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...
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.
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 belongs?on 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Although I?m likely to be flamed for it, I?ll 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 you?re doing is legal, you would probably be happier if you got paid more for whatever it is you do. You?re 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 you?re either going to get paid less, lose your job, or your company would be forced to change with the times? You wouldn?t 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 aren?t greedy. Most people make sure they get paid for what they do and don?t apologize for it. That?s fair. But turn that around, however, and somehow many of those same people cry foul that everything else on the planet isn?t 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 shouldn?t 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. That?s progress. It may not be a product or service you would use but that doesn?t 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 that?s 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 I?m 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. Shouldn?t 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 that?s all you get, the ring tone, not the song with it. With Apple?s 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 wasn?t too long ago the music industry was trying to destroy mp3 all together. Remember? It exists now because there?s a demand (and profit) in it. That why, unless anyone misses the point, businesses stay in business.
I might not convince anyone to embrace Apple?s ring tones but the overall picture should be crystal clear. Years ago, you couldn?t 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 ?that?s stupid, I wouldn?t do that, anyone who would is stupid? is, by proven history of our technology and our culture, ahem, either naïve, or stupid.
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.
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.
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.
The good news is that I am addressing the forum in general, JeffDM, so what I say is not so much directed towards you but rather my attempt to bring everything to the table. For instance, such as making posters from DVD screenshots, or reprinting almost any images from various materials, it is not usually legal unless you lease or own the rights of doing so. It doesn’t matter if you are doing it for money or not, the picture or video or other media is not actually yours – its still the property of another. Buying something does not transfer rights to the buyer. Buyers have limited usage of their purchase and fair use certainly has its limits.
I’m not trying to argue with anyone, I’m just trying to point out that with the explosive growth of the internet, which includes blogs, podcasts, myspace, etc., that the only thing more profitable than selling content (such as music, etc.) is the newly emerging ability to easily customize that content. Apple is providing a quick and easy way to make ringtones for the iPhone and paying a total $2, which includes the song, is brilliant.
Regarding ringtones with other companies, there are too many times when one buys a ringtone and it doesn’t sound like what they wanted. You do not decide what parts of the song you hear – the company does. Usually, you also cannot transfer that ringtone to another phone if the current one breaks or they upgrade during their contract. So, all around, what Apple is working on sounds great.
Overall, I look forward to the new service and hope it works out great for everyone involved. I, for one, would like them to consider signing deals with movie studios to allow creating ringtones or movie video clips from various sections of movies, such as one’s favorite quote or other scenes. Maybe in time, like widgets, one could take small sections of their favorite songs or movies and place them, legally, on their own blogs, etc..
Many here probably won’t use ringtones. I just want to point out that Apple’s new service sounds better than how its offered elsewhere. That’s progress.
The good news is that I am addressing the forum in general, JeffDM, so what I say is not so much directed towards you but rather my attempt to bring everything to the table.
That's fine, but I don't think things are as dire for artists as you suggest, and I don't think your assertions are accurate.
Quote:
For instance, such as making posters from DVD screenshots, or reprinting almost any images from various materials, it is not usually legal unless you lease or own the rights of doing so. It doesn?t matter if you are doing it for money or not, the picture or video or other media is not actually yours ? its still the property of another. Buying something does not transfer rights to the buyer. Buyers have limited usage of their purchase and fair use certainly has its limits.
Fair use has its limits, but I don't see how making your own movie poster or desktop wallpaper from a DVD screen shot is not outside that limit. I don't see how it fails the four point test used to determine if it is fair use. Distribution of that image changes the game, and I can see that distribution is often not fair use. Fair use is, admittedly, up to judicial interpretation, but I fail to see how it could be interpreted to that extreme. The real problem is that a good share of DVDs are encrypted and the use of decrypters are either a gray area or outright illegal in many places.
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.
Jeff, how many times does it have to be said that you DON'T buy a song. You buy a license to use the song under the terms of the license, which can be taken away from you if you do not abide by those terms.
If downloadable songs (and this is from ALL download sites) specifically do not give you the right to use the song for which you bought a license to use under the terms of that license, for the purpose of creating a ringtone, then you do NOT have that right.
I really know that you want very much to think that you own the song?but you do not. Protest as much as you will, but you still do not.
Now, if you bought a CD, you might be able to do it, but, the license there is specific in detailing exactly what you may do with it, and if ringtones are not mentioned, well, again, you can't do it.
If software appears that makes it doable, that software is breaking license, and your contract with Apple.
Comments
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...
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.
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 belongs?on 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ASCAP and BMI have been going after taxi drivers too.
I hadn't heard that one.
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 you?re doing is legal, you would probably be happier if you got paid more for whatever it is you do. You?re 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 you?re either going to get paid less, lose your job, or your company would be forced to change with the times? You wouldn?t 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 aren?t greedy. Most people make sure they get paid for what they do and don?t apologize for it. That?s fair. But turn that around, however, and somehow many of those same people cry foul that everything else on the planet isn?t 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 shouldn?t 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. That?s progress. It may not be a product or service you would use but that doesn?t 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 that?s 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 I?m 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. Shouldn?t 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 that?s all you get, the ring tone, not the song with it. With Apple?s 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 wasn?t too long ago the music industry was trying to destroy mp3 all together. Remember? It exists now because there?s a demand (and profit) in it. That why, unless anyone misses the point, businesses stay in business.
I might not convince anyone to embrace Apple?s ring tones but the overall picture should be crystal clear. Years ago, you couldn?t 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 ?that?s stupid, I wouldn?t do that, anyone who would is stupid? is, by proven history of our technology and our culture, ahem, either naïve, or stupid.
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.
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.
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.
Does buying a song mean you can decide to make it a background soundtrack on your podcast?
No.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not trying to argue with anyone, I’m just trying to point out that with the explosive growth of the internet, which includes blogs, podcasts, myspace, etc., that the only thing more profitable than selling content (such as music, etc.) is the newly emerging ability to easily customize that content. Apple is providing a quick and easy way to make ringtones for the iPhone and paying a total $2, which includes the song, is brilliant.
Regarding ringtones with other companies, there are too many times when one buys a ringtone and it doesn’t sound like what they wanted. You do not decide what parts of the song you hear – the company does. Usually, you also cannot transfer that ringtone to another phone if the current one breaks or they upgrade during their contract. So, all around, what Apple is working on sounds great.
Overall, I look forward to the new service and hope it works out great for everyone involved. I, for one, would like them to consider signing deals with movie studios to allow creating ringtones or movie video clips from various sections of movies, such as one’s favorite quote or other scenes. Maybe in time, like widgets, one could take small sections of their favorite songs or movies and place them, legally, on their own blogs, etc..
Many here probably won’t use ringtones. I just want to point out that Apple’s new service sounds better than how its offered elsewhere. That’s progress.
The good news is that I am addressing the forum in general, JeffDM, so what I say is not so much directed towards you but rather my attempt to bring everything to the table.
That's fine, but I don't think things are as dire for artists as you suggest, and I don't think your assertions are accurate.
For instance, such as making posters from DVD screenshots, or reprinting almost any images from various materials, it is not usually legal unless you lease or own the rights of doing so. It doesn?t matter if you are doing it for money or not, the picture or video or other media is not actually yours ? its still the property of another. Buying something does not transfer rights to the buyer. Buyers have limited usage of their purchase and fair use certainly has its limits.
Fair use has its limits, but I don't see how making your own movie poster or desktop wallpaper from a DVD screen shot is not outside that limit. I don't see how it fails the four point test used to determine if it is fair use. Distribution of that image changes the game, and I can see that distribution is often not fair use. Fair use is, admittedly, up to judicial interpretation, but I fail to see how it could be interpreted to that extreme. The real problem is that a good share of DVDs are encrypted and the use of decrypters are either a gray area or outright illegal in many places.
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.
Jeff, how many times does it have to be said that you DON'T buy a song. You buy a license to use the song under the terms of the license, which can be taken away from you if you do not abide by those terms.
If downloadable songs (and this is from ALL download sites) specifically do not give you the right to use the song for which you bought a license to use under the terms of that license, for the purpose of creating a ringtone, then you do NOT have that right.
I really know that you want very much to think that you own the song?but you do not. Protest as much as you will, but you still do not.
Now, if you bought a CD, you might be able to do it, but, the license there is specific in detailing exactly what you may do with it, and if ringtones are not mentioned, well, again, you can't do it.
If software appears that makes it doable, that software is breaking license, and your contract with Apple.
Are you going to do it anyway? I suppose so.