ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings 461
gerddie notes a piece up on the EFF site outlining the fairly outlandish legal theories ASCAP is trying out in their court fight with AT&T. "ASCAP (the same folks who went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire) appears to believe that every time your musical ringtone rings in public, you're violating copyright law by 'publicly performing' it without a license. At least that's the import of a brief (PDF, 2.5 MB) it filed in ASCAP's court battle with mobile phone giant AT&T."
Legal Motivators at fault (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the problem is the doctrine that if something isn't actively and legally pursued and protected, you've given up your rights on it. This is what causes companies to send 'cease & desist' orders to fan websites and the like. That's what causes companies to sue the Girl-scouts.
The idea behind preventing public performance, and the like, is to prevent profiting from a public performance. There's no way that ASCAP can prove that someone's profiting from a cellphone ring-tone going off. They may be able to extract cash from clothing stores that play tunes while people shop, but this one is definitely going too far.
Copyright law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright law needs a review across the board. By which I mean on an international level.
Here is my short list:
- Licences across borders has to be easier
- Software Patents should be revoked (in the US et al)
- Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death
- Public performance should have "fair use" exclusions
- Heck, all copyright should have "fair use"
- Damages should be limited to value (e.g. 100% of damages, not 10,000%)
I'm sure there are other things. But frankly the copyright system as it stands is broken. When web-sites have to buy highly expensive licences in dozens of states and companies are winning millions for a few MP3s something is wrong.
Why am I not surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard.
Next, they will sue any device capable of making sounds in public. Phones are just the beginning, how about iPods, car makers, "boom box" (portable stereo system) makers. While I'd love it if the guys blasting their audio in their car would stop the noise pollution when I'm in their vacinity, I don't think suing them for publicly performing a copywritten work will effect change... And I don't think AT&T is to blame here.
Copyright is a temporary monopoly given to content creators on their works so that they can earn money without being ripped off. It is not intended to be used to stranglehold any company making a device which can play a sound to pay an extortion fee to a group representing content creators.
Begs an interesting question. (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.
Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance [bitlaw.com], then why not? Which exception [copyright.gov] governs it?
I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.
Re:Copyright law... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death
How about not? Make them 10 years. You have 10 years to cash in on your ideas. You want to screw the whole world over in a fit of selfish "VIEW ME AS THE ARTIST I AM!" tantrum, enjoy your 10 years, but the government should not support you after a decade of your decadence. This isn't the industrial revolution or some atomic age. This is the information age where ideas are a dime a million. Today, unlike 20 years ago, everyone has access they need to sell an invention within a few days. Exposure is almost instant, and someone will do it better than you did in one year or less, anyway.
Re:What about radios, etc? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would this apply... (Score:3, Interesting)
Would this apply even if your ringtone is an illegally downloaded MP3 (like with my, uh, friend's phone)? It's kind of Al Capone having to pay taxes on money he got from drug trafficking.
(Actually, strange as it may sound, in the US one is supposed to pay taxes on illegitimately acquired income)
Capitalism at its best (Score:2, Interesting)
Bogus; but clever.
If I were a plumber... (Score:2, Interesting)
The silver lining? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hold on, ASCAP != RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, 'help' the creators of content, by preventing people from listening to it.
Sorry, but fuck the ASCAP, they're at least as bad if not worse than the RIAA. And if you /support/ anti-artist organizations like the ASCAP, then I look upon you with suspicion.
Re:If I were a plumber... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you were a plumber and you invented the P-trap to keep sewer odors out, and you sold that invention for a modest advance plus a royalty on every unit subsequently produced, you would get paid every time someone bought a P-trap.
This ridiculous meme must stop sooner or later. You may not like subscription models, royalty arrangements, or annuities, but they exist in some form in just about every industry. If you, as the seller, choose to adopt one of those remuneration schemes instead of a one-time payment, that's your call. If you can't find a way to do it in your profession, that somehow means that no one should be able to?
If you create a work of art and sell it once and completely, that's fine. Many artists produce individual works just that way--they bill out hourly for their time, and invoice the materials cost, and that's that. Just like a plumber. Others decide to sell reproductions instead. What does it matter? It increases exposure and lowers the price for the masses. It's not anywhere near as good as complete ownership, but that's why it's $20 instead of $50 million for a movie.
Plumbers charge for their labor as they expend it; their work has no intrinsic value beyond labor+materials. The same is not true of many other things, like corporate executives, athletes, and lecturers. It's fine not to like it, but if you're going to start singling out parties for being "overpaid" in your estimation, you're going to have to go far beyond the small percentage of super-wealthy artists.
Re:I recommend they come ask me in person. (Score:4, Interesting)
Eh I don't know if you can really blame them. If they can successfully sue then it's entirely the law's fault
Exploiting loopholes is surely something you can blame someone for. If a good lawyer sees a loophole, they should feel a desire to close it, not exploit it. I'm reminded of a law professor I had (BTW IANAL) who described a friend who mowed a two-foot strip of his neighbor's lawn a fraction of an inch lower than the neighbor until the neighbor stopped mowing it. Then he planted a tree in that same strip. After a few years, he sued to essentially steal the land from his neighbor because he had been improving it and maintaining it. The law was on his side. My law prof was telling the tale as an example of an unintended loophole, but he was laughing about it like it was the best practical joke ever.
Re:Slippery slope on "public performance" (Score:4, Interesting)
Then you need to be at city hall with other residents demanding the city noise ordinances get passed.
WE had that problem here. They passed an addendum that made it a $100.00 fine to have your stereo cranked in a residential area,It is specifically for noise levels and covers motorcycles without mufflers and other noise makers. $100.00 for the first fine and $1000.00 for a repeat offense. The city is really hard up for cash so the cops are actually enforcing everything they can and they nailed several stupid kids on it, plus a chain of other tickets as they can give you one for nearly anything. word got out fast and now it's quiet again in the neighborhoods.
Even the idiots on the harleys stopped riding in 1st at 1/2 throttle just to be dick-heads. they now putt quietly through the neighborhoods.
note: if your bike is so crappy that you have to keep blipping the throttle when you are stopped, get it fixed or buy a bike that can idle. I'm a motorcyclist and even I cant figure that one out other than trying to be a jerk.
ASCAP is not RIAA (Score:1, Interesting)
This topic has really taken me off-guard. For years I've followed Slashdot stories and I have been fairly strongly against the RIAA because they represent the interests of corporations, not artists. This is not the case with ASCAP. ASCAP is literally the only advocate for us composers and songwriters. Hollywood made sure in the early days that composers were not adequately compensated, and were basically studio in-house serfs. Unfortunately, now that composers work freelance and not for the studios, the pay scale has stayed the same. The only people negotiating for composers are ASCAP and BMI. Granted, these are not perfect organizations, but they're all we have to insure that the composer of that jingle which made the corporation $20 million is getting paid his/her share. And it is a tiny share, I assure you. For example, it is standard practice for the studios to own the copyright of music composed for their films or tv shows.
Frankly, I'm shocked at the responses on here. I've always thought of Slashdot as a community of at least reasonably educated and thoughtful, if humorous people. But here I see dozens of people blasting ASCAP as if it were the RIAA or some other entity representing the fat cats. ASCAP represents the composers/songwriters.
Now, should we be paid every time the phone rings? No. Should we be paid if someone buys a ringtone? Hell yes. Why should anyone be allowed to make money off of our compositions without compensating us?
And for any programmers out there who are blasting the idea of compensation to ASCAP for media created for devices which have an ever-increasing importance in people's lives, I take that as direct permission for me to bittorrent your software that you've been working on.
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I've often thought that someone should come up with a Public Domain "Happy Birthday" song to replace the covered-by-copyright one. Since "Good Morning To You" (the song that Happy Birthday is based off of) is in Public Domain and is only 1 note away from Happy Birthday, we could base it off of "Good Morning To You." Of course, there would be more of a chance of the RIAA opening a torrent search site than of the new Happy Birthday song catching on.
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
And that one here is the head of their pirate bay, and king of all pirates, across all species: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuFyqzerHS8 [youtube.com] :D
10 Years is Probably too short (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, unlike 20 years ago, everyone has access they need to sell an invention within a few days. Exposure is almost instant, and someone will do it better than you did in one year or less, anyway.
Inventions are different than creative works, but even then, with short terms of protection, there's the problem that any invention that will be bought will have to be valuable enough to the new owner that they can make more off of buying related patents in the near term than they could just waiting 10 years for the term to expire. A longer term makes greater investments possible. This isn't the only worthwhile consideration w/ respect to patent/copyright protection, and we've gotten to a bad place imagining that it is, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a worthwhile consideration.
Creative works... in order to really profit from them, you need time for them to reach a critical mass of popularity. Even though there are some artists who seemingly become famous inside of a year or two, it's a *lot* more common to take 5-10 years of work. Sometimes a *lifetime* isn't enough, though I don't think that means copyright should extend beyond it. The original terms of 14 years plus an additional 14 years if the author was still alive seem about right to me.
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
For that matter, "We wish you a happy birthday" should work, with the "Merry Christmas" version apparently public domain (listed on CPDL.org, choral public domain library).
I'm bothered... by the general Slashdot response (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I'm a bit bothered by how many responses here are going along the lines of "ASCAP are evil IP mongers who I'd normally want to fight against, but I personally don't like others' ringtones, so I don't mind so much".
HYPOCRITES!
If you don't like obnoxious ringtones (obnoxious is usually defined as 'stuff that isn't coming from your phone' of course), then fine, discuss noise pollution or novel technical means to battle them. Whatever... just don't be a hypocrite and decide that its ok to let the ASCAP be douchebags to someone else just because you happen to agree with the side-effects of their douchbaggery. If you do that, you're no better than the folks who claim to be pro-life, but then applaud the murder of a doctor who performs services they don't like.
Just for the record, I'm not saying this to be a troll. I seriously feel this way. Yes, I am often annoyed by others' obnoxious tones, but supporting the ASCAP or the **AA in this one instance would be really shortsighted and hypocritical.