ASCAP vs iPhone

[gsilbers]

Interesting little article...

also read the comments from the poeple

When your phone rings, the copyright police may come calling | Entertainment & HDTV | iPhone Central | Macworld

excerpt:

'A digital rights group is contesting a U.S. music industry association's assertion that royalties are due each time a mobile phone ringtone is played in public.

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) filed suit against AT&T asserting that ringtones qualify as a public performance under the Copyright Act. ASCAP, which has 350,000 members, collects royalties and licenses public performances of works under copyright...."

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

royalties are due each time a mobile phone ringtone is played in public.

The theory is sound actually...

Reminds me of a case in the UK a couple years ago where PRS tried to sue Arnold Clark (a chain of mechanics) for having the radio on so loud in the workshops that they could be heard in public. Therefore constituting a public performance of the music.

Cant see it getting anywhere however.

I think this further illustrates that Legal doesnt always mean Right and Illegal doesnt always mean Wrong.

[kafka]

Eh, I'm not buying it. I have a hard time accepting that someone's cell phone going off is a public performance any more than the din coming out of their earpiece.

Where is ASCAP going with this next? Are they going to go after teenagers driving around with the top down and the stereo up?

[andersmv]

Although it's a fascinating concept legally, it's really no different then radio. Ringtones are a tool used by artists and labels to help promote their artists, the point is for it to be heard by other people. The same goes for radio, artists send their stuff to radio stations to be played over the air. The majority of people who walk down the streets with earphones on listening to music play it so loud that I can hear it, does that constitute a public performance? I think it's going to boil down to better defining what a public performance is, and more then likely the artist will have to be physically present and performing in order for it to constitute as one...

[kafka]

Originally Posted by andersmv

I think it's going to boil down to better defining what a public performance is, and more then likely the artist will have to be physically present and performing in order for it to constitute as one..

Oh, well, that has never been necessary before. Every bar has an ASCAP and BMI license so they can play recorded music. The same is true with every jukebox (not that there are any left). The point will be who the intended audience is.

[MrT]

Wow... that's all I have to say. So will you have a button on your phone that you can press when you are in public or by yourself? I'm guessing they'll just assume you're in public .

Too bad they can't figure out how to make an honest buck... not that they ever could.

[robmix]

Originally Posted by kafka

Eh, I'm not buying it. I have a hard time accepting that someone's cell phone going off is a public performance any more than the din coming out of their earpiece.

Where is ASCAP going with this next? Are they going to go after teenagers driving around with the top down and the stereo up?

Though I do agree with you, songwriters do get paid for the teenager blasting their stereo from the car wether it's from CD sales or performance royalties on radio. And since we get paid from ringtones already I'm guessing it will be covered under fair use.

I'd rather see ASCAP go after ISP's so we can all get paid from illegal downloads.

[rack gear]

this is disappointing. rigntones are paid for by the user, including the publishing mechanical at a fixed stat rate. this is a reach under the best case scenario.

not that I think the RIAA's moves have been particularly genius - but would it be asking to much for ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA to all have a unified policy for digital copyright issues?

the ironic thing about the whole PB thing, is that not only were the labels loosing money from each illegal download, so were the publishers.

I haven't looked to see if ASCAP was on the RIAA bandwagon with the labels, but you would have thought for sure Harry Fox would have gotten into the act on behalf of their clients.

Try weasling out of publishing roylaties owed to Harry Fox, good luck with that.

[soundslikejoe]

Go ASCAP!!!! I hope they collect $.001 everytime a phone rings. Nah... that wouldn't work. How about an additional dollar for every ringtone sold.

Put that in a pot and pass it out. What would that be $1 billion extra dollars a year? Just think about how many musicians that would feed.

[soundslikejoe]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

this is disappointing. rigntones are paid for by the user, including the publishing mechanical at a fixed stat rate. this is a reach under the best case scenario.

Film makers pay a fixed usage and mechanical fee when purchasing a license for use in a movie. ASCAP then collects everytime that scene is played on TV.

Why not?

[rack gear]

because every time its played on tv there's advertising (or licensing/subscription) revenue being created for the performance.

with the ringtone, the revenue trail ends with the end user who paid for it.

I understand and support people getting compensated every time there is new revenue or money changing hands - this is why artists get paid publishing from radio airplay.

the labels supply the master for free, but the writers need to be compensated as well.

Originally Posted by joenovice

Film makers pay a fixed usage and mechanical fee when purchasing a license for use in a movie. ASCAP then collects everytime that scene is played on TV.

Why not?

[CoteRotie]

I never understood why when a doctor (or other business) hangs a print of a copyrighted painting in his office he doesn't have to pay royalties to some artist's organization because the painting is publicly exhibited. Are visual artists somehow entitled to less compensation than audio artists?

Of course I know the practical answer, but it's still an interesting comparison.

Regards,

John

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

because every time its played on tv there's advertising (or licensing/subscription) revenue being created for the performance.

with the ringtone, the revenue trail ends with the end user who paid for it.

I understand and support people getting compensated every time there is new revenue or money changing hands - this is why artists get paid publishing from radio airplay.

the labels supply the master for free, but the writers need to be compensated as well.

i think artists do not get nothing from airplay just promotion. at least here in the US.

[kafka]

Originally Posted by robmix

Though I do agree with you, songwriters do get paid for the teenager blasting their stereo from the car wether it's from CD sales or performance royalties on radio. And since we get paid from ringtones already I'm guessing it will be covered under fair use.

I'd rather see ASCAP go after ISP's so we can all get paid from illegal downloads.

Yeah, it sounds like fair use to me, especially - as you've pointed out - because the ringtone was already paid for. Unfortunately, nothing will convince the pirates their actions are justified more than trying to double-dip into the consumer's pocket. This kind of action is detrimental whether it succeeds or not.

As far as the ISPs goes, I agree more and more as time goes on. Illegal downloads are a big part of any ISP's product. ISPs profit by turning a blind eye. Unfortunately, they're also protected under the DMCA.

[soulsenseii]

Most ringtones are more expensive that the full mp3 @ iTunes. If I buy a ringtone, why the hell should I pay everytime someone calls me?


And some people in this board get upset when I call the industry greedy.

[soundslikejoe]

Originally Posted by soulsenseii

Most ringtones are more expensive that the full mp3 @ iTunes. If I buy a ringtone, why the hell should I pay everytime someone calls me?


And some people in this board get upset when I call the industry greedy.

The end-user doesn't pay ASCAP. It would be wrapped into the distribution costs and debted to the provider.

People always act like PROs would start sending them a bill. Geez... Don't you understand that ALL (or 99%) of the money you "pay" for that ringtone stays in the pockets of corporations like Verizon.

Why are you attempting to starve the creator of the music and protect the gross profits of the distribution channel?

[rack gear]

that's right - the labels surrender royalties on the master in exchange for promotion, but the writers get paid - if the writer is also the artist, then the artist would be getting paid as well.

Originally Posted by gsilbers

i think artists do not get nothing from airplay just promotion. at least here in the US.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by joenovice

Geez... Don't you understand that ALL (or 99%) of the money you "pay" for that ringtone stays in the pockets of corporations like Verizon.

not true - ringtone deals are 50/50 between the carrier (Verizon) and the licensor (Label).

The licensor agrees to pay the full stat mechanical (the writers/publishers) out of their 50% and the carrier pays for all delivery, hosting and billing costs from their 50%.

These deals are closer to record sales than PR licenses.

[author]

What's interesting is not how that battle will end -- we know that -- but that it is there.

It reflects that all aspects of music distribution are investigated right now. Every player rethinks his role and strategy.

Because there's a growing awareness that music suddenly may become very valuable again.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by author

What's interesting is not how that battle will end -- we know that --

We dont know that, I could make strong cases for both sides of the arguement.

[author]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

We dont know that, I could make strong cases for both sides of the arguement.

Ah for ****'s sake, can't you agree with me on SOMETHING?

Bet you also could make a 'strong case' that I should pay Yoko Ono and/or the ghost of Michael Jackson's $1 if I whistle Yesterday on the street.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by author

Ah for ****'s sake, can't you agree with me on SOMETHING?

Bet you also could make a 'strong case' that I should pay Yoko Ono and/or the ghost of Michael Jackson's $1 if I whistle Yesterday on the street.

I could agree with you on something if you made sense

I'm not disagreeing that the outcome is likey to be in favour of those who make ringtones/ distribute them etc. I am arguing that we dont know that for sure however.

There's a trend here of teenagers and kids playing their MP3 ringtones full blast on public transport for the whole bus/train to hear. If the bus was playing a radio station rather than it being a kids phone I would expect the artist who's track is being played on the radio to be paid.

Surely with your "the decade of piracy is over..." point of view where all artists are getting paid, you would agree with this?

[author]

Originally Posted by equallyscrewed

I could agree with you on something if you made sense

I'm not disagreeing that the outcome is likey to be in favour of those who make ringtones/ distribute them etc. I am arguing that we dont know that for sure however.

There's a trend here of teenagers and kids playing their MP3 ringtones full blast on public transport for the whole bus/train to hear. If the bus was playing a radio station rather than it being a kids phone I would expect the artist who's track is being played on the radio to be paid.

Surely with your "the decade of piracy is over..." point of view where all artists are getting paid, you would agree with this?

Sorry, but no.

'IF the bus was...' Well, it isn't. The (ab)use you describe is unplanned and highly unintentional -- at least to the listeners. In fact, it would be just as (un)reasonable if the artist should pay damages to the victims.

But though this use isn't 'fair' in the normal sense of the word, I would definitely call it Fair in the legal sense.

No need to be anal. Nobody should be payed twice. Not even authors.

[author]

Originally Posted by robmix

I'd rather see ASCAP go after ISP's so we can all get paid from illegal downloads.

Compensation for illegal downloads is not the right solution if that's what you mean. That kind of money always disappear before they reach the artists.

However, going after ISP's IS the right way. They make 30-50% of their income from selling access to stolen property and must be stopped.

Let us not talk 'freedom' and 'privacy' here... We all agree that they should block child pornography to protect our children. In the same way, we have to make them block pirates to protect our culture.