Bav, until you learn how to spell and not mash words together, like a bad 5th grader, you aren't in any position to "dumb" anything down - for anyone. You should spend more time making sure you come off as anything other than a wanna be know-it-all that in fact knows nothing, hehe. Oh, then again, it's ok, you already won the 2007 title for that. Congrats!
What's next bav, we start comparing our annual incomes, degrees, and job titles, in a vain attempt to win your child's game of "I know something you don't know"? Bav, you're a sad excuse for the real insiders that help contribute updates to AppleInsider. Thankfully, I'm not the only one that knows you're "full of it".
I think LaEsperanza said it best with this . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaEsperanza
... I am in this until the end. We all know Bav is a moron and it shows in his spelling, grammar, and obvious lack of knowledge. This is why I am hoping to never see the name Bavlondon again. He has agreed that the name he would forever post under in AI would be either AssWipe or AlwaysWrong. ...
I think your the one who is acting like a child. Your desperatley clinging onto a few spelling errors in a vain attempt to get away from the fact that i just showed you up for not even knowing what A2DP stood for. Ha ha your really sad mate, ive never seen someone hark on 1 thing so much since............you posting last night!
I think your the one who is acting like a child. Your desperatley clinging onto a few spelling errors in a vain attempt to get away from the fact that i just showed you up for not even knowing what A2DP stood for. Ha ha your really sad mate, ive never seen someone hark on 1 thing so much since............you posting last night!
Happy new year!
Bav, how many words did you spell wrong? How many times are you going to type "your" instead of "you're" and abusing "i" instead of using "I"? "Dumb everything down" for me when you can't even take the time to properly post anything in proper English?
Like I've said before, many of us, myself included, will misspell a word every now and then, but you bav take the cake. Just about every single post you make is like a bad 5th grader - sloppy, rushed, words mashed together, and terrible spelling. I know it's an online forum but can't you take the time to do it right?
Slow down, spell check, and then at least you won't look as bad as you currently do. For the new year of 2008 how about you decide to actually learn something rather than pretending that you do? It's really not that hard.
Maybe if they just allowed mp3s to be used as ringtones in the first places this whole hassle could have been avoided.
Well, you can use ringtones with the iPhone, including mp3s to a limited extent. Bav knew absolutely nothing about what another member suggested, such as using GarageBand, and his stance implied (if not outright said) that Apple should allow mp3s to be used as ringtones - which, must be obvious now, in an indirect (and limited) way they do.
It's not my fault that bav can't spell and mashes words together, like a bad 5th grader. How anyone who does that can turn around and suggest they need to "dumb everything down" to any of us is silly.
As for predictions, bav hasn't said anything about MacWorld (or anything else) that impresses me. There's been plenty of speculation about the iPhone for the past year, even before it was released. Even if Steve says they're releasing two new iphones - so what, big deal - that's supposed to make bav some kind of wonder genius? Yeah, right.
As for NDAs, they can be very specific and depending on the situation there are things you can say and do and things you can't. I'm grateful for all those that really contribute information to AppleInsider and most of what they release turns out to be true - at least partially. As for bav - there's absolutely nothing that would be regarded as him having the "inside info" that he says he does have.
Limited, but allowed. That's a big difference from not allowing it at all, in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bavlondon2
Maybe if they just allowed mp3s to be used as ringtones in the first places this whole hassle could have been avoided.
That statement says it's not allowed at all - period, nada, nothing, zip, zero. Now if you said limited or something along those lines, bav, you would have a point. Another member proved you wrong about using mp3s for ringtones - wrong.
I see you've limited yourself to simple three word posts. Not bad, bav, it probably didn't take too long for you to spell check, did it?
I mean without the aid of a 3rd party application, thats not user friendly at all. Its such a simple feature which even Sagem pull off with the shyte they produce. Cant you just admit that the whole mp3 ringtone senario with Apple was just them trying to force customers into paying for something extra? If they offered the ability to use ANY mp3 as a ringtone (even ones not purchased through itunes) then who would pay for them on itunes? No one!
Its things like that which will hamper their progress in the European mobile market.
And well done for counting my words. You get a star for that one. :-)
I mean without the aid of a 3rd party application, thats not user friendly at all. Its such a simple feature which even Sagem pull off with the shyte they produce. Cant you just admit that the whole mp3 ringtone senario with Apple was just them trying to force customers into paying for something extra? If they offered the ability to use ANY mp3 as a ringtone (even ones not purchased through itunes) then who would pay for them on itunes? No one!
Its things like that which will hamper their progress in the European mobile market.
And well done for counting my words. You get a star for that one. :-)
But you didn't say anything about 3rd party apps, bav, did you? No, you didn't. As for why Apple has a price for making a song into a ringtone, I already explained that to you. Apparently logic, common sense, let alone business reality, has no impact on you.
In fact, you said it yourself - "then who would pay for them on iTunes? No one!" I agree with that part, bav - which is why it likely won't happen. I'll try reality for you again - if you were a talent - whoa, that's a stretch everyone, but let's go with it - if you were a talent bav, such as a top singer, then you would want to be paid for concerts along with money from selling DVDs. Should you get money from your music sold on iTunes too? I hope you do. What about when you visit the local bookstore and hear others picking up their phones, using a ringtone from one of your songs? Would you like to get paid for that too? Sure, why not?
Again, reality check, how would you feel if you made a very popular song and for a flat out fee, given to you just once, now everyone, everywhere, can use your music at any time, for any reason, on their CDs, DVDs, cell phone, answering machine, whatever. In no time at all, bav, you're broke - even with several hit singles.
Cant you just admit that the whole mp3 ringtone senario with Apple was just them trying to force customers into paying for something extra?
That doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't make any money from the ringtones. I'm sure they'd much rather have people get ringtones for free, and use that as a feature to sell the iPhone for big bucks, than make 1.2 cents per (or whatever it is) for selling them. It's the record companies who demand that people be charged for them, and Apple has this iTunes store which needs the support of the record companies to exist.
There's an awful lot of total blather between you lot.
Apple's support of MP3 ringtones consists of loading mp3s into Garageband on a Mac (should you have one) and saving them out as .m4r AACs and copying them to the right place in iTunes.
Before that you might be spending 3x99c for a ringtone directly in iTunes for a 30 second clip.
If you think that's acceptable instead of what every other phone allows you - free transfer of un-edited mp3 files as ringtones - you're off your nut.
There's an awful lot of total blather between you lot.
Apple's support of MP3 ringtones consists of loading mp3s into Garageband on a Mac (should you have one) and saving them out as .m4r AACs and copying them to the right place in iTunes.
Before that you might be spending 3x99c for a ringtone directly in iTunes for a 30 second clip.
If you think that's acceptable instead of what every other phone allows you - free transfer of un-edited mp3 files as ringtones - you're off your nut.
Consider me off then, hehe. I don't agree with everything the music companies are trying to do but I fully support paying for the hard work that talented artists created, in all it's forms, whether musicians, writers, actors and actresses, or otherwise.
Anyone that does otherwise is welcome to their opinion, just as much as those that have no problems with downloading or copying free movies, free cable, or any other digital content. Naturally, in the states there are laws against doing most of that, but for some people all that matters is they get what they want for free. Sure, they don't want to work for free, but in the end wherever they work, whatever they do, someone is paying for the services their company is providing.
What complainer A wants, should be free, but what complainer A does for a living, they should be well paid for, huh? See any contradictions there? Music and movies are the property of those that have the rights to them, and legally there are rights to how that property is used within the context of personal and fair use.
Just a note, I think I titled this wrong. This goes out to all those saying that ringtones should cost even after you've purchased the song. Im too sleepy to go thru and figure out who stands where but I think this is a worthwhile read none the less.
It is apparent that you my friend are happy to throw your hard earned money around for a 30 second clip.
Lets start with issue number one. I already paid a dollar or two (depending on the track) for the song. Explain to me (if you're small mind can), why it should cost me another dollar for 30 seconds of that song to use as a ringtone. Lets assume for a minute that the track is oh...3-4 minutes long. 30 seconds of that is...1/6 to 1/8 of the length of the entire song (based on a 3-4 minute track). Shouldnt the pricing be adjusted to fit that?
Lets move on to issue number two - advertising. Theres a small rock band known as Metallica who, when they first started performing actually gave out free copies of their music and...wow...they even told the crowd to copy it and give the tapes to their friends. What a novel idea I thought to myself. Free advertising. I think this had a big effect on Metallica's popularity altho, they seem to have forgotten that and now, saddly are one of the many jumping on the DRM band wagon (Ill let your small brains figure out what DRM stands for).
So, my phone rings, plays a small snippet of a song, someone else hears it and says...wow...I should go buy that. Free advertising.
Where I have the problem with people like you and the recording industry is they arent innovative and they assume we all are thiefs.
Lets talk about innovation. Kazaa, Limewire, Audiogalaxy, and other P2P networks that work on the Gnutella network provided an opportunity for record companies to start providing music online and they have just gotten around to it in say the last 2-3 years. These networks have been around for at least 6 years. People have long been saying that they dont want to spend $20 for a half filled cd with 35 minutes of music. Call it strange, but I think its really odd that I can purchase a 2 hour dvd with audio AND VIDEO and it generally has extras as well for the same price. Dont think I dont have issues with the movie industry but at least Im getting more for my money in that perspective.
And then theres the mother of all assumptions, Im a thief. This is evident by the fact that the recording industry wants to prevent the ability for me to place a song both on my home pc and on my mp3 player so I can listen at the gym for fear that I might actually make a copy of a cd for my friend. But whats strange is, if I take the cd around with me, I can listen to it anywhere I have a cd player. Yea, I know its a strange concept that by owning the cd, I can take it anywhere but mysteriously, I cant do so with copy protected media files.
There's a software company that had a very simple policy for their software and I think its very applicable here (Borland). You can install (or in this case copy) the software (or music in this case) to anything, anywhere you want as long as it isnt being used on more than one machine (or listened too in more than one place) at the same time.
Its simple. If I own the music, I should be able to use it for any purpose I want to as long as Im not using it for commercial purposes (aka making a techno track using clips from the song and marketing it, putting it on my website to bring viewers, using it in any kind of programming - webcasting, radio programming, tv programming, etc. that generates revenue, etc) and Im not duplicating the music for other persons to listen to at the same time I might be listening to it. Simply put, Im using it for personal use and not making it available to the public. It remains in my possession and only is played when I click the play button.
The record and movie industry have never been for the consumer and THAT my friend is where my issue lies. That doesnt justify pirating, but it makes me feel very little for the situation the industry has put itself into. I might also add, the artists themselves arent in a much better situation unless they gain some popularity. Many starting artists are continually screwed by the recording industry. Its only when they have some clout that they are able to negotiate with more reasonable terms.
I just recently bought an iphone. I paid two dollars for a track that I already own the cd too because I was under the impression that, after you bought the track, you could convert it to a ringtone. Im now being told I cant by itunes. So, lets review. I paid $20 for the cd. Then I paid 2 dollars for the track that I technically already owned ($22 so far). It appears that I now have to buy the ringtone itself, a 30 second snippet for another $2 ($24 now). All for a ringtone thats 30 seconds long. Oh, and by the way, the track I bought is exactly 2:01 minutes long.
Now, if you could explain to me how this is in the consumers best interest?
It is apparent that you my friend are happy to throw your hard earned money around for a 30 second clip. ...
Note : It figures that littlewierdo is really bav, but I'll respond anyways.
Haha, that's right, I'm very happy to pay for what I want, at whatever price the seller demands for it. If the price is too high then I go elsewhere. It's the business market that's been around for centuries and it's really as simple as that. Those that want free use of ringtones, as some have stated using other cell phones – well, then enjoy using those other cell phones. The iPhone doesn't work that way.
Now that's been clarified, kris, you are who this was directed at.
I do recall apple stating very clearly that purchased songs could be converted to a ringtone, free at no extra cost. As it turns out, I'm keying this in on an iPhone so I can't get the link to show you, but I'll look around tommorow and get it posted.
Its funny how you responded to nothing except an unfounded accusation of who I am.
The fact is, the iPhone isn't doing what apple is advertising.
Apple won't respond to tell us whether this is a bug or a 'feature'.
So I'm forced to find alternatives to get things done on my phone. No, my phone isn't hacked.
All copy protection does is make honest people jump thru hoops.
One more thing, do you take your CDs to multiple places (maybe use them in your car and your home stereo)? Why shouldn't we be able to do the same with digital music? I guarantee that the record industry is going to loose more customers if they keep this up.
You mean there's another guy on the forums that can't spell and mashes words together (worse than a 5th grader), yet at the same time likes to talk down to others? They should charge members to post here - provided they pass a 5th grade spelling and grammar test. At least that would keep bav and littlewierdo out, hehe.
wow, this thread just wasted a good five minutes of my life. I agree with littlewierdo and bav though. No one should have to pay money again for a song they purchased just so the can have it as a ringer on their phone. If you are willing to pay extra for that you are a moron.
wow, this thread just wasted a good five minutes of my life. I agree with littlewierdo and bav though. No one should have to pay money again for a song they purchased just so the can have it as a ringer on their phone. If you are willing to pay extra for that you are a moron.
Consider me a moron then, Phoenix29. A few years ago, when Napster was taking on the music companies, anyone who would pay for an mp3 (rather than get it free by stealing it) was seen as a moron too. Times change and now more people are willing to pay for their digital music and use it, legally, if it's at the right price. It makes more sense to say they should lower the price of the ringtones than say paying anything extra is stupid.
Content is content, whether it's physical, such as a book you wrote, or digital, such as a book you wrote in pdf. Either way, someone owns the rights to that creative work, there are laws that help protect the creators of that work, and they should be fairly paid for it - both up front and, whenever possible, with residuals.
Should everyone that pays to watch a movie in the theatres get the DVD for free? No. It's the same content, a movie, on a different medium - the theater versus your TV/computer. You should pay for using content on a different medium.
That goes for J.K. Rowling, who wrote Harry Potter, and it goes for you as well - provided you ever do something creative for a living.
Consider me a moron then, Phoenix29. A few years ago, when Napster was taking on the music companies, anyone who would pay for an mp3 (rather than get it free by stealing it) was seen as a moron too.
Nope. Stealing is stealing and anyone with any intelligence can work out getting a commercial track for free without permission is stealing. You'd be a moron not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto
Times change and now more people are willing to pay for their digital music and use it, legally, if it's at the right price. It makes more sense to say they should lower the price of the ringtones than say paying anything extra is stupid.
It certainly does. Ringtones are outrageously priced almost everywhere. The more salient point here is that you can't just buy a ringtone with iTunes, you have to buy the track first from iTunes and then pay for the privilege of format shifting it and you can't do that from a rip from a CD you own either. That is as far as I'm aware a first on any device/service to pay for format shifting.
If Apple had just charged $3 in the first place for ringtones instead of the silly rights management which prevents making any track on your iPhone a ringtone then they'd not have the issue of not allowing free content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto
Content is content, whether it's physical, such as a book you wrote, or digital, such as a book you wrote in pdf. Either way, someone owns the rights to that creative work, there are laws that help protect the creators of that work, and they should be fairly paid for it - both up front and, whenever possible, with residuals.
There are of course books, movies, music and artwork that is in the public domain or freely licenced where the content creator doesn't get any recompense or want any. One famous example would be the Bible.
And of course if I create a work myself, I can do whatever I want with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto
Should everyone that pays to watch a movie in the theatres get the DVD for free? No. It's the same content, a movie, on a different medium - the theater versus your TV/computer. You should pay for using content on a different medium.
Leaving aside your silly example since that is a contract with the movie theatre not the movie distributor, there's plenty legal precedents that say otherwise for pre-recorded media and indeed copyright law does allow copies for fair use reasons, even as far as allowing small snippets of works.
But if what you wrongly state was true then iPods/iTunes couldn't play ripped CDs, video tape recorders would be only used for watching your own home movies or commercial tapes, not from the TV and TiVO, Sling, AppleTV and others would be illegal as you're saying that format shifting is illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto
That goes for J.K. Rowling, who wrote Harry Potter, and it goes for you as well - provided you ever do something creative for a living.
Have you even had anything published? I have. Do you own a publishing company? I do.
Sure, I want people to pay for work at least once but I've no issue with them copying a legal copy to whatever device they want to read, play or watch it on for their own personal use. Unfortunately Apple or the RIAA does have an issue, to the extent they even block legitimate self created work (unless you're using the latest version of Garageband).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kephisto
Haha, that's right, I'm very happy to pay for what I want, at whatever price the seller demands for it. If the price is too high then I go elsewhere. It's the business market that's been around for centuries and it's really as simple as that. Those that want free use of ringtones, as some have stated using other cell phones ? well, then enjoy using those other cell phones. The iPhone doesn't work that way.
Clue: We have gone elsewhere although to be honest, not being able to play 'Sweet Child of Mine' when I've an incoming call isn't a major blocker by any stretch for me. There's many other issues blocking an iPhone purchase for me.
But, we're also Apple fans so we want Apple to do well. The iPhone is a cool gizmo but there's nowt wrong in calling Apple out on the things they've got wrong. Sometimes companies listen when their practices are stupid, like EMI did.
Aegisdesign, at least in the US intent is half the law. Whether you rent or buy a DVD movie, it's for personal use, which means you can't just put an ad in the paper saying "Come to my house and watch this movie with me for only $5 - popcorn and drinks included". Some people would ask why not, since they believe the movie is theirs and they can do whatever they want for it.
No, you didn’t say that you could, but my point is that US law is very specific about how many things are used, from a driver’s license to a concealed gun permit to trying to reverse engineer software that you’ve installed on your computer. As the author of creative work, you have certain rights and those that purchase your work (unless a “work for hire”, etc..) have well defined uses of that work, which are usually stated in the contract, EULA, or vaguely defined as fair use, or otherwise.
My first literary work was published before I was 12 and I wrote a couple plays (which were performed by others in high school) before I was 16. That was followed by several small interviews in the local paper and TV news. Writing software was about the same, it was about expressing my emotions and ideas on paper, or in code, and enjoying that others could share what I felt and experience that in their own way, making it uniquely their own. Music is about the same, but I couldn’t play a tune to save my life. I don't own a publishing company but in the US just about anyone can get a DBA and define themselves as a publishing company to save costs for marketing and printing their own books - among other things.
Aegisdesign, while you have no problems with people paying once for your creative work and then copying it legally to another device to use it, have you thought about their ability to take parts from your work and attempt to use it - creatively - elsewhere? One person buys your work then copies numerous parts of it, perhaps entire paragraphs or pages from one of your stories or articles, perhaps use your unique characters and situations, and pastes that on their MySpace, as if they were the author.
Is that what you originally intended for your work to be used as? Can they do that, legally, just by paying once for your work? What if they printed it on paper or hosted it online for their university or group? Can a company start printing t-shirts and bumper stickers quoting some of your character’s most famous lines, without getting permission from you first? It’s just words, taken a small bit from something you wrote, is that right? Same with a ringtone, it’s a segment of a song.
Perhaps I’m not making a good case here, but it’s not the end of the world. What matters most is that thousands of striking writers are fighting for a fair contract – which directors and actors/actresses might join in June. At first, the movie industry was scared of VCRs, then DVDs, then mp3s, then online downloads, but embraced them all once they discovered they could profit by doing so.
Rather than fighting technology, they should embrace it – and pay the creative people involved accordingly, for each separate use/different medium of their work. Once that happens, then as competition improves the prices should go down. Cell phone ringtones weren’t anywhere on the table when various talents were negotiating contracts over their creative work, so all I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be free. Perhaps a lower price – maybe, but not free.
So overall my point is that there should be a charge for ringtones – if it’s something you want, and you didn’t personally create it (write it, sing it, painted it, etc..), then that has value for you. If that has value to you then it’s a value you should willingly pay for, not get it for free. Once that price is defined, then over time increasing technology, demand, and competition, they can work on lowering the price.
Just curious, aegisdesign, what would you consider a fair price to both own an iTunes song and use it for a ringtone? What would be a fair price for just the ringtone, if the user doesn’t already own the song? What’s a fair price for just the song? What’s the three main reasons preventing you from buying an iPhone?
Comments
What's next bav, we start comparing our annual incomes, degrees, and job titles, in a vain attempt to win your child's game of "I know something you don't know"? Bav, you're a sad excuse for the real insiders that help contribute updates to AppleInsider. Thankfully, I'm not the only one that knows you're "full of it".
I think LaEsperanza said it best with this . . .
... I am in this until the end. We all know Bav is a moron and it shows in his spelling, grammar, and obvious lack of knowledge. This is why I am hoping to never see the name Bavlondon again. He has agreed that the name he would forever post under in AI would be either AssWipe or AlwaysWrong. ...
Happy new year!
I think your the one who is acting like a child. Your desperatley clinging onto a few spelling errors in a vain attempt to get away from the fact that i just showed you up for not even knowing what A2DP stood for. Ha ha your really sad mate, ive never seen someone hark on 1 thing so much since............you posting last night!
Happy new year!
Bav, how many words did you spell wrong? How many times are you going to type "your" instead of "you're" and abusing "i" instead of using "I"? "Dumb everything down" for me when you can't even take the time to properly post anything in proper English?
Like I've said before, many of us, myself included, will misspell a word every now and then, but you bav take the cake. Just about every single post you make is like a bad 5th grader - sloppy, rushed, words mashed together, and terrible spelling. I know it's an online forum but can't you take the time to do it right?
Slow down, spell check, and then at least you won't look as bad as you currently do. For the new year of 2008 how about you decide to actually learn something rather than pretending that you do? It's really not that hard.
Honestly, a child's game of "I know something you don't know". When, apparently, there is very little that bav knows which is actually correct.
I don't recall him saying anything that was factually incorrect. It seems to me you're just not reading fully.
Certainly he'll be hoisted by his own petard if come Jan 15th his predictions are wrong, but until then we can't say he's said anything that is wrong.
As to NDAs, well, if everyone stuck to them, there wouldn't be a reason for AppleInsider would there?
Maybe if they just allowed mp3s to be used as ringtones in the first places this whole hassle could have been avoided.
Well, you can use ringtones with the iPhone, including mp3s to a limited extent. Bav knew absolutely nothing about what another member suggested, such as using GarageBand, and his stance implied (if not outright said) that Apple should allow mp3s to be used as ringtones - which, must be obvious now, in an indirect (and limited) way they do.
It's not my fault that bav can't spell and mashes words together, like a bad 5th grader. How anyone who does that can turn around and suggest they need to "dumb everything down" to any of us is silly.
As for predictions, bav hasn't said anything about MacWorld (or anything else) that impresses me. There's been plenty of speculation about the iPhone for the past year, even before it was released. Even if Steve says they're releasing two new iphones - so what, big deal - that's supposed to make bav some kind of wonder genius? Yeah, right.
As for NDAs, they can be very specific and depending on the situation there are things you can say and do and things you can't. I'm grateful for all those that really contribute information to AppleInsider and most of what they release turns out to be true - at least partially. As for bav - there's absolutely nothing that would be regarded as him having the "inside info" that he says he does have.
Well, you can use ringtones with the iPhone, including mp3s to a limited extent.
Key point - limited!
Key point - limited!
Limited, but allowed. That's a big difference from not allowing it at all, in any way.
Maybe if they just allowed mp3s to be used as ringtones in the first places this whole hassle could have been avoided.
That statement says it's not allowed at all - period, nada, nothing, zip, zero. Now if you said limited or something along those lines, bav, you would have a point. Another member proved you wrong about using mp3s for ringtones - wrong.
I see you've limited yourself to simple three word posts. Not bad, bav, it probably didn't take too long for you to spell check, did it?
Its things like that which will hamper their progress in the European mobile market.
And well done for counting my words. You get a star for that one. :-)
I mean without the aid of a 3rd party application, thats not user friendly at all. Its such a simple feature which even Sagem pull off with the shyte they produce. Cant you just admit that the whole mp3 ringtone senario with Apple was just them trying to force customers into paying for something extra? If they offered the ability to use ANY mp3 as a ringtone (even ones not purchased through itunes) then who would pay for them on itunes? No one!
Its things like that which will hamper their progress in the European mobile market.
And well done for counting my words. You get a star for that one. :-)
But you didn't say anything about 3rd party apps, bav, did you? No, you didn't. As for why Apple has a price for making a song into a ringtone, I already explained that to you. Apparently logic, common sense, let alone business reality, has no impact on you.
In fact, you said it yourself - "then who would pay for them on iTunes? No one!" I agree with that part, bav - which is why it likely won't happen. I'll try reality for you again - if you were a talent - whoa, that's a stretch everyone, but let's go with it - if you were a talent bav, such as a top singer, then you would want to be paid for concerts along with money from selling DVDs. Should you get money from your music sold on iTunes too? I hope you do. What about when you visit the local bookstore and hear others picking up their phones, using a ringtone from one of your songs? Would you like to get paid for that too? Sure, why not?
Again, reality check, how would you feel if you made a very popular song and for a flat out fee, given to you just once, now everyone, everywhere, can use your music at any time, for any reason, on their CDs, DVDs, cell phone, answering machine, whatever. In no time at all, bav, you're broke - even with several hit singles.
Cant you just admit that the whole mp3 ringtone senario with Apple was just them trying to force customers into paying for something extra?
That doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't make any money from the ringtones. I'm sure they'd much rather have people get ringtones for free, and use that as a feature to sell the iPhone for big bucks, than make 1.2 cents per (or whatever it is) for selling them. It's the record companies who demand that people be charged for them, and Apple has this iTunes store which needs the support of the record companies to exist.
Apple's support of MP3 ringtones consists of loading mp3s into Garageband on a Mac (should you have one) and saving them out as .m4r AACs and copying them to the right place in iTunes.
Before that you might be spending 3x99c for a ringtone directly in iTunes for a 30 second clip.
If you think that's acceptable instead of what every other phone allows you - free transfer of un-edited mp3 files as ringtones - you're off your nut.
There's an awful lot of total blather between you lot.
Apple's support of MP3 ringtones consists of loading mp3s into Garageband on a Mac (should you have one) and saving them out as .m4r AACs and copying them to the right place in iTunes.
Before that you might be spending 3x99c for a ringtone directly in iTunes for a 30 second clip.
If you think that's acceptable instead of what every other phone allows you - free transfer of un-edited mp3 files as ringtones - you're off your nut.
Consider me off then, hehe. I don't agree with everything the music companies are trying to do but I fully support paying for the hard work that talented artists created, in all it's forms, whether musicians, writers, actors and actresses, or otherwise.
Anyone that does otherwise is welcome to their opinion, just as much as those that have no problems with downloading or copying free movies, free cable, or any other digital content. Naturally, in the states there are laws against doing most of that, but for some people all that matters is they get what they want for free. Sure, they don't want to work for free, but in the end wherever they work, whatever they do, someone is paying for the services their company is providing.
What complainer A wants, should be free, but what complainer A does for a living, they should be well paid for, huh? See any contradictions there? Music and movies are the property of those that have the rights to them, and legally there are rights to how that property is used within the context of personal and fair use.
It is apparent that you my friend are happy to throw your hard earned money around for a 30 second clip.
Lets start with issue number one. I already paid a dollar or two (depending on the track) for the song. Explain to me (if you're small mind can), why it should cost me another dollar for 30 seconds of that song to use as a ringtone. Lets assume for a minute that the track is oh...3-4 minutes long. 30 seconds of that is...1/6 to 1/8 of the length of the entire song (based on a 3-4 minute track). Shouldnt the pricing be adjusted to fit that?
Lets move on to issue number two - advertising. Theres a small rock band known as Metallica who, when they first started performing actually gave out free copies of their music and...wow...they even told the crowd to copy it and give the tapes to their friends. What a novel idea I thought to myself. Free advertising. I think this had a big effect on Metallica's popularity altho, they seem to have forgotten that and now, saddly are one of the many jumping on the DRM band wagon (Ill let your small brains figure out what DRM stands for).
So, my phone rings, plays a small snippet of a song, someone else hears it and says...wow...I should go buy that. Free advertising.
Where I have the problem with people like you and the recording industry is they arent innovative and they assume we all are thiefs.
Lets talk about innovation. Kazaa, Limewire, Audiogalaxy, and other P2P networks that work on the Gnutella network provided an opportunity for record companies to start providing music online and they have just gotten around to it in say the last 2-3 years. These networks have been around for at least 6 years. People have long been saying that they dont want to spend $20 for a half filled cd with 35 minutes of music. Call it strange, but I think its really odd that I can purchase a 2 hour dvd with audio AND VIDEO and it generally has extras as well for the same price. Dont think I dont have issues with the movie industry but at least Im getting more for my money in that perspective.
And then theres the mother of all assumptions, Im a thief. This is evident by the fact that the recording industry wants to prevent the ability for me to place a song both on my home pc and on my mp3 player so I can listen at the gym for fear that I might actually make a copy of a cd for my friend. But whats strange is, if I take the cd around with me, I can listen to it anywhere I have a cd player. Yea, I know its a strange concept that by owning the cd, I can take it anywhere but mysteriously, I cant do so with copy protected media files.
There's a software company that had a very simple policy for their software and I think its very applicable here (Borland). You can install (or in this case copy) the software (or music in this case) to anything, anywhere you want as long as it isnt being used on more than one machine (or listened too in more than one place) at the same time.
Its simple. If I own the music, I should be able to use it for any purpose I want to as long as Im not using it for commercial purposes (aka making a techno track using clips from the song and marketing it, putting it on my website to bring viewers, using it in any kind of programming - webcasting, radio programming, tv programming, etc. that generates revenue, etc) and Im not duplicating the music for other persons to listen to at the same time I might be listening to it. Simply put, Im using it for personal use and not making it available to the public. It remains in my possession and only is played when I click the play button.
The record and movie industry have never been for the consumer and THAT my friend is where my issue lies. That doesnt justify pirating, but it makes me feel very little for the situation the industry has put itself into. I might also add, the artists themselves arent in a much better situation unless they gain some popularity. Many starting artists are continually screwed by the recording industry. Its only when they have some clout that they are able to negotiate with more reasonable terms.
I just recently bought an iphone. I paid two dollars for a track that I already own the cd too because I was under the impression that, after you bought the track, you could convert it to a ringtone. Im now being told I cant by itunes. So, lets review. I paid $20 for the cd. Then I paid 2 dollars for the track that I technically already owned ($22 so far). It appears that I now have to buy the ringtone itself, a 30 second snippet for another $2 ($24 now). All for a ringtone thats 30 seconds long. Oh, and by the way, the track I bought is exactly 2:01 minutes long.
Now, if you could explain to me how this is in the consumers best interest?
...
It is apparent that you my friend are happy to throw your hard earned money around for a 30 second clip. ...
Note : It figures that littlewierdo is really bav, but I'll respond anyways.
Haha, that's right, I'm very happy to pay for what I want, at whatever price the seller demands for it. If the price is too high then I go elsewhere. It's the business market that's been around for centuries and it's really as simple as that. Those that want free use of ringtones, as some have stated using other cell phones – well, then enjoy using those other cell phones. The iPhone doesn't work that way.
First off, this isn't bav.
Now that's been clarified, kris, you are who this was directed at.
I do recall apple stating very clearly that purchased songs could be converted to a ringtone, free at no extra cost. As it turns out, I'm keying this in on an iPhone so I can't get the link to show you, but I'll look around tommorow and get it posted.
Its funny how you responded to nothing except an unfounded accusation of who I am.
The fact is, the iPhone isn't doing what apple is advertising.
Apple won't respond to tell us whether this is a bug or a 'feature'.
So I'm forced to find alternatives to get things done on my phone. No, my phone isn't hacked.
All copy protection does is make honest people jump thru hoops.
One more thing, do you take your CDs to multiple places (maybe use them in your car and your home stereo)? Why shouldn't we be able to do the same with digital music? I guarantee that the record industry is going to loose more customers if they keep this up.
First off, this isn't bav.
...
You mean there's another guy on the forums that can't spell and mashes words together (worse than a 5th grader), yet at the same time likes to talk down to others? They should charge members to post here - provided they pass a 5th grade spelling and grammar test. At least that would keep bav and littlewierdo out, hehe.
wow, this thread just wasted a good five minutes of my life. I agree with littlewierdo and bav though. No one should have to pay money again for a song they purchased just so the can have it as a ringer on their phone. If you are willing to pay extra for that you are a moron.
Consider me a moron then, Phoenix29. A few years ago, when Napster was taking on the music companies, anyone who would pay for an mp3 (rather than get it free by stealing it) was seen as a moron too. Times change and now more people are willing to pay for their digital music and use it, legally, if it's at the right price. It makes more sense to say they should lower the price of the ringtones than say paying anything extra is stupid.
Content is content, whether it's physical, such as a book you wrote, or digital, such as a book you wrote in pdf. Either way, someone owns the rights to that creative work, there are laws that help protect the creators of that work, and they should be fairly paid for it - both up front and, whenever possible, with residuals.
Should everyone that pays to watch a movie in the theatres get the DVD for free? No. It's the same content, a movie, on a different medium - the theater versus your TV/computer. You should pay for using content on a different medium.
That goes for J.K. Rowling, who wrote Harry Potter, and it goes for you as well - provided you ever do something creative for a living.
Consider me a moron then, Phoenix29. A few years ago, when Napster was taking on the music companies, anyone who would pay for an mp3 (rather than get it free by stealing it) was seen as a moron too.
Nope. Stealing is stealing and anyone with any intelligence can work out getting a commercial track for free without permission is stealing. You'd be a moron not to.
Times change and now more people are willing to pay for their digital music and use it, legally, if it's at the right price. It makes more sense to say they should lower the price of the ringtones than say paying anything extra is stupid.
It certainly does. Ringtones are outrageously priced almost everywhere. The more salient point here is that you can't just buy a ringtone with iTunes, you have to buy the track first from iTunes and then pay for the privilege of format shifting it and you can't do that from a rip from a CD you own either. That is as far as I'm aware a first on any device/service to pay for format shifting.
If Apple had just charged $3 in the first place for ringtones instead of the silly rights management which prevents making any track on your iPhone a ringtone then they'd not have the issue of not allowing free content.
Content is content, whether it's physical, such as a book you wrote, or digital, such as a book you wrote in pdf. Either way, someone owns the rights to that creative work, there are laws that help protect the creators of that work, and they should be fairly paid for it - both up front and, whenever possible, with residuals.
There are of course books, movies, music and artwork that is in the public domain or freely licenced where the content creator doesn't get any recompense or want any. One famous example would be the Bible.
And of course if I create a work myself, I can do whatever I want with it.
Should everyone that pays to watch a movie in the theatres get the DVD for free? No. It's the same content, a movie, on a different medium - the theater versus your TV/computer. You should pay for using content on a different medium.
Leaving aside your silly example since that is a contract with the movie theatre not the movie distributor, there's plenty legal precedents that say otherwise for pre-recorded media and indeed copyright law does allow copies for fair use reasons, even as far as allowing small snippets of works.
But if what you wrongly state was true then iPods/iTunes couldn't play ripped CDs, video tape recorders would be only used for watching your own home movies or commercial tapes, not from the TV and TiVO, Sling, AppleTV and others would be illegal as you're saying that format shifting is illegal.
That goes for J.K. Rowling, who wrote Harry Potter, and it goes for you as well - provided you ever do something creative for a living.
Have you even had anything published? I have. Do you own a publishing company? I do.
Sure, I want people to pay for work at least once but I've no issue with them copying a legal copy to whatever device they want to read, play or watch it on for their own personal use. Unfortunately Apple or the RIAA does have an issue, to the extent they even block legitimate self created work (unless you're using the latest version of Garageband).
Haha, that's right, I'm very happy to pay for what I want, at whatever price the seller demands for it. If the price is too high then I go elsewhere. It's the business market that's been around for centuries and it's really as simple as that. Those that want free use of ringtones, as some have stated using other cell phones ? well, then enjoy using those other cell phones. The iPhone doesn't work that way.
Clue: We have gone elsewhere although to be honest, not being able to play 'Sweet Child of Mine' when I've an incoming call isn't a major blocker by any stretch for me. There's many other issues blocking an iPhone purchase for me.
But, we're also Apple fans so we want Apple to do well. The iPhone is a cool gizmo but there's nowt wrong in calling Apple out on the things they've got wrong. Sometimes companies listen when their practices are stupid, like EMI did.
No, you didn’t say that you could, but my point is that US law is very specific about how many things are used, from a driver’s license to a concealed gun permit to trying to reverse engineer software that you’ve installed on your computer. As the author of creative work, you have certain rights and those that purchase your work (unless a “work for hire”, etc..) have well defined uses of that work, which are usually stated in the contract, EULA, or vaguely defined as fair use, or otherwise.
My first literary work was published before I was 12 and I wrote a couple plays (which were performed by others in high school) before I was 16. That was followed by several small interviews in the local paper and TV news. Writing software was about the same, it was about expressing my emotions and ideas on paper, or in code, and enjoying that others could share what I felt and experience that in their own way, making it uniquely their own. Music is about the same, but I couldn’t play a tune to save my life. I don't own a publishing company but in the US just about anyone can get a DBA and define themselves as a publishing company to save costs for marketing and printing their own books - among other things.
Aegisdesign, while you have no problems with people paying once for your creative work and then copying it legally to another device to use it, have you thought about their ability to take parts from your work and attempt to use it - creatively - elsewhere? One person buys your work then copies numerous parts of it, perhaps entire paragraphs or pages from one of your stories or articles, perhaps use your unique characters and situations, and pastes that on their MySpace, as if they were the author.
Is that what you originally intended for your work to be used as? Can they do that, legally, just by paying once for your work? What if they printed it on paper or hosted it online for their university or group? Can a company start printing t-shirts and bumper stickers quoting some of your character’s most famous lines, without getting permission from you first? It’s just words, taken a small bit from something you wrote, is that right? Same with a ringtone, it’s a segment of a song.
Perhaps I’m not making a good case here, but it’s not the end of the world. What matters most is that thousands of striking writers are fighting for a fair contract – which directors and actors/actresses might join in June. At first, the movie industry was scared of VCRs, then DVDs, then mp3s, then online downloads, but embraced them all once they discovered they could profit by doing so.
Rather than fighting technology, they should embrace it – and pay the creative people involved accordingly, for each separate use/different medium of their work. Once that happens, then as competition improves the prices should go down. Cell phone ringtones weren’t anywhere on the table when various talents were negotiating contracts over their creative work, so all I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be free. Perhaps a lower price – maybe, but not free.
So overall my point is that there should be a charge for ringtones – if it’s something you want, and you didn’t personally create it (write it, sing it, painted it, etc..), then that has value for you. If that has value to you then it’s a value you should willingly pay for, not get it for free. Once that price is defined, then over time increasing technology, demand, and competition, they can work on lowering the price.
Just curious, aegisdesign, what would you consider a fair price to both own an iTunes song and use it for a ringtone? What would be a fair price for just the ringtone, if the user doesn’t already own the song? What’s a fair price for just the song? What’s the three main reasons preventing you from buying an iPhone?