an interesting question. by ChrisMounce · · Score: 2, Informative

      You probably mean, "raises an interesting question". http://begthequestion.info/

    2. Re:Begs an interesting question. by jd · · Score: 1

      At that length, "fair use" probably applies. But as it is a private phone, it's not a public performance - the other listeners are eavesdropping and don't count.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Begs an interesting question. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      You probably mean, "raises an interesting question".

      http://begthequestion.info/

      Nope, he's probably using it in the common usage of everyday language and not as a term of logical discourse. We all know what he means ...

    4. Re:Begs an interesting question. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think he means "raises an interesting question" because the historically accepted meaning of "begs the question" is the use of an unproven assertion?

      That, is begging the question.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    5. Re:Begs an interesting question. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Well if it is a public performance, than listening to a CD in your apartment or car with the windows open would also constitute a public performance.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:Begs an interesting question. by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Presumably the place that sold the ringtone to you gave you a license in the first place.

    7. Re:Begs an interesting question. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.

      Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance, then why not? Which exception governs it?

      I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.

      While IANAL, I think it would go under the the intended use. While some people have specifically loaded MP3/RAW Media tracks/etc onto their phone for use, the number of people that only get their ringtone's form "official providers" (e.g. their phone service, etc.) and probably either purchase (or receive for free) the ringtones from that official service. Thus, if the service licensed the use of the media with the intent of offering on that service - which probably would have had to be in their contract - then it probably goes that the intent of a ringtone is by nature a public performance and thus non-infringing by definition.

      A suitable metaphor would be if you picked up a CD, and put it in your CD player. If you had license to use it in your CD player and the definition of the CD player was such that it made a "public performance" then the license would be required to allow such "public performance".

      That's not to say that I agree with their definition of a "public performance" - I quite likely don't. For example, my freshmen year of college we frequently watched movies in a common area of the dorm - available only to other students and/or residents and their guests. (E.g. you had to be a student or faculty to gain access; guests had to register at the front desk.) People would come and go, and there'd probably be at most 20 people there. My sophomore year they told us we couldn't do that any more as it was a "public performance" - simply because there was no regulation of who could come by and watch, and they didn't want to deal with any legal issues that may further arise if they didn't; dorm staff did enforce it (they had to, not blaming them). Yet if we stuffed those same 20 people into a dorm room, and let anyone come and go into the dorm room it would have been a "private performance".

      That's not to say that there is legitimate need to regulate "public performances" - there is. But the definition needs to be narrowed down a lot more than it is currently, and should probably require a minimum number of people and more.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    8. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His assertion was proven by the context the phrase was originally used in in Valdrax's post..

    9. Re:Begs an interesting question. by honkycat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the "common usage" phrasing doesn't even make sense when parsed. "Raises the question" is not only technically and pedantically correct, it makes more sense as a phrase. I think we're all better served by learning proper and precise language, and I give kudos to the PP who actually gave a helpful, informative, polite correction without the usual pedant's dickitry.

    10. Re:Begs an interesting question. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a tricky issue. That said, ASCAP's position in this case seems to be utter crap in a lot of ways. For example, they claim that ringtones are streaming because like streaming, "AT&T maintains a continuous connection to your phone." Of course, none of the audio data is sent through that connection, which makes it decidedly not streaming. They're trying to twist this after having their backsides handed to them in another case in which music downloads were declared to not be a public performance.

      However, this case is not really about whether ringtones are a public performance. This case is because AT&T has been selling ringtones at extortionate prices under the premise that it covers a public performance license, but has never paid those licensing fees for all those ring tones. They've been pocketing the extra money above and beyond the usual cost of a digital music download. If you ever needed proof that AT&T are a bunch of leaches, you now have it. In order to bring this case to court, though, ASCAP has to get the courts to agree that AT&T triggering music that they explicitly sold as a ringtone constitutes a public performance by AT&T. That's a very tricky legal issue. They're right that it isn't the same as a download the moment AT&T triggers it. AT&T is also right that it isn't streaming.

      Ultimately, I suspect the courts will rule that it is public performance, but that it is public performance by an individual, at which point ASCAP will likely drop the issue. However, that will also open up AT&T to lawsuits by consumers who have been fraudulently overcharged for ringtones under the false belief that they were licensing the right to its use in a public performance. Either way, AT&T is potentially screwed because they didn't pay those fees. If, however, the courts rule that triggering the performance of a musical work constitutes public performance, then AT&T is screwed solely because they sold the music that was being used as a ringtone. In that case, AT&T would be legally better off opening up the phones for users to put in any arbitrary audio file as a ringtone. That way, at least in theory, they cease to be culpable.

      Either way the decision goes, there's next to no chance that this will impact the consumer in any significantly negative way, and a decision against AT&T might actually encourage them to open up their phones more. This is strictly a lawsuit filed by ASCAP against AT&T for breaching contracts by selling ringtones and then pocketing the licensing fees. Nothing to see here. Move along.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Begs an interesting question. by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case.

      On the contrary, potentially both #4 and #5 cover such use:

      (4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if --

      (A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or....

      ----

      (5)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless --

      (i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or

      (ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;

      Where the exception in 5(B) says that commercial entities are not eligible for that exemption. In short, AT&T causing the public performance to occur is not exempt if it is shown that ringtones are public performances, but an individual installing a ringtone on a phone is exempt. AT&T would probably also be exempt if they hadn't sold the ringtones... but of course, they did.

      Like I said in another post, this case is about AT&T charging people extortionate fees for ringtones under the guise of it being required because of license fees, but then not paying those license fees. ASCAP is not trying to make individuals pay per play for ringtones.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Begs an interesting question. by scotsghost · · Score: 1

      I believe exception 4 covers the consumer's use of such a ringtone:

      (4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if --

      (A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; [...]

      Clearly a ringtone playing is "otherwise than in a transmission", and just as clearly the owner of the phone isn't charging admission to the people around him to hear his ringtone. However, this exception does seem to be aimed towards live performances, and it probably won't protect AT&T as a ringtone provider.

    13. Re:Begs an interesting question. by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      It might be a public performance in some sense, but I venture that a lot of the ring tones that people have on their phones are paid for by the subscriber (through their carrier, phone manufacturer, or one of the underhand subscription services) and therefore legally licensed for the purpose for which they are being used. ASCAP is trying to retrospectively change the agreements it knowingly entered into with the ring tone vendors to allow use of the tones as the audible ring of a phone.

      If people were deliberately ringing their own phone and charging admission to hear the ring tone then maybe the case would cease to be a horrendous waste of court time.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    14. Re:Begs an interesting question. by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Or just ask Guido why "beg ValueError" is not acceptable.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    15. Re:Begs an interesting question. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, I suspect the courts will rule that it is public performance, but that it is public performance by an individual, at which point ASCAP will likely drop the issue.

      That wouldn't get AT&T off the hook with ASCAP. The public performance might be by the individual (which individual, BTW -- the caller or the callee?), but AT&T would be selling ringtones specifically for the purpose of being used in a ringing phone, which would open them to a contributory infringement claim. AT&T could then claim "substantial noninfringing uses" such as the phone ringing when the customer is not in public, and at that point (if not long before) it becomes a total farce.

    16. Re:Begs an interesting question. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      ...AT&T would be selling ringtones specifically for the purpose of being used in a ringing phone, which would open them to a contributory infringement claim.

      Maybe, but if it is determined to be a public performance by the individual, it likely falls into an explicit exemption in the copyright act (5A), in which case I don't think they would be very successful at claiming contributory infringement. You're right, though, that it is a grey area.

      and at that point (if not long before) it becomes a total farce.

      Some would say this has already happened.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:Begs an interesting question. by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      What if you make your own? Most phones have some sort of voice memo feature that you can save. (and saved audio can often be set as a ringtone) All I did was start with a mp3, convert it to mono in Audacity, and record the song as a "voice memo" by holding the phone up to one of my pc speakers. It worked surprisingly well.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    18. Re:Begs an interesting question. by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Right.

      I think it is a public performance as is defined by the law. I'd expect any good judge to make a decision based on the law, rather than what the law should be.

      The ASCAP probably has a case. That is the scary part. The law shouldn't allow them to have one.

    19. Re:Begs an interesting question. by shentino · · Score: 1

      If you make your own ringtone, then in theory you are an artist and you are bound by the same laws regarding derivative works as everyone else.

    20. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.

      Let's not forget the asshats (in England, I believe) who found that a woman was playing classical music off a radio in her horse barn because it had a calming effect on the horses.

      The dumb dicks asserted that so doing constituted a "public performance".

      OK, Lady -- you've got the horses; we've got the asses."

    21. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? How can you not already use any .mp3 or .mid file on your PC/Mac as a ringtone (for the last ten years or so)? Do americans have special crippled phones? Can they not put their own compositions (from CuBase or Audacity) on them?

    22. Re:Begs an interesting question. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      To beg for something is to insistently ask for something to be. This is the way that it is [mis]used in "beg the question" - to demand that a further question follows from the original statement or question. This is accurate and logically consistent use of modern language.

      "Beg the question" is a mistranslation of a precise Latin phrase. If it's accuracy you want then call /petitio principii/ (sp?) "presumption".

      --
      undoubtedly I'll have made a grammatical or spelling error here, I'm sure someone will be happy to correct it for me

    23. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its an impromptu performance. It has no scheduled time (you don't know when the phone will ring). Thus, certainly in the UK at least, this doesn't have a leg to stand on. You don't need a license for such a performance.

      Also, its typically not the full musical piece, which means its most likely "fair use" under the Berne convention.

      Consider this (true in the UK): If you compose some music and record it (or record your version of someone else's tune) and a TV company like it, they can use up to 30 seconds of your tune for a musical segue in their program and pay you nothing. As soon as they hit 30 seconds, they owe you money. I know this because a friend of mine has had this happen to him. I've seen the program and heard his music. He gets nothing because they fade out at about 26 seconds (Uilleann pipes over a view of a Scottish Highland scene - typical film makers, just grab anything Celtic never mind its the wrong instrument from the wrong country).

      Now if thats the case for music composes with a substantial chunk of the original composition, how on earth can they claim it for the not so good rendering of a shorter snippet the tune/song on a mobile phone?

    24. Re:Begs an interesting question. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Section 4 sounds like it should do.

    25. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [T]hey claim that ringtones are streaming because like streaming, "AT&T maintains a continuous connection to your phone." Of course, none of the audio data is sent through that connection, which makes it decidedly not streaming.

      I wonder if this argument could be better applied to ring-backs. You know, those stupid "please enjoy this music while your party is being reached" systems that invariably get used to spew (c)rap music? If ASCAP could get that abortion shut down, then maybe they aren't so bad after all.

      apropos capcha: idealism

    26. Re:Begs an interesting question. by blueskies · · Score: 1

      How do you beg a question? What does that even mean? I know how to beg money, but i'm not really sure how you beg questions. Shouldn't he be begging answers?

    27. Re:Begs an interesting question. by honkycat · · Score: 1

      The technical term, mistranslated as it may be (I'll take your word for it), says you're "begging the question" to prove itself, the same way you might "beg mommy" to get you that new toy.

      It's true that you can "beg x" meaning "beg for x," but that's not a construction that is used nearly so often in my experience. The popularity of the particular phrase "begs the question" clearly results from misuse of the technical term in an attempt to sound academic. Furthermore, it's a trite, over-used construction. Using the term in its technical sense is ok because it is a specific term; using it otherwise is a poor choice of language, IMO.

      That said, it sure is fun to rehash this debate every time someone uses a phrase "[verb]s the question" on here, isn't it? Thanks for keeping it civil...

    28. Re:Begs an interesting question. by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Which exception governs it?

      (4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if --

      (A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or

      (B) the proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain, except where the copyright owner has served notice of objection to the performance under the following conditions:

      You are 'performing' a song (nondramatic musical work) and not charging an admission. I don't see how that fails to qualify for exception #4, though of course, IANAL.

    29. Re:Begs an interesting question. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Please stop feeding them ideas.

    30. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think he means "raises an interesting question" because the historically accepted meaning of "begs the question" is the use of an unproven assertion?

      That, is begging the question.

      And if you, you pompous, though lazy, son of a bitch, had taken the trouble to go to the site he cited, you'd have found that he perfectly well understood the correct meaning of "begging the question".

      But no, you pedantic bastard, you had to go out cruising on your horse to pick on something you thought would make you look as if you were someone's intellectual superior.

      Instead, how does it look now on your back with the table turned over on your face?

    31. Re:Begs an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T was providing me DSL that went out whenever the weather was bad. I told them about it and so they came to check it during nice weather, couldn't reproduce the problem (that happened in the lightest rain) and said if I contacted them again w/o them finding a problem I'd be charged for it.

      I got Comcast (before ditching AT&T to avoid a complete break in service).

      A while later the source of the problem became apparent when the line from the street to my house started drooping. I called AT&T about it, who said they'ed send someone out. They didn't.

      About a week later, the line was in the road. I don't know if it fell on its own or if it was drooping low enough that a big vehicle hit it and tore it down.

      I called AT&T about this, who said they'ed have someone right out to fix it. It's been several months and the cables is still lying in a heap in the backyard.

      The AT&T service has been canceled (since I can't possibly use it without a connection...) and I'm getting weekly mail from AT&T begging me to come back.

      Comcast is twice the price, but it's the only other local option besides dial-up. At least it hasn't gone out nearly as often.

  26. I don't mean to be ridiculous but ... by electricprof · · Score: 5, Funny

    I once fell down the stairs and the next day I recieved a bill from ASCAP and RIAA for performing a Lars Ulrich drum solo ... ok, maybe I do mean to be ridiculous.

    1. Re:I don't mean to be ridiculous but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you get the name of the lawyer? I'm looking for one. I swear those iFart app guys totally ripped me off!

  27. Pick you battles by newgalactic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do we just let AT&T and ASCAP fight this one out? This is like Iran and North Korea going at it.

    1. Re:Pick you battles by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      ...except you know that AT&T will just pass any extra costs on to guess who?

    2. Re:Pick you battles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hopefully only if you have a Guess Who ringtone. That would only be fair.

    3. Re:Pick you battles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People dumb enough to pay for ringtones? I seem to remember some proverb about a fool and his money...

      Seriously though, it took me 5 minutes to make my current ringtone from an mp3 in my collection. All it took was a sound editor and a little Googling. I doubt the complexity is that much more for other cellphone models.

      Worst that will happen is this will result in yet another "technical ignorance" tax.

    4. Re:Pick you battles by caladine · · Score: 1

      Not too bad for those of us who aren't AT&T customers...

  28. They're Absolutely Right! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Initially I thought they were on crack. Then I realized what would happen if they actually won. Consider the implications for a minute or two and then see if you don't agree...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:They're Absolutely Right! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Initially I thought they were on crack. Then I realized what would happen if they actually won. Consider the implications for a minute or two and then see if you don't agree...

      Uh... They would be able to buy a LOT of crack!

  29. The most dangerous animal is the middle man by fermion · · Score: 1
    As far as I can tell, this is simply a temper tantrum because the middle men are not getting their cut. The dollar ring tones seems to be the primary method in which catalog tracks can make money, now that no one has to replace worn plastic. Someone really should have figured out a way to pay off the these people. It is just like renting music. The RIAA does not really care if anyone makes any money off it, as long as they get their cut. And when someone seems to making too much money, the come in to find out why.

    Out fo court settlement. Throw them a crumb just like one would with any other bugger.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:The most dangerous animal is the middle man by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, this is simply a temper tantrum because the middle men are not getting their cut.

      Almost. Swap in "in house attnorneys" for "middlemen" and you're a lot closer. Several such agencies are held hostage by attorneys claiming they have to pursue every tiny possible infringement. The fact is the decision is being made by those who stand to earn pay on action taken whether they win or lose.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  30. I draw the line at..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    their belching and farting patents. The dairy farmers are freaking out as are the ball parks.

  31. Re: Constitutional Foundation... by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    I'm pretty certain that the Framers didn't intend for your ringtone to be covered by copyright -- seeing as there's no way it can be considered to promote the Progress of either Science or useful Arts...

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  32. Would this apply... by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would this apply even if your ringtone is an illegally downloaded MP3 (like with my, uh, friend's phone)? It's kind of Al Capone having to pay taxes on money he got from drug trafficking.

    (Actually, strange as it may sound, in the US one is supposed to pay taxes on illegitimately acquired income)

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Would this apply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >(Actually, strange as it may sound, in the US one is supposed to pay taxes on illegitimately acquired income)

      This is so they can figure out that you ilegaly ern money. or they jail you for not paying your taxe. It is not strange and it
      actualy how they nailed Al Capone. He faild to pay taxe on ilegaly erned money.

  33. ASCAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like ASSHATS

  34. Capitalism at its best by al0ha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I for one think this is a very clever approach to earning more money off of a single product in a purely capitalist society.

    Bogus; but clever.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  35. Can I charge them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't ever want to hear an ASCAP licensed ringtone performed in a public place. Can I charge them whenever I hear one?

  36. If I were a plumber... by mikeselectricstuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I were a plumber, and I installed a toilet, I don't get paid every time someone takes a dump. If I designed a toilet, ditto. If I own a patent on some new-fangled kind of super-toilet, ditto. So do other creative professions seem to think that they deserve to get paid every time their work gets used...?

    1. Re:If I were a plumber... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you were a plumber and you invented the P-trap to keep sewer odors out, and you sold that invention for a modest advance plus a royalty on every unit subsequently produced, you would get paid every time someone bought a P-trap.

      This ridiculous meme must stop sooner or later. You may not like subscription models, royalty arrangements, or annuities, but they exist in some form in just about every industry. If you, as the seller, choose to adopt one of those remuneration schemes instead of a one-time payment, that's your call. If you can't find a way to do it in your profession, that somehow means that no one should be able to?

      If you create a work of art and sell it once and completely, that's fine. Many artists produce individual works just that way--they bill out hourly for their time, and invoice the materials cost, and that's that. Just like a plumber. Others decide to sell reproductions instead. What does it matter? It increases exposure and lowers the price for the masses. It's not anywhere near as good as complete ownership, but that's why it's $20 instead of $50 million for a movie.

      Plumbers charge for their labor as they expend it; their work has no intrinsic value beyond labor+materials. The same is not true of many other things, like corporate executives, athletes, and lecturers. It's fine not to like it, but if you're going to start singling out parties for being "overpaid" in your estimation, you're going to have to go far beyond the small percentage of super-wealthy artists.

    2. Re:If I were a plumber... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Because they are ARTISTS and need to be CODDLED so they can CREATE more for us.

      I know plenty of artists, painters, sculptors, musicians and writers.

      ALL of them will still create every minute of the day if tommorow Obama passed a law that states there is no such thing as Intellectual Property anymore. Everything can be freely copied and distributed.

      Real artist create not because they want to make money, hell not even because they want to, it's because they NEED TO. I was told by one of the musician friends of mine that if he does not get the songs out they will drive them crazy.

      He's just a 2 bit musician. he made over $52,000 last year in playing gigs and CD sales just at his gigs. he gives away most of his music online.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:If I were a plumber... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should create a toilet that plays a flatulent song every time it's used. Surely that would give you a continuing stream. Of income.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:If I were a plumber... by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I think the ridiculous meme of using the word meme should stop sooner rather than later. Not sure if you had a point to your post at all because once you used that arrogant sounding term I tuned out.

  37. The silver lining? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If a ring tone counts as a public performance then does playing it so loud on your earphones that everyone sitting nearby can recognize the tune also count? If so could ASCAP come after them as well....please!

    1. Re:The silver lining? by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or the portable speakers with the sole purpose to be able to use anywhere.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  38. Anyone Interested? by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    How about I write and record a song with a chorus of "Fuck you ASCAP, lamest member of the mafIAA". Then I'll cut out the chorus, make it available as a ringtone. People can download it, others can hear it and notify ASCAP. If they choose to pursue, we can waste a great deal of their time and money before I decide it's public domain. If they choose not to, they'll be pursuing selectively, disproving their standing as supporting any song writers.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  39. Luckily... by blanck · · Score: 1

    I always keep my phone on vibrate.

    Take that ASCAP!

    1. Re:Luckily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear blank

      I own the copyright for that buzzing sound your phone makes when it vibrates. Please remit $15millz immediately or face my assmonkey lawyers :)

      Thank you

  40. Wang :/ by DavidR1991 · · Score: 1

    Surely, for the sake of reason, "Public performance" constitutes use by a commercial body of some form? (e.g. shopping centres, radio stations etc.) Otherwise there are millions of possible scenarios (which are completely inane from a copyright/licensing POV) where it could inadvertently happen - loud music from someone's car, a person having their MP3 player music very loud and hence audible...

    If the court / legal bodies "buy" this kind of thing as being a violation, it's going to open the floodgates for a whole new wave of stinking turd - the world is already paranoid about liability, this kind of stuff just pushes us to the brink of practically "denouncing" others for supposed 'public performance'. Crazy, completely crazy. This is a said day for the world :/

  41. Re: Constitutional Foundation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty certain that the Framers didn't have any idea what an audio recording was, and that those Framers who went on to establish the first set of copyright statutes intentionally left the door open for future forms of creative works, including audio recordings.

  42. +1 Pedantry by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Informative

    I did actually mean "raises an interesting question," but that's just too funny.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  43. missing tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the "insanity" tag? Seriously.

  44. ASSCAP demands payment when your phone rings by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Funny

    (to be posted on NotN tomorrow, probably)

    The American Super-Society of Composers and Performers has filed a brief in a lawsuit against AT&T arguing that its members deserve payment every time a mobile phone rings.

    The owners of the musical compositions are already paid for each ringtone download, but this does not cover ASSCAP public performance royalties.

    "The musicians and songwriters are the true creators of objective value in society," said ASSCAP spokesdroid Ayn Rand. "They deserve your support. How would civilisation survive without Crazy Frog or the Nokia Tune?

    "To this end, we are bringing suits against those individuals who, having purchased RIAA-licensed ringtones, do not then silence them when in public. Statutory damages of $80,000 should have a salutary effect on our coffers and, of course, our public image."

    Further lawsuits will then be brought against those who silence their mobile phones. "4'33' by John Cage is a copyrighted work. Without the money going to his estate, he may never write another measured piece of silence again."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:ASSCAP demands payment when your phone rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well crap. I constantly play 4'33" so loud my entire neighborhood can hear it.

    2. Re:ASSCAP demands payment when your phone rings by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Without the money going to [John Cage's] estate, he may never write another measured piece of silence again."

      Flawless Victory

    3. Re:ASSCAP demands payment when your phone rings by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      :-D

      I think "flawless horror" may be the picture I ended up making. *shudder*

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  45. Does AT&T get credited for ring tones in songs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Several modern songs include standard cellular "ring" tones such as the infamous nokia tone within their songs. Shouldn't music companies have to pay for the right to include these ring tones in their songs and pay AT&T for their use every time their song is played by anyone in the world where it is remotly possible said song may be overheard by unlicensed ears?

  46. I propose..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That anytime someone publicly comes up with an assinine idea like this, that they get commited to a mental hospital and given a full battery of tests to determine their mental stability. All results should be on public file.

  47. Dude, that's ridiculous. by copponex · · Score: 1

    Lars Ulrich doesn't even know how to play the drums.

    1. Re:Dude, that's ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

    2. Re:Dude, that's ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

      whoosh!

  48. And I want to be paid for .... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... every time a trunk rattling boom boom drives past my place ine the middle of the night waking me up.... ...for every time I am interrupted with some damn silly ringtone in a theater... ...for every time I hear a song that annoys me.....

  49. This is great news! by kpainter · · Score: 1

    If the ASCAP were actually to win and they were able to charge every time a ringtone encumbered cellphone rang, everybody would quit using those annoying ringtones! I can't wait.

  50. Just FYI by mellestad · · Score: 1

    It sounds like they are suing because they think the providers should be paying them a fee, not the end user. At least that is what their website says about it.

    1. Re:Just FYI by residieu · · Score: 1

      ASCAP will charge AT&T 5 cents for every use of the ring tone. AT&T will pass this on to the consumer as an 8 cent per use surcharge. To simplify billing, they don't want to keep track of which ringtone actually played each time the phone rings (or if the ringer was in silent mode) so this 8 cents will be charged whenever the phone rings. As a service to their customers, they will of course be calling every phone to let them know about the new charges (already in effect). Several times, so people remember.

  51. Go AT&T! by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    Kick their asses.... Boy never thought I would be siding with big telcom. Just goes to show that the entertainment industry beats big oil and evil utilities when it comes to the biggest corporate douche olympics. A perfect 10 indeed.

  52. fair use? by teknosapien · · Score: 1

    SO if a ring tone is less than 30 seconds long doesn't that constitute fair use

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  53. Ugh by visible.frylock · · Score: 1

    Can we just abolish intellectual monopoly already? (And all government-granted monopolies while we're at it?) I'm not seeing any baby in this bathwater.

    --
    Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
  54. EVEN WORSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ASPCA Wants To Be Paid When Your Dog Rings.

  55. Go to hell asshat moderators by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why the fuck my earlier comment was moderated (-1, troll) is beyond me. Whomever I pissed off, you can go fuck yourself. If you don't like phones that ring, you can go beat off somewhere. What I said was not trolling. And if you moderated it down just because it was my comment and you hate me, you can go to hell twice.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Go to hell asshat moderators by Lesrahpem · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why the fuck my earlier comment was moderated (-1, troll) is beyond me. Whomever I pissed off, you can go fuck yourself. If you don't like phones that ring, you can go beat off somewhere. What I said was not trolling. And if you moderated it down just because it was my comment and you hate me, you can go to hell twice.

      Honestly... who actually enjoys the sound of a ringing phone? If you enjoy phones that ring maybe you should be a telemarketer. Then you can call your !favorite moderator while they go beat off somewhere to the image of you slamming your face into your keyboard in anger at this atrocity.

    2. Re:Go to hell asshat moderators by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Honestly... who actually enjoys the sound of a ringing phone?

      I would much rather hear a phone ring than hear it play a low-fidelity rendition of Britney's latest hit.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  56. cheap wow gold by cheap+wow+gold · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Weekends to peopleig2t mean that they can have a two-day wowgold4europe good rest. For exampleï¼OE people gameusd can go out to enjoy themselves or get meinwowgold together with relatives and friends to talk with each storeingame other or watch interesting video tapes with the speebie whole family. Everyone spends agamegold weekends in his ownmmofly way. Within two days,some people can relax themselves by listening to musicï¼OE reading novelsï¼OEor watchingogeworld films. Others perhaps are more active by playing basketballï¼OEwimming ormmorpgvip dancing. Different people have different gamesavor relaxations. I often spend weekends withoggsale my family or my friends. Sometimes my parents take me on a visit to their old friends. Sometimesgamersell I go to the library to study or borrow some books tommovirtex gain much knowledge. I also go to see various exhibition to broadenrpg trader my vision. An excursion to seashore or mountain resorts is my favorite way of spending weekends. Weekends are always enjoyable for me. igxe swagvault oforu wowgold-usa ignmax wowgoldlive brogame thsale GoldRockU brogame swagvault goldsoon oforu igxe thsale

  57. Well, someone should have to pay by Groggnrath · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm concerned, someone should have to pay ever time a cell phone goes off in, say, the middle of a movie theater.

    I couldn't care less who gets the money.

  58. Settlement (was:Someone...) by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    ...needs a cup of tea and a lie down

    Actually, I settle for having them put down.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  59. Re: Constitutional Foundation... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    ...which doesn't really matter since the law they crafted frames
    the whole thing in terms of promoting a public good rather than
    allowing for some sort of virtual land grab.

          Those that think that copyright was somehow not ready for
    the digital age even in 1790 simply don't understand the point
    of copyright.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  60. Re: Constitutional Foundation... by mikelieman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, that process is called "Amendment".

    Remember, The Constitution grants the Federal Government its legitimate authority. If it's not delegated, it's not legitimate.

    They thought good and hard when they wrote: "to Promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts".

    No Doubt's "Bathwater" doesn't meet that criteria. I might entertain arguments for "Hella Good", but it's still gonna be a uphill climb.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  61. Scheister, Scheister and Cockgobbler LLP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for US society to crumble under the weight of its lawyers. Seriously, its not healthcare you should worry about - its feeding the poor lawyers! Soon the only thing that will happen with your dollar is that it will pass from attorney to attorney in an endless cycles of award in lawsuit. Not creating any value anywhere along the way.

    I might be taxed beyond all reason here in Europe... but at least the government will coddle me when I'm in diapers again and I won't be at the mercy of Scheister, Scheister and Cockgobbler LLP in the between years we call life.

    When I was growing up in upper middle class America, my parents didn't warn me against the ills of drugs, or drunk driving, or any of the normal pursuits of young americans... They warned me to avoid getting sued. Yes. They were more afraid of the lawyers in that country than they were of drug dealers. Says something about society doesn't it?

  62. You live in a fantasy land. by typidemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have 10 years to cash in on your ideas. You want to screw the whole world over in a fit of selfish "VIEW ME AS THE ARTIST I AM!" tantrum, enjoy your 10 years, but the government should not support you after a decade of your decadence.

    The number of people who earn enough money through their patents to be considered decadent is quite small. Patents are supposed to protect people like you, who come up with a great idea, from companies like Microsoft who can steal it and cost-lead your product until you go out of business.

    Also, you're living in some sort of fantasy land where you think that all projects can go from early prototypes to final polish release in 10 years. I've worked on projects where the earliest (patented protected) prototype is more than 10 years old, and it's worth hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars and your argument is (apparently) "tough shit you should have sold it sooner!"

    The real problem with patency isn't that it protects the inventors monopoly. It's that it's possible to patent practically anything, including ideas. Patency should protect the method of creation, not a concept.

  63. Sampling by anexkahn · · Score: 1

    I thought you were allowed to play a certain length clip of a song, video, etc... without worrying about copy write. Since ring tones are only 15 seconds long, wouldn't that fall into that category?

    --
    Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
  64. Reverend Mike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay. This is just retarded. A musical ringtone is not a public performance and it definitely does not violate copyright law.

    Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and agree that it is a public performance, ringtones NEVER contain the entire song. Using only a portion of a copyrighted piece of work without the artist's permission qualifies as fair use and is therefore perfectly legal.

    Go eat a bag of dicks, ASCAP.

  65. Obligatory XKCD by KingAlanI · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Cool, an "insightful" mod just for posting relevant XKCD's.
      In all seriousness, I can see how a straightforward phone would have its uses, but I never understood this "cell phone mania" that I see all my buddies & college classmates hooked on.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  66. Pure ignorance by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

    So much ignorance in these comments. People really don't understand how ASCAP works, otherwise you'd realize it's not possible for ASCAP to collect money from people singing around a camp fire.

    1. Re:Pure ignorance by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      So much ignorance in these comments. People really don't understand how ASCAP works, otherwise you'd realize it's not possible for ASCAP to collect money from people singing around a camp fire.

      Which didn't stop them from _trying_. And they actually managed to get a few licenses before the bad PR got them to back down.

  67. earned your insightful mod by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, Mr. Smith has lot more-complex ideals about market economics than many of his supposed acolytes; doesn't hurt to send out reminders of this

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  68. Why fight it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of ring tones that are listed as in the public domain or creative commons. The only way to convince ASCAP to be reasonable is to make them completely irrelevant until they decide to be reasonable. Support your local bands and their home-made recordings. Download songs in the public domain or registered under Creative Commons. It isn't worth it to fight these people because they use your tax dollars to hire more lawyers than you can. If a local restaurant makes food that you don't like, do you keep going to that restaurant or does it go out of business? (sometimes very quickly!) There isn't anything that ASCAP, BMI or the RIAA make that we need to survive. If they refuse to recognize the advertising revenue that they get every time their silly ring tones play on our phones, it's their loss. This is a war that you can't win, and don't really need to fight. The artists who create these things don't make anything anyway. All of the money goes to the distributors and resalers. If they want a fight, I say let's completely ignore them. How long will it take for them to get the message?

  69. How about just paying up? by AnnaZed · · Score: 1

    How about not being jerks and letting the authors collect their fractions of pennies for the use of their compositions to amuse yourself, impress your friends or whatever satisfaction is derived (presumed to be something, since it was worth it to you to pay to put it on your phone) from having the recognizable ringtone in the first place. How about that for being edgy and cool?

  70. Inaccurate slashdot/EFF summary by brit74 · · Score: 1

    Based on my reading of the article, they aren't threatening to sue individuals for "public performance". Rather, they are using this as a ploy to wrangle more fees out of the phone companies. Quotes like "you're violating copyright law by 'publicly performing' it without a license." are inaccurate. Afterall, if you look at the article, it's part of a court document involving AT&T - which shows who this is aimed at (i.e. not you, the consumer) I will say that it sounds greedy, but it sounds more like a legal maneuver to get paid more, rather than an attack on the consumer. But, congratulations to the EFF for getting everyone up in arms.

  71. They can go pound sand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My cell-phone ring is a recording of a WD-500 telephone set. A real ringer.

  72. Re:Does AT&T get credited for ring tones in so by jonwil · · Score: 1

    AT&T doesn't own the rights to those ringtones. If anyone deserves money from the use in those songs, its Nokia etc.

  73. You know, i might be for this. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If they jack the price up so no one can afford to have those damned annoying tunes on their phones that always seem to go off during meetings or at the movie house.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  74. You're probably right, but what about this law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't there another section of copyright saying exactly how many TVs/radios/etc. (and how large they can be) you can have in your business before you infringe?

    I believe it came up in this case. And I think that copyright law bars you from having screens bigger than 55" explicitly in one of the statutes. There's more analysis of the law in question in this story about the same case, which links to this law.

    Now, I apologize for jumping in here. You're probably right about whatever you're arguing over retransmission and whatnot, but there are other weird parts of copyright law that trip people (and businesses) up. It's probably based on those statutes (and not any retransmission laws) that ASCAP goes after anyone with radios/loudspeakers/TVs/etc.

  75. Performance by blamanj · · Score: 2, Funny

    If ASCAP really believes that ringtones constitute a performance, then surely they won't mind standing between any decent rock band and their fans when the band comes out and only performs 16 bars of all their hit songs.

  76. ASCAP is not RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This topic has really taken me off-guard. For years I've followed Slashdot stories and I have been fairly strongly against the RIAA because they represent the interests of corporations, not artists. This is not the case with ASCAP. ASCAP is literally the only advocate for us composers and songwriters. Hollywood made sure in the early days that composers were not adequately compensated, and were basically studio in-house serfs. Unfortunately, now that composers work freelance and not for the studios, the pay scale has stayed the same. The only people negotiating for composers are ASCAP and BMI. Granted, these are not perfect organizations, but they're all we have to insure that the composer of that jingle which made the corporation $20 million is getting paid his/her share. And it is a tiny share, I assure you. For example, it is standard practice for the studios to own the copyright of music composed for their films or tv shows.

    Frankly, I'm shocked at the responses on here. I've always thought of Slashdot as a community of at least reasonably educated and thoughtful, if humorous people. But here I see dozens of people blasting ASCAP as if it were the RIAA or some other entity representing the fat cats. ASCAP represents the composers/songwriters.

    Now, should we be paid every time the phone rings? No. Should we be paid if someone buys a ringtone? Hell yes. Why should anyone be allowed to make money off of our compositions without compensating us?

    And for any programmers out there who are blasting the idea of compensation to ASCAP for media created for devices which have an ever-increasing importance in people's lives, I take that as direct permission for me to bittorrent your software that you've been working on.

    1. Re:ASCAP is not RIAA by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Is anyone contesting artists' rights to get paid when someone buys a ringtone of their music? This story is about ASCAP wanting money every time a phone rings with such a ringtone. You say yourself that they should. ASCAP may serve a useful purpose generally, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticised for making kneejerk demands.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:ASCAP is not RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get paid for test equipment I built 5 years ago, and neither should you be paid for work you did years ago. Write more music if you want to get paid.

    3. Re:ASCAP is not RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Where did I state that I think ASCAP should be paid every time a phone rings? Check your glasses. I stated exactly the opposite. And speaking of kneejerk, that's exactly what I'm complaining about here is the vast majority of Slashdotters who have a kneejerk reaction to this and, ill-informed fools that they are, feel the need to paint ASCAP with the same brush as the RIAA. Again, put your money where your mouth is and give up getting paid for any work that you do.

    4. Re:ASCAP is not RIAA by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no. Those fucking pricks at the ASCAP have been known to prevent performances of entirely original material at open mike events with the b.s. line that there's no way to know beforehand if the performer will choose to violate copyright during the event! they can burn in the same hell with the other entertainment cartel thugs

  77. Offtopic by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Why does the top Google for tap dance nine iron" come up with a reference to farting?

    Ah, loose associations (to childhood jokes).

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  78. So that would be....? by smchris · · Score: 2, Funny

    For the joy your friggin' phone is bringing to those around you when it goes off? ASCAP should be forced to set aside a fund to pay _US_.

  79. Tips is tops! by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    PG Tips, white and sweet. Best cuppa in the universe!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  80. Won't someone think of the Hills? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    What about the representatives of Patty and Mildred Hill??? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0707430/quotes

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  81. Why does anyone buy ringtones? by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    Though you may have to hunt around for the software to transcode mp3s into the DRM package your maker uses, it's generally fairly easy to make your own ringtones.

    For example, right here on their own website, the DRM packager for sony ericsson phones: http://developer.sonyericsson.com/site/global/docstools/misc/p_misc.jsp

  82. So Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Really annoyed by such "ring tones" anyway. If it's not your music and you didn't license it from the owner for such a purpose, knock it off.

    I agree, copyright is broken (or badly bent, at least). But there is a ton of free (as in beer) music you can use to make annoying ringtones. And there are plenty of free tools you can use to make your own music.

    If your idea of "individuality" is to use someone else's music to indicate that someone is trying to communicate with you, you're a sad little person anyway. So quit it.

  83. Suck it, ASCAP by kheldan · · Score: 1

    You can't charge me a royalty when my phone rings, because it rings like a standard Bell telephone. No copyright on that, assholes!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  84. If history has taught us anything... by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Good luck proving you're not guilty of infringement in court.

  85. 10 Years is Probably too short by weston · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Today, unlike 20 years ago, everyone has access they need to sell an invention within a few days. Exposure is almost instant, and someone will do it better than you did in one year or less, anyway.

    Inventions are different than creative works, but even then, with short terms of protection, there's the problem that any invention that will be bought will have to be valuable enough to the new owner that they can make more off of buying related patents in the near term than they could just waiting 10 years for the term to expire. A longer term makes greater investments possible. This isn't the only worthwhile consideration w/ respect to patent/copyright protection, and we've gotten to a bad place imagining that it is, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a worthwhile consideration.

    Creative works... in order to really profit from them, you need time for them to reach a critical mass of popularity. Even though there are some artists who seemingly become famous inside of a year or two, it's a *lot* more common to take 5-10 years of work. Sometimes a *lifetime* isn't enough, though I don't think that means copyright should extend beyond it. The original terms of 14 years plus an additional 14 years if the author was still alive seem about right to me.

  86. Give a finger, get an arm taken by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Such harebrained ideas are only hatched because they're used to getting away with ludicrous claims and actually getting what they want.

    Copyright claims have left the borders of sanity. Actually they lept over it by some margin. Copyright was about creating a balance between creators and consumers of content. It's anything but this today.

    It's time to get back to sensible copyright. Either that or a battle will ensue that the rights holders cannot win. They depend on income from content consumers. Content consumers, otoh, can live well without the content.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  87. ASCAP by altek · · Score: 1

    is that some type of ASSHAT?

    --
    THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
  88. I agree with you here by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    Suppose you play music in your car, and are in a traffic jam with windows rolled down.Do you have to pay royalty for public performance?
    Ringing phone is the same thing. I don't think its going to stand up in court. Just because somebody can hear what you play does not mean its public performance.
    However if you booked an auditorium, hooked your phone to the mic and let it ring, it would be public performance.
    What next, if you play music in your house, and somebody passing by the window can hear it, you need to pay royalty?

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:I agree with you here by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      It's called "pay per play" and it's nothing new.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  89. Fuck the music industry by ischorr · · Score: 1

    I'd rather stop listening to any music ever than spend money on them again. Every time I think they can't be more douchetastic, they find a way.

    As soon as it stops being another greedy profit factory, I'll start buying again. I'm not holding my breath.

  90. That doesn't mean ASCAP deserves the dosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it isn't a public performance, even though AT&T says it is, then ASCAP doesn't deserve any money.

    Any Nigerian Princes out there aren't deserving of the scams money just because the scam mentioned it was a Nigerian Prince asking for the money.

    What this SHOULD be is AT&T customers getting their money back taken under false pretenses.

    But ASCAP still gets bupkis.

  91. Wow seriously⦠by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I thought the british "Performing Rights Society" was bad for demanding money for music played in offices and canteens but this just takes the biscuit.

  92. Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a report referenced on slashdot a while ago where over 90% of the money for a work is collected in the first 5 years.

    10 years is longer than 5.

    And a few years is shorter than 10.

    And 90% of all new business ventures fail. Should the government give them bailouts for the first 5 years to see if they can work?

    And stop that crap about how it takes so long to get published. You don't have copyright until it's published, you have NDA's which are PERMANENT until rescinded. Unlike copyright (of any term) which are NOT permanent.

    And, since a corporation can outlive any human, all they have to do is sit on your idea until you die and they get it for free.

    Unless you have an NDA.

    1. Re:Bollocks by weston · · Score: 1

      There was a report referenced on slashdot a while ago where over 90% of the money for a work is collected in the first 5 years.

      For all kinds of creative and technical work across the board? That's surprising enough that I have to remain skeptical, though I'd naturally be interested in seeing a cite for the study.

      And 90% of all new business ventures fail. Should the government give them bailouts for the first 5 years to see if they can work?

      The differences between control over an invention or creative work and a "bailout" are many and large enough that this is a pretty tenuous connection.

      And stop that crap about how it takes so long to get published. You don't have copyright until it's published

      This is actually false. You have copyright for something (in the US, at any rate) as soon as you've created it (and fixed the work in some medium of expression, IIRC). You don't even have to register it with the copyright office (unless you're going to seek statutory damages).

      you have NDA's which are PERMANENT until rescinded

      NDAs are pretty much orthogonal to copyright concerns, a work that's protected by one doesn't usually need to be protected by the other, and any concerns about one would therefore be unaddressed by a change in the other.

  93. Not good by Zalminen · · Score: 1

    Yea sure... Sounds great until you consider the practical implications.

    If everyone including me has a ringtone sounding like a normal phone, then everytime someone's cell phone rings I have to check whether it's mine.
    If everyone uses personalized ringtones ('shit music') then I will know right away whether it's my phone. (Unless someone happens to have the exact same tune selected which is damn rare...)

    And no, using vibrate is not an answer. If I have anything else in my pocket, I usually never even notice the vibration.

    1. Re:Not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG end of the world!

      Seriously, if this is freaking you out, record your own:

      "Hey, Zalminen's phone is ringing, pick up!"

  94. begging questions = circular reasoning? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    the historically accepted meaning of "begs the question"

    My impression was that is was meant to imply circular reasoning.

    "God exists because the Bible say so. The bible is true because the content comes from God."

  95. Making available? Thomas-Rasset damages? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    This case is because AT&T has been selling ringtones at extortionate prices under the premise that it covers a public performance license, but has never paid those licensing fees for all those ring tones.

    So ASCAP should sue AT&T for making available the songs to everyone on the street?

    Or maybe... let's see... From http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/business/ringtone_sales_fizzling_out_103910.htm

    Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI), an organization that collects royalties for song writers and publishers, is forecasting that overall ringtone sales in the US will fall 7 percent in 2008 to approximately $510 million.

    Let's say it dropped to $480 million, and AT&T sold a fourth of that, i.e. $120 million. Let's say they charge $9.6 per ringtone. That's 12.5 million ring tones.

    Under the Thomas-Rasset statutory damage precedent, AT&T should pay ASCAP $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars).

    I'm all for! ;)

  96. I hope they get what they wanted by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Funny

    I really hope they get their measure passed. Any incentive for people to abuse my ear less with this idiotic invention of "ringtone" is very welcome by me.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  97. I'm rooting for North Korea! by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    This is like Iran and North Korea going at it.

    Seeing how this is going to be a nuclear war, let's consider the collateral damages to neighboring countries.

    When North Korea gets hit, that's going to affect South Korea, which means I might be unable to watch Starcraft on GomTV.

    If Iran gets hit, that's going to affect Iraq. Let's see, what do they provide of value... Oil to Bush? Oh, that was way back when? Uhmm....

    Yeah, I want my Starcraft. Go NK, Go Kim!

  98. Why thank you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have made the patent open for ME too, so I get it for the same price!

    Better still, I'll shop you in (reward?) and that's one less competitor!

    Woohoo!!

  99. But they can afford a patent??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or if they don't WANT to make it, why should they be allowed a patent in any case?

    When you go with your prototype/designs you expose them under an NDA.

    Despite some information not being copyrightable, it is still illegal to EVER reveal things held under an NDA. Same thing happens to patents.

    Better than both, the NDA NEVER EXPIRES.

    A very patient printer could wait until 50 years after your death (maybe killing you: they'll be out of jail before the copyright expires) and you gained NOTHING.

  100. Is that cheaper than paying a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing someone?

    I know that the US loves their corporations, but that doesn't stop the CEO from criminal charges. Is your CEO willing to pay 50 years of their personal limited life to save the company a hundred billion dollars?

    And how about making it last 10 years. Patents and copyrights both. No need to kill. At the moment, it's related to the artists death and with 50 years you'll be out of jail before the copyright expires, yet such copyright owners remain unkilled.

  101. of course we can by nimbius · · Score: 1

    begin collecting ring metrics so you can request audio ringtone royalties from our customers whom we routinely sell to advertisers. dont be surprised to see a professional services invoice for this custom solution from your friendly AT&T engineering and development team.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  102. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times do you people have to be reminded that the music "industry" is just
    a subsidiary of another, older "industry" - the MAFIA?

    It IS organized crime. Plenty of proof of that. But they can pay off politicians to ignore that.

  103. ASCAP has no positive image left by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Anyone who is familiar with ASCAP but not a member is already aware of their ludicrous claims and tactics, and their ridiculous methods of making money. How much of a PR hit could they possibly take? This sounds like "more of the same" to me...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  104. I'm bothered... by the general Slashdot response by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, I'm a bit bothered by how many responses here are going along the lines of "ASCAP are evil IP mongers who I'd normally want to fight against, but I personally don't like others' ringtones, so I don't mind so much".

    HYPOCRITES!

    If you don't like obnoxious ringtones (obnoxious is usually defined as 'stuff that isn't coming from your phone' of course), then fine, discuss noise pollution or novel technical means to battle them. Whatever... just don't be a hypocrite and decide that its ok to let the ASCAP be douchebags to someone else just because you happen to agree with the side-effects of their douchbaggery. If you do that, you're no better than the folks who claim to be pro-life, but then applaud the murder of a doctor who performs services they don't like.

    Just for the record, I'm not saying this to be a troll. I seriously feel this way. Yes, I am often annoyed by others' obnoxious tones, but supporting the ASCAP or the **AA in this one instance would be really shortsighted and hypocritical.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
  105. Who should get paid by pfant · · Score: 1

    so cellphone companies can charge for the ringtones but the composers can't?

  106. A few fun implications by Banzai042 · · Score: 1

    One thing that worries me about this is the fact that ASCAP requires the entity paying for the public performance to collect data on what songs are played, and the number of times that they are played, so that the artists can be compensated in proportion to how often their songs are played (which does actually happen, believe it or not). This would mean that AT&T would be required to set up a system where every time an individual's phone rings the ringtone used on the phone would be reported back to AT&T. After all, how are they to know which of the 10 mangled song clips a user paid for are being used as a ringtone, or what if they're in a movie and actually set their phone on vibrate? And what about user created ringtones? Do they just assume that the filename accurately describes the song being played?

    Of course there's also the fact that AT&T will need to raise prices to cover the added cost, and since the royalty is not a one-time fee users will need to pay a subscription cost for each ringtone. And if AT&T ends up with an arrangement where they are charged each time a phone rings, then users will need to pay something like $.01 every time their phone rings.

  107. ASCAP = ASSHAT by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    You are just an ASSHAT shill. Their actions are clearly completely retarded, and anyone who doesn't represent them will know that.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  108. Sound systems in cars by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

    What about all those people with HUGE sound systems in their cars? The type that pump out so much bass that the entire frame of the car rattles as the car moves down the road, and the music can be heard hundreds of meters away. I guess the RIAA will be going after them too, if they haven't already, assuming the driver is playing CDs rather than public radio broadcasts which would be covered by royalties paid by the radio station.

    --
    Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  109. So I can't sing to my kids anymore? by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

    I guess I should be careful about singing songs to my kids in the car when we're traveling? My wife and I often sing songs from the Wiggles, or various Disney songs, Hannah Montana (my 3-year old daughter LOVES her), and the like to the kids to entertain them on long trips. If we sing too loudly, someone outside the car might hear us and report us!!

    --
    Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  110. As a member of ASCAP.... by TheReverandND · · Score: 0

    I am disgusted that an organization I have trusted to represent me in matters of royalty so blatantly misrepresent my interests. I may have to seriously rethink my membership. Should you happen upon some of works feel free to use it as a ring tone, I don't mind, I already got paid. The Reverand

  111. Happy Birthday Chorus by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

    I've often thought that someone should come up with a Public Domain "Happy Birthday" song to replace the covered-by-copyright one.

    How about setting "Happy Birthday" to the Hallelujah chorus from Händel's Messiah?

    Haaaaaappy birthday! Happy birthday! Happy birthday!
    Haaaaaappy birthday! Happy birthday, to you!

    --
    In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide