Crazy.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/ascap_eff_ringtones_copyright_infringement_claims/
QuoteLawyers claim ringtones are public performance
EFF hits out at 'outlandish copyright claims'
By Kelly Fiveash
Posted in Mobile, 3rd July 2009 10:21 GMT
Internet watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation has hit out at a US music royalties collector, accusing it of making "outlandish copyright claims" about mobile phone ringtones.
The American Society of Composer, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) filed a lawsuit against telecoms giant AT&T, in which it told a federal court that ringtones fell under the public perfomance Copyright Act.
ASCAP collects royalties and licences on behalf of 350,000 members in the US.
In effect, the organisation is gunning for additional payments from mobile firms, and if they don't cough up the royalties ASCAP could claim copyright infringement against mobile users, according to the EFF.
The lobby group responded by filing an amicus brief* for the case earlier this week in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The brief, which was also joined by the Center for Democracy and Technology and Public Knowledge, urged the federal court to reject what the EFF described as "bogus copyright claims... that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardise consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation".
Copyright law exempts performance "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage", which should include the use of mobile ringtones in a public place, asserted the EFF. "This is an outlandish argument from ASCAP," said EFF senior intellectual property attorney Fred von Lohmann.
"Are the millions of people who have bought ringtones breaking the law if they forget to silence their phones in a restaurant? Under this reasoning from ASCAP, it would be a copyright violation for you to play your car radio with the window down!"
ASCAP insisted it wouldn't pursue individuals who it perceived to be breaking copyright law by airing music via their ringtones in public, but said it would bring royalty claims against phone service providers in the US.
"Because it is legal for consumers to play music in public, it's also legal for my mobile phone carrier to sell me a ringtone and a phone to do it. Otherwise it would be illegal to sell all kinds of technologies that help us enjoy our fair use, first sale, and other copyright privileges," argued von Lohmann.
But ASCAP, which filed a document against AT&T's request for a summary judgment in the case early last month, disagrees with that stance, claiming that performances can still violate copyright even if no commercial gain is apparent, such as with ringtones.
The case continues. ®
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.galenpress.com%2Fimages%2Fs00384.gif&hash=b46a751d3d88a1d24ecb2d69680db5f9ff0becb1)
I don't understand. Is someone actually claiming that they can sell ringtones based on other peoples' copyrighted work and not pay royalties for it? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2009, 01:57:44 PM
I don't understand. Is someone actually claiming that they can sell ringtones based on other peoples' copyrighted work and not pay royalties for it? :huh:
I think they're looking for additional fees on top of the base rate that mobile phone companies pay. They're saying that because a ringtone is a "Public performance", and not just the initially negotiated and paid for usage of the ringtone as per the original agreement between ASCAP and the mobile phone companies. Basically, it's just a scheme to make more money. On a totally related topic, I hate ASCAP with a passion.
:rolleyes:
But it gives me an idea. Every once in a while there is a guy on my bus that plays his Ipod way too loud. I will inform him that he is breaching copyright by engaging in a public performance and that if he wishes to avoid being sued he should turn down the volume.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2009, 01:57:44 PM
I don't understand. Is someone actually claiming that they can sell ringtones based on other peoples' copyrighted work and not pay royalties for it? :huh:
From what I understand (and I may be mistaken), the companies pay royalties for the sales, but ASCAP wants the companies to pay more royalties because the ringtones go off in public and are thus "public performances".
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 03, 2009, 02:01:07 PMI think they're looking for additional fees on top of the base rate that mobile phone companies pay. They're saying that because a ringtone is a "Public performance", and not just the initially negotiated and paid for usage of the ringtone as per the original agreement between ASCAP and the mobile phone companies. Basically, it's just a scheme to make more money.
If they are asking for per-performance fees when they already have a flat-rate-per-ringtone-sold agreement, I agree that is absurd.
QuoteOn a totally related topic, I hate ASCAP with a passion.
I hate the whole music "industry" and am gladdened by every story of a band that decides to pass them by in favor of the new technologies.
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2009, 02:06:30 PM
I hate the whole music "industry" and am gladdened by every story of a band that decides to pass them by in favor of the new technologies.
Agree entirely. ASCAP is notorious for having only a passing relationship with the legit artists and mainly keeping all funds in house to keep themselves propped up. They're the ones who charge bars for playing music at a rather silly and inflated rate. They suck. A lot.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
Personally, it's more of a music industry hate than a lawyer hate.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
I blame you for all the world's ills.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2009, 02:06:30 PM
I hate the whole music "industry" and am gladdened by every story of a band that decides to pass them by in favor of the new technologies.
Yay, Pearl Jam.
Boo, Metallica.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
Can you imagine a world without lawyers?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F1951%2F891661-lionelhutz_super.jpg&hash=8fc8ec852023a120fbdacfe93f709a2e1704e84d)
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
Let's face it, lawyers are hard to love. They've built a system where they can say or do anything without having any personal responsibility for it, and where right and wrong are determined by used car salesmen trying to out-fasttalk each other.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
At some point a lawyer gave the opinion that this was at least a viable argument hence the :rolleyes:
It the same reaction I have whenever I see a frivolous law suit.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
As a fellow lawyer, I disagree. A lawyer's job is, among others, to point out to their clients when they are going too far.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2009, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
At some point a lawyer gave the opinion that this was at least a viable argument hence the :rolleyes:
It the same reaction I have whenever I see a frivolous law suit.
I would support public executions for lawyers filing frivolous law suits. Should deal with the problem somewhat.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2009, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
As a fellow lawyer, I disagree. A lawyer's job is, among others, to point out to their clients when they are going too far.
That's a waste of time when you're talking to executives in copyright bodies. There's no depth they won't sink to.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2009, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
As a fellow lawyer, I disagree. A lawyer's job is, among others, to point out to their clients when they are going too far.
In private. And then follow your client's instructions.
I dunno - this principle sounds silly, but maybe it has a small chance of success.
Well, various "pirate parties" are gaining support in Europe. If media companies and copyright bodies do not curb their excesses, they will be eaten alive (perhaps, except, the US where they have the legislators in their pockets).
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 05:14:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2009, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
As a fellow lawyer, I disagree. A lawyer's job is, among others, to point out to their clients when they are going too far.
In private. And then follow your client's instructions.
I dunno - this principle sounds silly, but maybe it has a small chance of success.
*shrug* Usually my clients follow my advice. They may bitch and moan at first, but eventually they give up when they want to do something stupid and I advise them against it.
I just think too many lawyers are all too happy to just charge billable hours on whatever idiocy their clients think up. Most clients loathe to throw money at some no-go project. So I don't really think it's them, but the greedy/compliant lawyers who are at fault.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2009, 05:17:56 PM
*shrug* Usually my clients follow my advice. They may bitch and moan at first, but eventually they give up when they want to do something stupid and I advise them against it.
I dunno - divorce clients and criminal clients can be pretty bad at following their lawyer's advice...
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2009, 05:17:56 PM
*shrug* Usually my clients follow my advice. They may bitch and moan at first, but eventually they give up when they want to do something stupid and I advise them against it.
I dunno - divorce clients and criminal clients can be pretty bad at following their lawyer's advice...
Oh, divorce and criminal lawyers are scum. Don't get me wrong - they are needed; the same way we need the intestinal bacteria. Doesn't mean you have to like them, though.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 05:21:59 PM
I dunno - divorce clients and criminal clients can be pretty bad at following their lawyer's advice...
In the case of criminal law clients, the act was already committed. All that is left to do is see if the Crown can make its case so I dont see the parallel there. I know even less about family law - thank goodness.
Cell phone ringtones aren't public performances--they're public nuisances.
Quote from: dps on July 03, 2009, 09:30:33 PM
Cell phone ringtones aren't public performances--they're public nuisances.
yeah if there's going to be some kind of fee, this should be it. Nuisance tax.
my cell either sounds like a phone (a real phone, not a cell phone) or is on silent or vibrate
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 03, 2009, 10:33:04 PM
my cell either sounds like a phone (a real phone, not a cell phone) or is on silent or vibrate
You're a good soul.
You know, some day (sooner rather than later) we are going to have a Zen trial: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it generate royalties?
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2009, 02:08:09 PM
Why all the lawyer hate? :huh:
It's only an argument made in court. If the argument succeeds you should blame the judge. If the argument fails you don't need to blame anyone.
Shakespeare.