Culture

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, music, public performance, ringtones

Companies:
ascap



ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance

from the pay-up dept

Ah, those collection societies just never learn, do they? We've discussed in the past how ASCAP once threatened the Girl Scouts for singing songs around the campfire, but in the past few years it's been ASCAP's counterpart in the UK that's been in the news the most for things like threatening small business owners after calling them on the phone and saying they hear music in the background or threatening a stable owner for playing the radio to her horses. I guess ASCAP was feeling a bit left out. Its latest move is to claim that legally purchased ringtones on mobiles phones, playing in public places, represents a public performance for which it is owed royalties. Songwriters and music publishers already are paid royalties on ringtone purchases, but ASCAP is claiming that buying the file is entirely different than "the performance" (i.e., the phone ringing).

In the EFF's response to ASCAP, it notes that copyright law makes a specific exemption for performances made "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage." ASCAP counters that even if that's true, only the owners of mobile phones can make that assertion, but the mobile operators (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) still need to pay up for performance rights because they are commercial entities, even if the use of the phones is not. The EFF goes on to point out how this reasoning does not mesh with the law, the case law, or the intended purpose of copyright.

On top of this, even if, in some bizarre, twisted interpretation of the law, a ringtone playing on a phone was a public performance, how would it be the mobile operators' liability to pay? That would be like saying that Apple should pay ASCAP royalties because songs it sells on iTunes could potentially be played through speakers publicly somewhere. Perhaps I shouldn't be giving ASCAP ideas...

However, this is not a surprise. It's simply the way industry groups (even those representing the songwriters, rather than the labels) have always worked. It's always about "extending" rights. That's why copyright was broken down eventually into different types of rights -- including distribution rights and performance rights, because the "old" rights didn't fit the new technologies. It's a particularly obnoxious trick to claim that, because a single file can be used in multiple ways (for both distribution and performance), it is now subject to both types of royalties. The only reason those separate royalties were broken out in the first place was due to angry demands from these sorts of groups about how the old "rights" didn't cover new media versions of content. To then double back and claim multiple coverage is beyond obnoxious.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 8:39am

    Legal advice from a friend

    "On top of this, even if, in some bizarre, twisted interpretation of the law, a ringtone playing on a phone was a public performance, how would it be the mobile operators' liability to pay?"

    Uh, because they're the ones with money.

    Love,

    Steve Dallas

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2013 @ 3:51am

      Re: Legal advice from a friend

      Don't be naive, Steve. If Sprint, AT&T , and Verizon have to start dishing out more money for royalties, those companies will raise their service prices to compensate. And "ASS-CAP" knows this of course, their lobbyist worded the statement like that to avoid critism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 8:45am

    Now, that's just crazy. But yet again, the truth comes out- it's not really about the art or artist. It's about creating a tollbooth-based culture!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Overcast (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:10am

      Re:

      Yep - default ring tones will work just fine for me. They can keep them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Rob R. (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:55am

        Re: Re:

        Amen! I use the old fashioned bell ringer on my iPhone and it works just fine. Once my son get further along in his guitar lessons I'm going to use one of his songs as a ringtone to support him. Does this mean I'll have to pay my 13 year old son each time anyone calls me? Wow, talk about augmenting your allowance...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:38pm

        Re: Re:

        "Yep - default ring tones will work just fine for me. They can keep them."

        Pretty soon those default ring tones will be copyright. Boycotting is a good solution but then when you start boycotting these corporatinos will dig deeper into taking away your existing rights or making you pay for them. To some extent we must force our government to destroy stupid laws and pass good ones. Vote idiots out of office and vote for people like Ron Paul.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RD, 22 Jun 2009 @ 8:58am

    Middlemen

    Greedy, scumbag middlemen like this are the reason why the music industry has such a bad rep these days. Nothing like twisting the law completely out of proportion to reality (ASCAP), or the intention (RIAA) to really put people off and turn an entire generation of consumers against you. Good job you greedy pricks! You are doing FAR more damage to your industry than any piracy or "unpaid public performances" ever could!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lucretious, 22 Jun 2009 @ 8:58am

    I am speechless.......

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ima Fish (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:01am

    Remember those ghetto boxes, also called boom boxes, we used to use in the 80s through 90s? I have no doubt that they would be considered public performances in today's bizarro world.

    Everyday the music industry is turning our world into something like a parody from the Onion. I can see the headline now... "Area man sued for not paying public license fee on his Boom Box"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:32pm

      Re:

      I can see the headlines now, "Houseowner sued for involuntarily hearing neighbor blasting unwanted music and not paying royalties." Every time you hear a song, even if it's the neighbor who plays it too loudly and you didn't want to hear it, you must pay royalties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Robb Topolski (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:02am

    Wrong Tactic - ASCAP should be suing to force operators to stop using songs as ringtones

    I think ringtones are the most awful representations of music available. Those tinny-sounding snippets do the concept of music a complete disservice. Whatever happened to a phone just ringing?

    To call it a "public performance" is being gracious, but to do so in a court filing borders on perjury.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Yakko Warner, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:35am

      Re: Wrong Tactic - ASCAP should be suing to force operators to stop using songs as ringtones

      Re: your subject -- But they want the music to be played, so they can demand payment for it.

      On the bright side, maybe the mobile phone ops will rebel by no longer providing/allowing these obnoxious auditory assaults on phones, and phones will have to just RING. YES! FINALLY! ARRGH!!

      Sorry. I feel better now.

      Unfortunately, what's far more likely is that the mobile corps will find it less costly to settle than fight, and you'll see a new charge on your phone for every incoming call, which will be slightly more than the fee they pay to ASCAP — might as well make a little money on the deal themselves, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Crabby, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:01am

      Re: Wrong Tactic - ASCAP should be suing to force operators to stop using songs as ringtones

      "To call it a "public performance" is being gracious, but to do so in a court filing borders on perjury."

      Good point!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Asmo, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:11am

    |These record companies, or getting out of hand to the point of being criminal. They need to be stopped once and for and people need to start organizing a pirate party in America to tackle these greedy business owners who think they can get away with anything, but until the people unit we will just sit hear and complain and shrug our shoulders.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jack, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:12am

    It really seems like the only solution is boycotting the entire music industry (that is, RIAA- or equivalent- affiliated music) and drying up their revenue stream. As long as they make any money, they'll use some of it on this kind of stuff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hayden Frost, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:27am

    they don't understand basic economics

    Ringtones are already at the price the market is willing to accept (if not too high). If they attached a performance royalty to ringtones, consumers would still be using the ringtone in the exact same manner as we are now. We get absolutely no new value from this price increase.

    Additionally, raising prices will not magically bring in more money. Ringtone retailers would pass most or all of the price increase onto consumers, thus decreasing sales (and in following, the royalties from those sales). As the recent details on gaming have shown, consumers generally have a fixed amount of income for entertainment. Music competes against games, dvds, theaters, and more... and music is losing right now. When you are in the losing section of a competitive market, it's because your prices are too high for the value consumers obtain from your product. They should be lowering prices, not raising them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shawn (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:27am

    Somehow the idea of ASCAP chasing after people with their car radio on and the windows down does not seem like a parody... it seems like the future.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:31am

    Your assertion about the stable was incorrect as many people pointed out she was running a business. Do you understand that? Business pays music for performance. Do I need to make it even more simple.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Albert Nonymouse, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:56am

      Re:

      She was running a business stabling horses, not a nightclub where the music playing is the core of the business. Do you understand that? Are the pictures hanging on the wall subject to performance rights because they are in a business? Do the magazines in the lobby deserve performance rights because they are in a business? Does the carpet manufacturer get a slice because people are walking on it in a business? How about the paint manufacturer - they deserve something since the pretty paint is in a business. Don't forget the gardner - he gets something extra everytime someone drives by and looks at the pretty landscaping of the business. The grower of the coffee beans that go into the coffee maker in the lobby should get something extra because the coffee is being served in a business.

      Unless money is being expressly charged for the music, the idea that anything is owed the music industry is ridiculous. People should be laughing at the notion, not taking it seriously and defending the practice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:58am

      Re:

      I don't understand this in the least. For a bar or diner or whatever, it makes *some* sense, as I'm less likely to go to a bar that plays country music, so the music playing *might* be a deciding factor, and thus, valuable.

      Onto horse stables, dentist offices, garages, etc: I don't factor in the music that is playing in any of these places when deciding which one to give my money to, so why would they need to pay? They aren't making a profit due to the music, they are making a profit and happen to have music playing.

      It's greed, plain and simple. The fact that you swallow the bogus rules they've designed to make them richer reflect very poorly on you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:47am

      Re:

      Your assertion about the stable was incorrect as many people pointed out she was running a business. Do you understand that? Business pays music for performance. Do I need to make it even more simple.

      No. You are incorrect. She was running a business, but the PRS license fee is a *performance* fee for using the music to attract customers.

      That's not what the music was used for. It was played for horses -- not people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Almost Anonymous (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just can't resist:

      If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?

      If a horse hears a song in a stable and ASCAP is on the case, does someone have to pay a licensing fee?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:56pm

        Re: Re:

        "If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?"

        It doesn't matter, we assume it made a noise and that noise is copyright so you have to pay me royalties.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    vastrightwing, 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:43am

    BINGO!

    I was so waiting for this one! I knew it was coming! HA HA HA. OK phone OEMs, I approve of not including any ring tones at all except for a plain ring tone. I in fact can't stand hearing some people's ring tones anyway.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dez (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 9:44am

    So here's the deal:

    If you want to charge me money (or the operators which will pass down the fee to me) for playing a ringtone of a song in public. FINE... go right ahead. I just won't buy your song. This also means that anyone that might have heard my ringtone and thought it was worth purchasing during an impulse moment wouldn't have purchased it either.

    I'm waiting for the day that having my car windows down and the radio/CD/iPod playing is also considered a public performance.

    I'm also a music teacher, and it would cause me to stop teaching newer music (thereby generating less revenue for you) if you decided that I had to pay you each time I held a piano recital.

    I purchase your works legally. STFU.

    --dez

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:02am

      Re: So here's the deal:

      I purchase your works legally. STFU.

      You're part of them problem, I'm afraid.

      They claim that buying pirated DVDs/CDs funds terrorism, but I'd be more likely to believe that legally buying their media is funding terrorism..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    fogbugzd, 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:14am

    Easy solution

    There is an easy solution. I won't buy any more ringtones for fear that they will go off in a public place and I will get sued. The phone companies should stop allowing the use of ringtones because they might get sued.

    If everyone stops buying ringtones and playing the radio, then the music industry will be SO much better off.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Rob R. (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:02am

      Re: Easy solution

      Oh no, they'll just 'assume' you have said music on your phone and charge you on your bill anyway. They won't have to prove you played a music ringtone, you'll have to prove you did not. Even then you might still be charged - just because they (think they) can.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:15am

    data revenue

    A statutory rate on ALL mobile2mobile multimedia data transactions is a fair way to do business. These transactions have not really began yet and now is precisely the time to establish this rate. ASCAP is stretching their performance right territory a bit with what I'm reading here. However, there is some validity in the carrier's obligation to NOT support clear violations of copyright laws as ISPs have done. In the case of charging fees for copyrighted materials to go from point A to point B, the copyright holder should obviously be compensated. It is our belief at datarevenue.org that the wireless carriers have a responsibility to honor this fundamental function of copyright protection when these transactions occur. This would cover any peer2peer data transactions and again, is a fair way to do business. If a user likes something enough to pay to share it then they will. If not, then it won't be shared by them. Either way data infrastructures should own up to the responsibilities the ISPs were able to avoid because of the multimedia players inability to unite back in the day when p2p was just beginning.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Sneeje (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:29am

      Re: data revenue

      Nice word salad.

      What rate are you referring to? And what obligation? You mention that there should be a statutory rate (i.e., tax) on ALL transactions, yet we can easily show that all transactions cannot possibly be infringing (phone rings in my house), so how would such a rate be set? Why is this fair to all participants, which would include the consumer?

      And, what I'm really interested in is why you thing the rate is both necessary and *desired*? Why do you believe the rate would increase and not cannibalize other revenues?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:42am

        statutory rates

        It all boils down to the U.S. constitution. That is where copyrights start. It is a fundamental right that a person or entity with copyrights to something they created have a right to a fair share of the pie if another party is gaining from it's use. P2p sharing of multimedia will soon be on mobile phones. When that happens it should be the responsibility of the wireless carriers to make sure the rights holders are compensated since the wireless carriers are charging for those transactions. The ring tone thing in your house is NOT a transaction that the wireless industry gained from so it would be exempt from what we are proposing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:54am

          Re: statutory rates

          It all boils down to the U.S. constitution. That is where copyrights start. It is a fundamental right that a person or entity with copyrights to something they created have a right to a fair share of the pie if another party is gaining from it's use.

          No, that's incorrect. The Constitution is clear, that *limited* monopolies may be granted for the sole purpose of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts." What you are talking about is not for promoting such things at all.

          P2p sharing of multimedia will soon be on mobile phones. When that happens it should be the responsibility of the wireless carriers to make sure the rights holders are compensated since the wireless carriers are charging for those transactions.

          Again, you have a very troubling view of 3rd party liability, that (thankfully) the US does not recognize. Hopefully it stays that way.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:20am

            fundamental rights

            If we prevent artists and scientists etc from financially benefiting from their labors why would there be many in those professions?
            "A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission."

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:56am

              Re: fundamental rights

              If we prevent artists and scientists etc from financially benefiting from their labors why would there be many in those professions?

              Wait. No one is talking about preventing anyone from financially benefiting from their labors. In fact, the examples we give show how artists can make more money from their labors by recognizing the fundamental nature of music.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Sneeje (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:00am

          Re: statutory rates

          a) The US constitution states:
          "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

          First of all, that isn't a "fundamental" right by any definition, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the use of the word "limited".

          Second of all, the right is being defined by you, not everyone, to include "fair share of the pie" and you have a very narrow and self-interested definition of "fair".

          b) The reasoning you use is that because some people must be compensated you are charging for all MMS transactions, even if all transactions aren't infringing. Why is this fair?

          And, you haven't answered my other question about revenue, but I'll ask another--what makes you believe that charging for MMSs won't drive consumers to use other methods of sharing, which mobile operators won't be able to track?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:25am

            mms

            Well, I think you have understand we are only concerned with mobile2mobile, peer2peer data transactions of mms. This hasn't even started in any substantial amount yet. Within 5 years you'll probably be able to send a movie mobile2mobile. What will happen then?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 4:19pm

              Re: mms

              I'll tell you what will happen: Sexting will get a lot more interesting...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              CleverName, 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:22am

              Re: mms

              Why would I want to send a movie from one phone to another ?

              I think this is an attempt to get a foot in the door. Once this is in place, it would be a small leap to claim that TCP should be subject to the same entitlement taxation.

              I propose that all copyright material be forced to use a different port. This would allow for blocking the taxable material

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            qx59r, 22 Jun 2009 @ 3:04pm

            Re: Re: statutory rates

            -------First of all, that isn't a "fundamental" right by any definition, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the use of the word "limited".--------------

            Um, property rights are not fundamental in the US Constitution??

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Sneeje (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 3:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: statutory rates

              We're not talking about property rights, we're talking about the limited monopoly granted for the purpose of progressing science and the arts.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Sneeje (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:40am

      Re: data revenue

      Holy crap... I just read some of the ideological wishful thinking on your site:
      What I would like to quantify if possible is what proportion of current MMS involve copyright material. Clearly a large proportion of it is perfectly legitimate personal photos. Is it possible to ascertain the copyright proportion?
      The proportion of current MMS copyrighted material in the U.S. basically is any MMS in fixed form. That means any and all videos, music and images (multimedia) is copyrighted the moment it is fixed according to U.S. laws. Even legitimate personal photos are copyrighted. Now, we're NOT proposing that the wireless industry should administrate the particulars. We are proposing they simply pay a statutory rate on ALL MMS and authorized 3rd parties in turn will monitor, collect and distribute that revenue to its members that want to enforce their rights as the copyright holder.

      You have to be kidding right? You realize that this scheme will collapse under the weight of administration? There is incentive for anyone who sends MMS's to sign up and enforce their rights to receive payment. I will start sending my friends hundreds of pictures I took since they won't ever have to pay directly--everyone is taxed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:53am

        wishful thinking

        Good point about administration. However,the statutory rate would be a per megabyte rate making any payouts to a sector, (images vs videos) a relative split based upon actuary tables. Keep in mind that when you send or receive mms you are being charged an average $1.99 per mb and .25 each way right now. If the statutory rate was .10 per mb then a person trying to send hundreds of pictures in hopes of generating a profit would be wasting their time, energy and money doing so. This system is for those that rely on their creations to support themselves.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:52am

      Re: data revenue

      However, there is some validity in the carrier's obligation to NOT support clear violations of copyright laws as ISPs have done.

      Wait, why? Why is it a 3rd party's obligation at all? You don't blame Ford for the fact that people speed, do you? You don't blame Dell for the fact that people hack, do you?

      Why do you want to blame service providers for the fact that people infringe?

      In the case of charging fees for copyrighted materials to go from point A to point B, the copyright holder should obviously be compensated.

      Yes, and with ringtones they are compensated. That's the point. But it's compensation for the distribution and reproduction right,s not performance rights. ASCAP is trying to add another fee.

      It is our belief at datarevenue.org that the wireless carriers have a responsibility to honor this fundamental function of copyright protection when these transactions occur.

      Your belief is wrong. You are blaming a third party for actions of another -- and even worse, assuming infringement in all cases.

      That's sickening.

      This would cover any peer2peer data transactions and again, is a fair way to do business.

      That's not fair. That's a huge freaking scam.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:01am

        peer2peer

        Let me make it very clear that we are only talking about a statutory rate for p2p mms transactions via mobile phones. This has not even started yet. But it will soon. Now is the time to put a fair system in place. Within 5 years or so you will be able to send a full movie mobile2mobile. What kind of mess will that be if something is not in place BEFORE that happens?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Rob R. (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:10am

          Re: peer2peer

          I hereby claim copyright on the sound of a fart because I made the sound just now and it's now mine. Each and every time you fart, you owe me. If you fart in public, you now have to pay a public performance fee for that fart. Any farts in elevators are public performance and you owe me. Farting is your own home is ok, but if you have company it's public performance and you owe me. Should I just send you a bill? It will come from "Farting Inc." and be payable upon receipt or I'll sue you for $80,000 per fart.

          Oh, and you'll soon be required to wear fart-detectors that will report any and all farts to me for collection.

          -This post subsidized by America's bean and broccoli farmers.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Sneeje (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:25am

            Re: Re: peer2peer

            If that doesn't "promote the progress of science and useful arts" I don't know what would...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:37am

              Re: Re: Re: peer2peer

              That's very funny but true.....if you fixed your fart in form, (recorded etc.) and wanted to enforce your rights. The law would be on your side in that case.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 12:04pm

            Re: Re: peer2peer

            Sorry, I have lots of prior art which clearly shows that I own the copyright on farts (I farted in public several times last week). Sorry, you're guilty of copyright infringement. Send me money!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          John Doe, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:25am

          Re: peer2peer

          Your kidding about the mess thing right? You guys are the ones creating the mess; why can't you see that?

          Here is a little food for thought for you over at datarevenue.org: I don't copy any digital good illegally. But I can assure you, if you start taxing my cell phone bill and/or broadband bill for activities I don't participate in, I will start participating. I will have a copy of every song, movie, photo ever made. So, if you want to sell me something; fine sell me something. If you want to tax me on stuff I "might" do, then I will do it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            max (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:31am

            Re: Re: peer2peer

            Again, you may get your content any way you see fit. However, if you want to share it via your mobile phone peer2peer there will be a fair way to do so.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              John Doe, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:58am

              Re: Re: Re: peer2peer

              This is where you show that you are a hypocrite. You DO care where I get the content and if I share it. You want to tax me because of something I might do, but then you will charge me with copyright infringement if I do share it. It is a no win situation for the consumer and you know it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        max (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 10:06pm

        Re: Re: data revenue

        The Internet generation has to stop lumping copyright protection with big business. Big business's job was to exploit copyrights on behalf of the creators that didn't know how to do it themselves. Well they exploited themselves right out of business but you better believe they enjoyed it while it lasted. Now it's over. This is the age of self publishing. Those who publish in this age have to learn to incorporate or refine existing laws to define this era. History shows it's more likely to be done by improving the existing system NOT by totally destroying the idea born of many generations of shoulder standing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 6:20pm

      Re: data revenue

      This is absurd. Not all peer-to-peer data transactions are in violation of copyright. Get this through your head before moving on because you come up with nothing but useless blathering until you do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lynx Fireze, 19 Dec 2013 @ 4:31am

      Re: data revenue

      Hey. Dumbasses, you do realise that if you try to force people to pay extortionate prices for "music" and then try to force them to pay more every time they share with or play that music to their friends (or even use it for it's expressly intended purpose in terms of ringtones) you're only going to boost piracy and destroy your own sales. Lower your prices. Stop being dicks and leave the effing pirates to their piracy. They aren't terrorists and even if the revenue of piracy ALL goes to terrorism then could you please tell me what damage they intend to do with the 0.00 I gave them......

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ervserver (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 10:37am

    pay

    they should be paying US for promoting their music

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ben, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:26am

    Bizarre? You am in da USofA!

    The US is the home of bizarre, shitty, unenforceable laws. Now the Supreme Court will contemplate keeping "sexually dangerous" in prison for life well after their sentences have ended, this like the "three strikes" law would mean that an eighteen year old caught boffing his sixteen year old girlfriend will (if he lives to the age of 70) will have spent fifty two miserable years in confinement.

    His revenge for this outrage will be that at the current rate of $48,000 per year (bound to go up) he will have cost the taxpayers $2,496,000 (at a minimum) by the end of his existence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RD, 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:50am

    Soylent Horses

    "You apparently don't know any horse lovers because they
    think horses are people. ;>)"

    Horses are made of people.....PEOPLE!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sailingmaster (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 11:56am

    What about ASCAP's members?

    The question I'd like to see answered about this particular instance of copyright stupidity, is whether or not the actual membership of ASCAP is in favor of this, or if it's some ASCAP executive's idea of how to use RIAA tactics to make more money?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RD, 22 Jun 2009 @ 1:40pm

    You still can

    "If we prevent artists and scientists etc from financially benefiting from their labors why would there be many in those professions?"

    Nothing is preventing them now. They can try to profit from their labors with OR without copyright law. People will still create even if there wasnt copyright monopolies. People would still make money from it. Different people than now, perhaps, and not in the same way, but it will still happen.

    For instance, a painter can still make a painting and try to sell it for $10,000 (or $1,000 or whatever the market will bear) and make and sell prints of this painting as well. Same as it is now. That original painting would still have value, still be an original.

    No one is saying that you SHOULDNT be able to make money from your creative labors. The point being raised is, at what point does the law stop serving society ("promote the progress", "limited times", etc) and start becoming something that only serves large, powerful corporations AT THE EXPENSE of the consumer, and the contract with society (the constitution).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    theskyrider (profile), 22 Jun 2009 @ 2:45pm

    I smell a conspiracy here....

    As far as the fart thing goes, the oldest person in the world should get the royalties. After all, they have the prior art. Now when that person dies, for the next 95 years (assuming that copyright isn't extended and made retroactive before the end of the term) that person's estate gets the royalties. Nuff said.

    Now for the conspiracy part:

    The reasons that music prices are so low (hear me out) is that music is everywhere. It's 'in the air' so to speak. What happens if the INDUSTRY gets their way in raising public performance fees is that people will stop playing it. Restaurants in Australia (saw the article here) used to paying $390 a year in fees suddenly get a bill for $18,000 a year will stop playing the music. Fewer people playing the music means that it becomes more scarce, and they can charge more for it.

    This may take a generation or two, but by that time they will have the technology to listen to a random persons' thoughts and charge their account for having a song stuck in their head.

    On the bright side: I suggest that the RIAA be turned into a nationwide police force. I'll call them the FBMI or Federal Bureau of Music Investigators.

    If a song is played in public - such as a car going down the road blaring music that can be heard for five blocks, they should have the right to pull that person over and bill them for public performance. This will lead to quieter neighborhoods, except if they happen to pull over a gangbanger with a loaded TEC-9 in the car.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Another Coward, 22 Jun 2009 @ 5:05pm

    Somehow this isn't surprising. There was a case in which the makers of Rocky IV sued the makers of a documentary film for a scene where a cellphone rang to the theme of Rocky IV.

    However, if this does become a precedent, there is one thing we could ask... considering that most people don't wait a full three, four minutes to take their calls, i.e. the full length of a song, how is that a public performance if it's not everything? People can listen to snippets of tracks before they buy mp3s anyhow. Should they then have to pay for an incomplete "product"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    CleverName, 22 Jun 2009 @ 6:42pm

    Who owns the copyright on vibrate ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      IHateRegistering, 23 Jun 2009 @ 7:00am

      Re:

      "Who owns the copyright on vibrate?"

      The "adult entertainment" industry, of course! And they'll want royalties too!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thomas, 22 Jun 2009 @ 7:04pm

    What about humming?

    So if I walk down the street humming the tune of a popular song I have to pay a fee for public performance? Don't give them ideas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    P.Helix, 23 Jun 2009 @ 2:53am

    how about defining a public performance..

    What about when you are driving and play you music loud - is that a public performance..
    Maybe the police can arrest people who play their PMPs too loud and have leakage from their head phones..
    Or fine you for playing music at the beach/picnic..
    Or how about demand payment for paying music in an area with more than 4 people!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 23 Jun 2009 @ 12:38pm

    Balderdash, poppycock. (Britsh derision, don'cha know)

    Public performance eh? They'll be going after people whistling tunes in the street next! Come to think of it, haven't actually heard many folk whistling of late anyway. The must be a-feared of being fined umpteen million for doing so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Iva Faye Knayme, 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:03pm

    Ring tones are evil

    The EFF says "Are we each liable for statutory damages (say, $80,000) if we forget to silence our phones in a restaurant?"

    I'm personally all for it. Anything that will silence the boors who feel their "need" to be on constant communication with all their equally annoying friends is somehow more important than their fellow diner's right to enjoy a meal in peace is all right with me.

    And you clowns who talk on the phone while taking a dump in a public rest room. . . you just friggin' creep me right out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sid, 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:11pm

    What?

    Isn't it dumb enough that a 30-second snippet of a song costs 3 times as much as a ringtone than the entire song would cost as a download? $2.99 for 30 seconds, or $0.99 for the whole thing? Now it's gonna be $5.99 for a snippet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    wrath5000, 27 Jun 2009 @ 7:55pm

    I think it's astounding at how the original intention of copyrights has been completely obliterated by unabashed greed. The length of copyright keeps increasing (provided the "maintenance fees" are paid, of course), and it's getting to the point where anything that's not in public domain already, will never become public domain.

    I will say this about ASCAP: they have a hell of a racket going. It's one of the few businesses I can think of that makes money off of something that might happen. For instance, if a business holds live performances, they have to pay extra since the performers MIGHT play copyrighted material.

    This is just gotten bloody ridiculous. No, wait--scratch that. It's gone waaaaay past ridiculous long before now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Foghorn, 30 Jun 2009 @ 10:35am

    Pity ASCAP

    . . . they're only trying to derive a stable income.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    teresa tirro, 4 Aug 2009 @ 9:49am

    i love chatting

    i dont mind making my cell number public. i love chatting and making new frineds around the world...


    call to chat!!!


    718-541-5862

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BMI & ASCAP Killed Superman..not kryptonite, 2 Sep 2009 @ 7:39pm

    ASCAP & BMI Killing Music Venues Across The U.S.A.

    “What is at stake is the United States of America’s live music scene!”


    Venues are shutting live music out of their format because they just can’t afford it!
    ASCAP & BMI are forcing live music venue owners to buy into their programs or face their high powered attorneys, stiff fines and penalties. Coffee shops, bars and festivals are not having live music at all due to the aggressive policies put forth by these companies. Some of the greatest American composers and bands have been nourished in small venues like these across the nation. Our society must find a way to successfully bridge copyright laws and at the same time keep venue owners from wondering whether or not to have live music. The price of losing music venues is too great and what is at stake is the United States of America’s live music scene!

    Here is ASCAP and BMI’s policy in short:
    A musician plays a cover tune at a venue. Venue owners must pay hundreds of dollars in licensing fees each year for that musician to have the freedom to perform that cover song. Unfortunately, the small business owner has to decide whether to pay the electric bill or keep the live music…you guessed it…
    NO MORE LIVE MUSIC!

    Finally-The risk of doing nothing is that ASCAP & BMI will continue to make millions in collections from larger venues while smaller venues in major cities, towns and villages are simply disappearing. This is very alarming and should be cause for great concern, because America is losing its local live music scene. These companies that are supposed to be representing all musicians need to find a healthier solution that is a win/win for music venues, songwriters, common performing musicians and radio play celebrities.

    Here is an article that proves this is happening and it is a real problem:
    http://www.news10.net/news/featured/story.aspx?storyid=64731&catid=49


    This very important issue needs your support and attention. Here is what you can do to stop the spiral downward!
    • Forward this information to any friends, family, musicians, artists, legislators
    and politicians who will join this crucial fight.
    • Talk to people about this and spread the word!
    • Email this document to the President of ASCAP, Paul Williams by going to ASCAP’s website and cutting and pasting this document into their contact form at: http://www.ascap.com/info-form.html
    • Snail mail this document to: ASCAP, Attn: Paul Williams, One Lincoln Plaza, New York, NY 10023
    • Contact ASCAP at 1800 952 7227 and ask them for a solution to this problem.
    • Email this document to the President of BMI, Ralph n. Jackson at: info@bmifoundation.org
    • Snail mail this document to: Ralph N. Jackson, BMI Foundation Inc., 320 W. 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
    • Contact BMI at 404 261 5151 or 310 659 9109 or 305 673 5148 or 615 401 2000 or
    212 586 2000 and ask them for a solution to this problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2009 @ 5:09pm

    Max is the founder of DataRevenue.org, He is in this to make money. The payouts of royalties shall go from Founder, trickle down through 76 additional People (Advisory board, Governers, Leadership Panel) before payout to Associate members and Copyright holders.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    an informed persona, 22 Sep 2009 @ 5:10pm

    FYI

    Max is the founder of DataRevenue.org, He is in this to make money. The payouts of royalties shall go from Founder, trickle down through 76 additional People (Advisory board, Governers, Leadership Panel) before payout to Associate members and Copyright holders.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    No Government's Puppet, 6 Sep 2010 @ 6:38pm

    F*CK 'EM!!!

    Welcome to the new FASCIST GREEDY era of the New World Order and the elite who's behind all this. They just want to control you more, take more of your money and slave you so you have to work endlessly to pay the bills just to barely get by.

    Now Obama thinks that it's HIS right to shut the Internet down when THEY (the Bielderberg Group) sees fit. MORE FASCISM, MORE CONTROL, MORE PUPPETS IN THE BOX.

    WE MUST REVOLT!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Caution: Copyright
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.