Says ridiculous that that each time a phone rings in a public place, the phone user has violated copyright law.
A few weeks ago we mentioned how the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) had taken AT&T to court arguing that phone ringtones are a “performance to the public” under the Copyright Act and that it must be compensated accordingly.
“AT&T is directly liable for the public performance of ringtones,” reads the initial court submission. “When a ringtone rings in ‘public,’ it is undeniably a ‘public performance’ as those terms are defined in the Copyright Act.”
ASCAP argues phone carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what they claim is cell phone users’ copyright infringement. In an amicus brief filed Wednesday, EFF points out that copyright law does not reach public performances “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage” — clearly the case with cell phone ringtones. If phone users are not infringing copyright law, then mobile phone service providers are not contributing to any infringement.
The case is now being tried in a New York federal court, at which yesterday the EFF urged the court to reject these bogus copyright claims that could ultimately raise costs for consumers, jeopardize consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation.
“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 has responded by saying that it does not plan to charge mobile phone users, just mobile phone service providers. But if ASCAP prevails, consumers could find themselves targeted by other copyright owners for “public performances.” Worse, these wrongheaded legal claims cast a shadow over innovators who are building gadgets that help consumers get the most from their copyright privileges.
“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,” said von Lohmann. “Otherwise it would be illegal to sell all kinds of technologies that help us enjoy our fair use, first sale, and other copyright privileges.”
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- JUDGE: Ringtone Not a Public Performance
- ASCAP Demands Additional Performance Tax for Ringtones
- Do-it-yourself ringtone encroaching on potential profits
- RingTones – a pirate’s heaven
- iPod Streaming via Skype
Loading ...
Leave it to corporate stooges the EFF to support AT&T’s huge profit margin over the rights of songwriters. What a bunch of deluded losers.
I don’t suppose you consider the fact that when a new tax is tacked on to a service, the cost of doing business is passed onto consumers, did you?
No, that is not how price is dictated, the price is dictated by what people are willing to pay. Conisdering that ringtones are gravy, allmost all profit, I think the price will remain the same.
The myth that taxes and royalties are ‘passed along to the consumer’ has allowed politicains who knew better to hoodwink the American people into subsidizing huge corporatins for forty years.
While that is something someone learns in economics 101, there’s another factor that one has to consider – profit margins. A business cannot sell at a loss for 100% of its merchandise.
Many corporations – including AT&T – have to contend with share-holders. I doubt that share-holders would vote unanimously to allow the profits to directly tumble because of one entity demanding royalties.
Given that record labels are already taking a cut from any authorized sale of a ringtone, I highly doubt that AT&T is earning 100% of the profit.
As such, if a new royalty rate is tacked on to ringtones, the cost could be passed on to consumers in the same fasion the price of food has gone up in small food related businesses when the price of gas was soaring.
Yeah, but that’s food and gas. How long can you go without it? I have to buy that stuff. I don’t need a damn ringtone.
Also, grocery stores and gas pumps are low margin businesses. What you pay is only a few cents more than they do. A ringtone is a really cheap thing, and at least at itunes they used to cost a buck. The royalties here are pennies. So I’m not too worried about the price going up, I can’t see people paying more that a dollar for that.
“I don’t need a damn ringtone.”
Many prefer having ringtones.
“A ringtone is a really cheap thing…So I’m not too worried about the price going up, I can’t see people paying more that a dollar for that.”
The initial cost could be cheap, but taxing every time the ringtone goes off in public could increase the total cost indefinitely for no reason.
“No, that is not how price is dictated, the price is dictated by what people are willing to pay.”
No, the price is decided by the shareholders or whoever is in charge of the pricing. The fact that people are going to buy something necessarily means that they are willing to pay, but that does not at all have anything to do with the pricing. An example would be the fat PS3.
“The myth that taxes [...] are ‘passed along to the consumer’”
It is not a myth as it actually happens.
my boycott continues…
So, just how are they going to police cell phone ring tones? I upload my own ring tones because I can’t stand the ones that are made available. My phone is loaded up with all sorts of songs, and video game music…