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."
...needs a cup of tea and a lie down
No sig for the moment.
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.
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?
. . . why these people have not been struck by a meteor. If there were a God in this universe, there would be a meteor.
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!)
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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").
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.
Do we just let AT&T and ASCAP fight this one out? This is like Iran and North Korea going at it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Obligatory xkcd
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...?
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!
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)
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").
(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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
http://xkcd.com/479/ - "Tones"
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
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.
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.
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_.
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.
Tweet, tweet.
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.
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.
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