or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple to launch ringtone service for iPhone users
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to launch ringtone service for iPhone users - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Its very doubtful that this money goes to Apple. It most certainly goes to the record industry. But I don't really care I hate musical ring tones.

Yo gotta' be realistic Jeff their's no way in hell the music industry would let ring tones be free.
post #42 of 87
[QUOTE=mrjoec123;1135059
I do think that ringtones SHOULD be free. I certainly wouldn't pay for one, in any event. But the fact of the matter is that they are NOT free. Playing your stereo really loud and recording it with the RAZR's cheap little microphone is hardly what I'd call a free ringtone. It's a cheesy workaround, which, sadly, produces what some people would call acceptable results. I guess the little speakers on these phones are so lame anyway that it doesn't make much difference.
[/QUOTE]

Yea, it is probably cheesy. But, it does work and it doesn't take very long to do this. I am not an audiofile. I can tell the difference in basic sound quality and I can say that the sound recorded and played back with the RAZR is not great. It is close enough however, since the phone is probably in a pocket and muffled with the small speaker it does have. I only want to hear a variety of tunes depending on the type of call or for some other reason.

The general public is used to paying for ringtones We should protest this somehow and I am by boycotting any purchase of a ringtone and use any cheesy way I can to get my ringtone. It works for me in my little corner of the universe.
post #43 of 87
Aren't there programs for ringtones on the iPhone for free. I just recently downloaded and read about Funtastic 3.0.3 or something to that affect that allows you transfer .mp3 files to your /library/ringtone directory I take it?
post #44 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkDifferent View Post

What about ringbacks?

The FCC should make rimgbacks illegal.

If I call someone, I do not want to hear a compressed cell network rendition of "holler back girl" or whatever crap the z-100s of the world are playing at such a volume that I nearly throw the phone out of natural reaction!

but to your point, I understand why they charge for ringback, you are not using it for personal use, you are essentially narrow-casting their music
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #45 of 87
do you guys just stay parked at AI all day? I have had a windows based GUI program (no hacks) that I got from a link on everythingiPhone. Not itunes stuff but any track. Being a commercial rap producer in atlanta i can cut a track with say, TI in the studio and assign that rough mix to his contact immediately.

Pardon me but fuck itunes. Its a disgrace. $10 lets me make anything i want and enjoy my instrumentals as ringtones. Forever. Do the math.
post #46 of 87
I think sitting around waiting for Apple to give ringtones when there is a hack is a waste. Send the money to the wonderful developers who gave us ringtone options. It is an easy process. I think it is wrong for Apple to charge us for things we already own. Not very customer centric I would say.

I would give anything however to have the notification of a text message be a ringtone so I can hear the damn thing. Notifications of text messages, and new emails is way to soft. It is serious frustration with this new phone.

I am a Apple fan but I do not drink the kool-aid so deeply that I will not state their flaws. The phone needs some corrections and additions soon! They have been stated before so I will not belabor the point.
post #47 of 87
I'm confused Mission. I may be misunderstanding but it sounds as if you are advocating free music.

I'm sure you are not producing rap for free and TI isn't giving away his music away for free. iTunes offers a way to sell digital music for a fairly reasonable price. What exactly do have against it?
post #48 of 87
You guys also forget that Apple does not own the music on iTunes and does not have the freedom to do whatever they want with it. Apple makes little to money from iTunes and likely does not care about charging for ringtones. All of these choices have to be negotiated with the music industry.
post #49 of 87
Nevermind.
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm confused Mission. I may be misunderstanding but it sounds as if you are advocating free music.

I'm sure you are not producing rap for free and TI isn't giving away his music away for free. iTunes offers a way to sell digital music for a fairly reasonable price. What exactly do have against it?

Nah, you're not confused...... nor are you misunderstanding.
post #51 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

So what? I don't care whose fault it is, and I don't care what size the industry is, how many suckers will pay money for this stuff, and I still don't care if it's a small fee compared to anyone else. It's still stupid in my opinion.

Oh, I agree. Its stupid and I have never paid for one. I was responding to mostly two lines of complaint:
1) Apple is so greedy, I already paid for it once--I will never buy an iPhone if this is how they run their business (Apple may not have control over this. Which is worse, not allowing ringtones or charging a fee for those who want it?)
2) Greedy bastards--who would ever pay twice for the same music. (Well, the fact is people do. and there is money to by made there, and business tend to want to make money.)

Hell, When I owned a shop I sold bottled water for $1.25 when we paid about $.07 per. That is an insane, almost criminal markup. But I sold cases every day. If someone walked in and said "you bastard, how can you charge that much for water, I won't pay it!" well, they would be right, but I would still throw them out of my store!

If my competitors lowered their prices, or if people stopped buying, then I would have had to lower the price. That never happened.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #52 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravedog View Post

differentLY....

Actually, he was right and you are wrong. He alluded to the well-known ad campaign "think different." You didn't get it and must now suffer the shame of a failed grammar policeman.
post #53 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm confused Mission. I may be misunderstanding but it sounds as if you are advocating free music.

I'm sure you are not producing rap for free and TI isn't giving away his music away for free. iTunes offers a way to sell digital music for a fairly reasonable price. What exactly do have against it?

I don't think that was the point. I thought mission's point was you can get this program to cut any track you already have and make a ringtone out of it rather than pay for a ring tone, which in many cases is paying again for what the buyer might already have.

It sounded like mission had special access to the material so he (guessing here) can cut his own tracks for his own phone, and be personalized to every person that calls him. I think mentioning that was a distraction from the point.
post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Oh, I agree. Its stupid and I have never paid for one. I was responding to mostly two lines of complaint:
1) Apple is so greedy, I already paid for it once--I will never buy an iPhone if this is how they run their business (Apple may not have control over this. Which is worse, not allowing ringtones or charging a fee for those who want it?)
2) Greedy bastards--who would ever pay twice for the same music. (Well, the fact is people do. and there is money to by made there, and business tend to want to make money.)

Hell, When I owned a shop I sold bottled water for $1.25 when we paid about $.07 per. That is an insane, almost criminal markup. But I sold cases every day. If someone walked in and said "you bastard, how can you charge that much for water, I won't pay it!" well, they would be right, but I would still throw them out of my store!

If my competitors lowered their prices, or if people stopped buying, then I would have had to lower the price. That never happened.

Lemme guess... it was a bagel shop.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggsjm View Post

Second. . . I would much rather pay a .15 to .30 per track fee to make it into a ringtone (with a section that I select) than what 99% of people who have ringtones on their phone do, which is purchase a song on CD or via iTunes and then purchase THE RINGTONE for $2.99 plus applicable network usage fees (which for someone with no data plan can cost another $1.49).

This is stupid. 99% of people have phones that can play any MP3 as a ringtone for free. All we have to do is chop the MP3 where we want it.

The people who buy ringtones don't buy the same format that they already own. The $2.99 ringtones are additional because they are NOT MP3s and are MIDI data, which often sounds better on lo-fidelity speakers than an MP3. One might be expected to pay for something that is an additional format (sequenced playback) to what they already own (hifi audio recording). Or you can legally sequence the music you already own for your own use (I was looking for a way to do this in GarageBand, but I don't think it can be done). What you can't do is sell what you've done without a license from the copyright holder, just like you can't sell your own ripped CD's.

"Oh jeez. I already own 'Creep' by Radiohead. Why should I pay more for to download the sheet music from the internet? It should be free!"

But I digress. Apple is not selling MIDI ringtones. They are selling the same recording we presumably have already bought from them. So it should be free. Just like it is free for any other MP3 ringtone enabled mobile phone.
post #56 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by waytogobuddy View Post

Pay twice for my media?

They've got to be joking.

There's probably a licensing problem.

Still, ringtones often cost $2.50 each, and look at the numbers they are generating!

People will do this.
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Yeah, doesn't it mean the exact same thing as vain?

People need to be less stupid.

-Clive

No, it doesn't mean the same thing.

And you are right, people do need to be less stupid.
post #58 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravedog View Post

differentLY....

"Think Different" is Apple's slogan.
post #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjoec123 View Post

Personally, I've always thought that ringtones were the first sign of the global apocalypse, anyway. The fact that the telco industry managed to wave a shiny object in front of us to distract us from the pitiful state of customer service and call sound quality for this long is surely proof that we're not as smart a species as we'd like to think.

Having said that, I do think that ringtones SHOULD be free. I certainly wouldn't pay for one, in any event. But the fact of the matter is that they are NOT free. Playing your stereo really loud and recording it with the RAZR's cheap little microphone is hardly what I'd call a free ringtone. It's a cheesy workaround, which, sadly, produces what some people would call acceptable results. I guess the little speakers on these phones are so lame anyway that it doesn't make much difference.

A lot of people pay $2.99 and up for ringtones on a regular basis (a statistic that I still find completely astounding) so there's no reason why a company such as Apple or AT&T shouldn't get in on the gravy train. If they offer anything resembling what was described here in the article, it will be a great bargain, compared to what Verizon, the company with which so many wished Apple had offered the iPhone, officially offers (above jury-rigged method notwithstanding).

The record labels will get their cut. AT&T will get its cut. Apple will get its cut. The musicians and the customers will get screwed, as usual. Serves them right for signing up with a record label in the first place, and serves us right for being dumb enough to want our phones to play songs at us from crappy little speakers.

I'm always amazed at how so many people think that things should be free FOR THEM.

I think that you should put in overtime, and DO IT FOR FREE.
post #60 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

So what? I don't care whose fault it is, and I don't care what size the industry is, how many suckers will pay money for this stuff, and I still don't care if it's a small fee compared to anyone else. It's still stupid in my opinion.

It isn't suckers Jeff. People who bit torrent all their files think that anyone who pays for content are suckers. I don't.

If there is a service, and people want it for the convenience, or whatever, that doesn't make them suckers.

After all, how many times have you been called a sucker (or equivalent) for buying a Mac?
post #61 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Oh, I agree. Its stupid and I have never paid for one. I was responding to mostly two lines of complaint:
1) Apple is so greedy, I already paid for it once--I will never buy an iPhone if this is how they run their business (Apple may not have control over this. Which is worse, not allowing ringtones or charging a fee for those who want it?)
2) Greedy bastards--who would ever pay twice for the same music. (Well, the fact is people do. and there is money to by made there, and business tend to want to make money.)

Hell, When I owned a shop I sold bottled water for $1.25 when we paid about $.07 per. That is an insane, almost criminal markup. But I sold cases every day. If someone walked in and said "you bastard, how can you charge that much for water, I won't pay it!" well, they would be right, but I would still throw them out of my store!

If my competitors lowered their prices, or if people stopped buying, then I would have had to lower the price. That never happened.

I have an anecdote about this completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I used to frequent a local taco shop here in HK. They sold Dos Equis beer there for HK$25 per bottle.

The owner all of the sudden started selling only Sol, and stopped buying Dos Equis. Myself, and a lot of other customers complained that we didn't like Sol. It tasted like watered down Corona. But the owner replied that the asshole importer of Dos Equis wouldn't aompromise on price, and she couldn't get Dos Equis for less than HK$8 per bottle. She bought Sol at $6.

What the moronic owner didn't realize was that it wasn't just a question of price. She could have sold Sol at $25 and Dos Equis at $27, and we would have been happy. But she was too narrow minded to think in that way.

Eventually she sold the shop to a more sensible owner. The owner sells Dos Equis again, and the shop is more popular than ever.

Now she sells US$3.00 Denny's style breakfasts for about US$10 and she's making a killing, and she has three 24-hour breakfast shops now.

What this has to do with the iPhone, I have no idea.
post #62 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If there is a service, and people want it for the convenience, or whatever, that doesn't make them suckers.

Absolutely agree.

In addition, there is the sense of shared responsibility that all of us (should) have to pay for IP, for otherwise, it will not get produced in the first place. It is the seller's prerogative to charge a price. Whether that is appropriately priced or overpriced is in the eyes of the buyer.

Just don't buy it if is the latter. People who choose to aren't "suckers."

More specifically, on the matter of ringtones, I do not see myself as having hundreds of them, maybe perhaps a couple of dozens at most. If Apple charges me a reasonable price -- which I would, personally, put as being in the region of a $0.50 - $1.00 per ringtone -- and if is simple to create and allows me the flexibility of picking different song parts, I would consider it fair.
post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Lemme guess... it was a bagel shop.

Damn! I'm not as tricky as I thought.



(actually, it was three...)
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I have an anecdote about this completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I used to frequent a local taco shop here in HK. They sold Dos Equis beer there for HK$25 per bottle.

The owner all of the sudden started selling only Sol, and stopped buying Dos Equis. Myself, and a lot of other customers complained that we didn't like Sol. It tasted like watered down Corona. But the owner replied that the asshole importer of Dos Equis wouldn't aompromise on price, and she couldn't get Dos Equis for less than HK$8 per bottle. She bought Sol at $6.

What the moronic owner didn't realize was that it wasn't just a question of price. She could have sold Sol at $25 and Dos Equis at $27, and we would have been happy. But she was too narrow minded to think in that way.

Eventually she sold the shop to a more sensible owner. The owner sells Dos Equis again, and the shop is more popular than ever.

Now she sells US$3.00 Denny's style breakfasts for about US$10 and she's making a killing, and she has three 24-hour breakfast shops now.

What this has to do with the iPhone, I have no idea.

Anything off topic that involves beer is OK in my book.
Dos Equis, Sol, Corona...Mmmm. I was sucking down a Negra Modelo as I read that--Don't know if they are getting those in HK but I highly reccomend it if you get a chance...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #65 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It isn't suckers Jeff. People who bit torrent all their files think that anyone who pays for content are suckers. I don't.

If there is a service, and people want it for the convenience, or whatever, that doesn't make them suckers.

After all, how many times have you been called a sucker (or equivalent) for buying a Mac?

I think there's a difference between not paying for media and paying twice for the same piece. Doubly so for paying $3 for such a track, though hopefully Apple doesn't charge that.

I suppose it's not a problem to offer a service, but to make it hard to add third party ring tones to push people over to said service rubs me the wrong way.
post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think there's a difference between not paying for media and paying twice for the same piece. Doubly so for paying $3 for such a track, though hopefully Apple doesn't charge that.

I suppose it's not a problem to offer a service, but to make it hard to add third party ring tones to push people over to said service rubs me the wrong way.

Then put the blame where you really think it belongson Apple.

But, really, as was mentioned, the license for iTunes does specifically state that the songs cannot be used for ringtones. You may not like that, but remember it was there from the beginning, long before Apple likely had a notion to make a phone, and, from what I know, all other music services have the same addendum.

It's not likely that Apple wanted this addendum, but rather the content companies.

So, I guess, you really have to go back to them.

But, if I wanted a ringtone enough to pay $3.00, I'm not a sucker any more than anyone else who pays for something they want.

You might as well call everyone who buys an iPhone a sucker, because Apple is getting extra money from ATT when, instead, they could have lowered the price to us.
post #67 of 87
you can already create ringtones from music in your library and select the portion of the song you want to use as a ringtone using iPhoneRingToneMaker
post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj8212 View Post

you can already create ringtones from music in your library and select the portion of the song you want to use as a ringtone using iPhoneRingToneMaker

Yeah, sure, for the "discounted" price of 15 bucks.

No thanks.

I'd rather that Apple charged me a buck per ringtone, and I get 15 of them legitimately. Or 30, if the price is $0.50/ringtone.
post #69 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj8212 View Post

you can already create ringtones from music in your library and select the portion of the song you want to use as a ringtone using iPhoneRingToneMaker

Assuming that's legal to do so.

Of course, if it isn't, and some people don't care, well then, there's nothing more to be said to them.
post #70 of 87
how about freakin voice dialing hands free for the iphone? and some standard rings like the old phones sounded. business people don't want some rap crap going off in front your "i want to be promoted" boss
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Assuming that's legal to do so.

Of course, if it isn't, and some people don't care, well then, there's nothing more to be said to them.

Is there a ruling that it's illegal for an individual to make a ring tone out of an otherwise legitimately purchased song? I really don't care about the opinion of the music industry, that's just their interpretation or opinion, and EULAs aren't iron-clad.
post #72 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Is there a ruling that it's illegal for an individual to make a ring tone out of an otherwise legitimately purchased song? I really don't care about the opinion of the music industry, that's just their interpretation or opinion, and EULAs aren't iron-clad.

I don't know how it would work for the DRM-free offerings from EMI, but for anything covered by the DMCA, maybe. In order to use this as a ring-tone, it's possible that it would violate the DMCA if there is any action needed to get around the DRM to use it for that purpose. I don't know.

But, otherwise, as we've seen, at the very least, it would be violating the license to use it that way. You can't say that you don't care about violating a license (well, I guess you could), though you may not be happy about it. There is no such thing as buying a song. You don't own it, even though you want to think you do. You only license it to use in the manner the license allows you to. If you violate that license, the copyright holder is allowed to take the license away, so that you can't use it anymore, unlikely as that might be in the practical sense.

When you "buy" a CD, you are only buying the physical media. You are purchasing a license to use it in a non-commercial environment, and agreeing to only make a copy for your own personal use as either an archive, or to move it to another media, intended to play on a different type of machine, such as cassette, or store as a computer file.

I know that people like to think that they own the music itself, but they don't. You don't have to like it, but it's true.

What you do with that information is up to you, of course, but no matter what you think, legally, your opinion on the matter has no value. The only way it would, would be if you convinced your representative to vote for a change in copyright law, and if enough others did as well, then you will have changed the law.
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know how it would work for the DRM-free offerings from EMI, but for anything covered by the DMCA, maybe. In order to use this as a ring-tone, it's possible that it would violate the DMCA if there is any action needed to get around the DRM to use it for that purpose. I don't know.

I think that's an unreasonable case when Apple provides such a tool, though it's best to use that rather than some other tool. In his last public letter, I think Steve Jobs explained how to get around Apple's DRM. Explaining how to break DRM is supposed to be a violation of the DMCA.

Quote:
When you "buy" a CD, you are only buying the physical media. You are purchasing a license to use it in a non-commercial environment, and agreeing to only make a copy for your own personal use as either an archive, or to move it to another media, intended to play on a different type of machine, such as cassette, or store as a computer file.

I know that people like to think that they own the music itself, but they don't. You don't have to like it, but it's true.

I never said that it was *my* music to do everything as I please, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a format shift to move to a different machine for personal use. Format shifting for personal use is legal, though it's my interpretation, which can vary from the music industry. But I won't take the music industry's word for it because they, like us, have a vested interest in taking the interpretation that best fits their interests. I really don't think the public performance bit is that reasonable, it's far more benign than someone playing their boom box as they walk down the street.
post #74 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think that's an unreasonable case when Apple provides such a tool, though it's best to use that rather than some other tool. In his last public letter, I think Steve Jobs explained how to get around Apple's DRM. Explaining how to break DRM is supposed to be a violation of the DMCA.

You can bet that if Apple offers such a service, it will be proper, and legal. Jobs never explained a way to get around the DRM, because there is no legal way for us to do so by ourselves. Apple could do so, if they negotiated a way with the copyright holders. But, some are already complaining about Apples new tool, so we'll see.

Quote:
I never said that it was *my* music to do everything as I please, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a format shift to move to a different machine for personal use. Format shifting for personal use is legal, though it's my interpretation, which can vary from the music industry. But I won't take the music industry's word for it because they, like us, have a vested interest in taking the interpretation that best fits their interests. I really don't think the public performance bit is that reasonable, it's far more benign than someone playing their boom box as they walk down the street.

I was just making statements for the general audience. I did so because of your statement that you didn't care what the music industry said. That means that you will ignore license if it suits you. You can only do that if they change the license without giving notice. Otherwise, as you are small fry, they won't come after you, so it's safe to say what you want, but if caught, you might have to defend your actions in court.

The public performance aspect is not totally simple, but basically means that you can't use it where there is a cover charge, or in an establishment where it is being used as background, such as a restaurant (though they often do!), or where you charge to specifically hear, or see, the material, such as a sports bar charging to see the Superbowl (they pay for that privilege).

If you just have a boombox playing in the park (and aren't violating any public ordinances against doing so) then it's fine.
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You can bet that if Apple offers such a service, it will be proper, and legal. Jobs never explained a way to get around the DRM, because there is no legal way for us to do so by ourselves. Apple could do so, if they negotiated a way with the copyright holders. But, some are already complaining about Apples new tool, so we'll see.

Yes he did. It's not some new tool, it's been with the program for years. He said that you can write the track to CD and reimport it. That removes the DRM.

Quote:
I was just making statements for the general audience. I did so because of your statement that you didn't care what the music industry said. That means that you will ignore license if it suits you.

There are subtleties that you are missing from my statements. I said, more or less, that I don't care what the recording industry claims, which is true. This is because they have tended to exaggerate because they are trying to win through PR spin. Heck, Hillary Rosen and her cohorts didn't understand what the extent of fair use was when asked by US legislators, they even said in their response that tape recording a CD to play in your own car wasn't fair use. As such, I'm not inclined to take their word any farther than I can throw them. I did not say that I was intending to violate copyrights, I'm disagreeing that this particular situation is infringement because it doesn't work out logically. I am not demanding a free ride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The public performance aspect is not totally simple, but basically means that you can't use it where there is a cover charge, or in an establishment where it is being used as background, such as a restaurant (though they often do!), or where you charge to specifically hear, or see, the material, such as a sports bar charging to see the Superbowl (they pay for that privilege).

ASCAP and BMI have been going after taxi drivers too.
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Yes he did. It's not some new tool, it's been with the program for years. He said that you can write the track to CD and reimport it. That removes the DRM.

Well, we know that. It's an allowable part of the iTunes licensing structure, obviously allowed by the content providers. Therefore, he didn't say anything illegal, or against the copyright license, could be done.

But, the license does specifically forbid the songs being used as ringtones.

Quote:
There are subtleties that you are missing from my statements. I said, more or less, that I don't care what the recording industry claims, which is true. This is because they have tended to exaggerate because they are trying to win through PR spin. Heck, Hillary Rosen and her cohorts didn't understand what the extent of fair use was when asked by US legislators, they even said in their response that tape recording a CD to play in your own car wasn't fair use. As such, I'm not inclined to take their word any farther than I can throw them. I did not say that I was intending to violate copyrights, I'm disagreeing that this particular situation is infringement because it doesn't work out logically. I am not demanding a free ride.

I'm not interested in what they may say off the cuff, even in a session of Congress. I'm interested in what the license says, because that's been vetted, and copyright law is well understood in the legal community.

And, I'm not saying that is is a violation either, just that the license forbids it, which is not illegal per se, and involves civil lawsuits to resolve. But, it could be a violation of the DMCA, if the DRM is removed to use it for something not allowed under contract. It's complex, and I'm seeing different views from the legal perspective. The DMCA puts a wrench into the Fair Use provisions.

Remember that the only exemption so far to the DMCA is for an individual to unlock their OWN phone to use with another network in a legal manner. There is NO exemption to allow content to be used on other mechanisms, or to allow it to be used on the same mechanism in a way not allowed by contract, or the license itself.

That's why I'm saying that it's fuzzy.


Quote:
ASCAP and BMI have been going after taxi drivers too.

I hadn't heard that one.
post #77 of 87
Although Im likely to be flamed for it, Ill give my 3.5 cents on the positive side of how Apple has decided to bring ring tones to the iPhone. Yes, this will be a long post.

To those that dislike the idea, if you happen to have a job then you get paid to do a certain amount of work at a particular company. As long as what youre doing is legal, you would probably be happier if you got paid more for whatever it is you do. Youre also likely to be upset if you were paid less. So if a group of businesses discovered a way to do what you do, yet do it for free, does it take much smarts to figure out very soon youre either going to get paid less, lose your job, or your company would be forced to change with the times? You wouldnt like that, would you?

In other words, I find it amusing that some people tend to point fingers and say a company such as Apple is greedy or taking advantage of a new feature or technology yet, at the same time, whatever it is that same person does for work, they get paid for it and they themselves say they arent greedy. Most people make sure they get paid for what they do and dont apologize for it. Thats fair. But turn that around, however, and somehow many of those same people cry foul that everything else on the planet isnt free. They demand they can buy it once and use forever for everything.

So please excuse me, whatever someone legally does for a living means someone else is willing to pay for that product or service. Saying others are stupid for wanting ring tones, let alone paying for it, is just as naive (or stupid) as saying others shouldnt have to pay for parking, selling things on eBay, having voicemail on their home phone, using satellite radio, GPS, movie rentals, or playing online multiplayer games. People demand different things and with new technologies new demands and markets open up. Thats progress. It may not be a product or service you would use but that doesnt make you smart and it certainly doesn't make others suckers or stupid.

Right now, as you read this, there are millions of people that work ten times harder than we do and make, at most, $3 a day. Whether thats stripping a ship in a dry-dock filled with toxic chemicals, digging for diamonds, or whatever, if its not food or clothing then you would have a tough time convincing them whatever you pay for makes any sense.

Do you have sneakers? TV? Cable? A camera? A computer? The Internet? Own a bike or a car? In any case they would think you insane. Do you really need any of these to live? So with that said, in the context of our very capitalistic countries, which Im very glad I live in rather than a third world country, embracing most new technologies is a good thing. Millions wish they had the spare time to worry over what music they could listen to, let alone actually hold (or own) their own house phone. Moreso a cell phone.

Music was intended to be listened to and enjoyed, but our great technology has taken us far beyond what most musicians envisioned a decade ago. Shouldnt both they and those involved in their related industry gain from new advances? Today we have ring tones how long will it be before we have ring tones for our doorbell, car alarm, or voicemail greeting? Ok, should an artist get paid once to make a song or video or movie and then get nothing nothing more for when technology advanced to where people can enjoy what they made on TV, then their computer, then their portable device, then their car, etc.?

With that said, Apple is introducing a great way for people to customize their own ring tones using only iTunes. Buy ring tones from elsewhere for above $1.50 and thats all you get, the ring tone, not the song with it. With Apples planned tactic you get both the song and the ring tone. If you already have the song, its just the extra for the ring tone. I fail to see how anyone could have a problem with that. And btw, its not your song, its the artist and their related enterested parties. What, you want them to continue making music for free? How about they walk into your home and demand you work for free too. You wouldn't like that, would you? Maybe your tune would change if you were a musician and music was how you fed your family and paid for your bills.

Think about it, you work for years to finally get a contract, perhaps have a couple concerts, and now thousands love your music and are paying for CDs and music downloads. However, just when your new hit song or album grows up the charts, you're hearing others setting your songs to ringtones on a fast growing industry (cell phones) or using as backgrounds on their web pages, etc., and you don't get another dime? They should be free to use it at will? They paid for your song or album and can digitally splice and dice your words, music, and more how they please on whatever device that plays sound? Really, if that was your way of making a living, would you really embrace the idea that it should be free?

Actually, all of us are very lucky, it wasnt too long ago the music industry was trying to destroy mp3 all together. Remember? It exists now because theres a demand (and profit) in it. That why, unless anyone misses the point, businesses stay in business.

I might not convince anyone to embrace Apples ring tones but the overall picture should be crystal clear. Years ago, you couldnt rent, let alone buy, movies. Ever. Then came the beta and VHS and soon came movie rentals and buying the movie outright. Now we have the same with music CDs and movie DVDs. The future is online music, videos, gaming, and cell phones which soon will allow us to pay for things just like a wallet in some places you can already. But the point is technology moves far faster than any of us and those that stick their head in the sand and say thats stupid, I wouldnt do that, anyone who would is stupid is, by proven history of our technology and our culture, ahem, either naïve, or stupid.


post #78 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto View Post

Think about it, you work for years to finally get a contract, perhaps have a couple concerts, and now thousands love your music and are paying for CDs and music downloads. However, just when your new hit song or album grows up the charts, you're hearing others setting your songs to ringtones on a fast growing industry (cell phones) or using as backgrounds on their web pages, etc., and you don't get another dime? They should be free to use it at will? They paid for your song or album and can digitally splice and dice your words, music, and more how they please on whatever device that plays sound? Really, if that was your way of making a living, would you really embrace the idea that it should be free?

It's not free. It's not as if the artist didn't get the money if the person legally bought the source song in the first place. My contention is that if I bought the album, the artist already got my money, it is the principle of first sale. With a legally purchased CD, an individual is not violating copyrights to transfer the song to a different file format for use on a different device, and I don't see anything that shows that phones and ring tones are an exception to that. The iTunes EULA is more restrictive and generally disallows this, but at least there, one didn't have to buy the entire album to legally buy the song and get ring tone rights to that one song, so I guess it's still a savings if you only buy a few out of a given album.

The rest of your post is basically a non sequitur as well, for these reasons.
post #79 of 87
JeffDM, my point is that people, such as those that work for a living, are compensated for the work that they do – in most cases this means they are paid for it. If someone finds another valuable use of the work provided they are usually paid for that as well. Does buying a DVD of a movie mean you can take various screenshots and make high quality posters out of it? Does buying a song mean you can decide to make it a background soundtrack on your podcast?

A different format or usage, at least to me and many industries in general, should have specific rules and ways of compensation. If I want to use a song for a commercial I have to pay for it. Likewise for use on a website. However, both are different. Certainly it doesn’t mean I can buy the album and then start using that song along with my own personal or commercial uses, does it? Well, in case anyone wonders, it doesn’t.

As for writers as well, if you buy a Harry Potter book does that give you the legal right to run around making multiple copies of it so you can keep a copy at home, one at work, another in the car, etc.? Can you buy the book and expect to get the audio version of it as well - for free? Should it come with a pdf version so you can read it on your iPod too? Not to mention, even if it did, how can a company still make a profit by keeping the price the same as it was for just the book alone?

In addition, JeffDM, I kindly remind you that part of my point is whether or not you expect the artist to only get paid once. Isn’t that what you are saying – that it’s somehow enough to pay the artist once, the initial CD or download, then its ok to use it for the second, third, perhaps ten other usages outside merely listening to it in one format? I, for one, strongly disagree with that. If they don’t get paid for it, most will stop doing it.

As you said "first sale", that initial purchase allows legal use within the confines of why you purchased it - as a CD or download, to be used exclusively as music, not as a ringtone, website background, etc. If you want another use for it, that begins the "second sale", not to buy it again, but a different price to compensate for a different use of that media. That's more or less what I'm saying.
post #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto View Post

JeffDM, my point is that people, such as those that work for a living, are compensated for the work that they do – in most cases this means they are paid for it. If someone finds another valuable use of the work provided they are usually paid for that as well. Does buying a DVD of a movie mean you can take various screenshots and make high quality posters out of it?

Actually, yes, so long as it's not redistributed, sold or done for money.

Quote:
Does buying a song mean you can decide to make it a background soundtrack on your podcast?

No.

Quote:
A different format or usage, at least to me and many industries in general, should have specific rules and ways of compensation. If I want to use a song for a commercial I have to pay for it. Likewise for use on a website. However, both are different. Certainly it doesn’t mean I can buy the album and then start using that song along with my own personal or commercial uses, does it? Well, in case anyone wonders, it doesn’t.

Personal use is allowed under fair use, so long as it's not redistibution. A web site and podcast does not qualify for that. Commercial use is often not fair use, there are tests for that, depending on the use and such. I don't understand why you are bringing commercial use into it, I never said that.

Quote:
As for writers as well, if you buy a Harry Potter book does that give you the legal right to run around making multiple copies of it so you can keep a copy at work, one at work, another in the car, etc.? Can you buy the book and expect to get the audio version of it as well- for free? Should it come with a pdf version so you can read it on your iPod too? Not to mention, even if it did, how can a company still make a profit by keeping the price the same as it was for just the book?

For personal use, making copies is permitted. One may not share those copies though. Making personal copies of books had been impractical, so it's not a concept that's done very often.

Quote:
In addition, JeffDM, I kindly remind you that part of my point is whether or not you expect the artist to only get paid once. Isn’t that what you are saying – that it’s somehow enough to pay the artist once, the initial CD or download, then its ok to use it for the second, third, perhaps ten other usages outside merely listening to it in one format? I, for one, strongly disagree with that. If they don’t get paid for it, most will stop doing it.

For personal use, I think one payment per person is fine. I don't know what you mean by one format. Recording a tape of a CD, for personal use, is considered within the bounds of fair use. Even Sen. Orrin Hatch said that.

Quote:
As you said "first sale", that initial purchase allows legal use within the confines of why you purchased it - as a CD or download, to be used exclusively as music, not as a ringtone, website background, etc. If you want another use for it, that begins the "second sale", not to buy it again, but a different price to compensate for a different use of that media. That's more or less what I'm saying.

I would agree that a website background is outside what is allowed through fair use. A ring tone is generally music, so I don't really see why it's automatically segmented out of that use.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple to launch ringtone service for iPhone users