The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) recently made the ridiculous assertion that cellphone ringtones are to be considered “public performances” of music under the Copyright Act and thus require a license. As Ars Technica eloquently pointed out, the claim is ridiculous because after all one doesn’t need a public performance license to drive around town in a convertible with the radio on.
Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sided with the defendants in the case (AT&T and Verizon Wireless), called the organization’s claims downright ‘outlandish’ and urged a federal court to reject the “bogus” copyright claims.
Imagine my surprise to find out that Verizon has now agreed to pay the ASCAP an interim license fee of more than $4.99 million for songs the phone service provider uses in ringtones for its customers. Meanwhile, the two sides will continue to debate how much the group should receive for the tunes.
For the record: carriers already pay royalties to song owners for the right to sell snippets to their customers in the form of ringtones. The ASCAP, however, told a federal court that each time a phone rings in public, the phone user is violating copyright law and thus carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what the group claims is cell phone users’ copyright infringement.
ASCAP has made it clear that it has no intentions to effectively start charging mobile phone users for playing ringtones, just mobile phone service providers for making it possible for them to do so. But as the EFF says in its rebuttal, consumers could find themselves targeted by other copyright owners for “public performances” if the ASCAP should prevail, not to mention the stifling of innovation in the field and the fact that it could ultimately increase the cost for the average mobile consumer.
All this brouhaha brings back fond memories of the time the ASCAP went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire. I wonder if they ultimately complied to the copyright claims and coughed up a couple of millions for the right to sing “Row, Row, Row” at summer camp nights, too.
This is just the coming attractions with respect to ringtones… soon developers/creators of Flash Ringtones will capture monies from carriers, as well.
Are these people retarded? This article makes my blood boil.
“each time a phone rings in public, the phone user is violating copyright law and thus carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what the group claims is cell phone users’ copyright infringement.”
I don’t even know where to begin. What a bunch of f***in’ idiots. Isn’t that the point? First they were bitching about people downloading music illegally, now they are bitching about people playing the music that they overpaid for in public. Where does this s*** stop? I mean honest to God, if these bastards get a single penny for this, I’m packing my bags and leaving to live in the mountains of Tibet away from society.
+1
+2
+50
You’re not alone, that’s for sure. Unfortunately these guys get their grubby paws into everything. Like the story where they shut down a cafe in FLorida because they held an open mic night where people played covers of protected songs. We need a directory of music that is NOT covered by the RIAA, BMI, ASCAP or the like. And then vote with our dollars buying from those musicians.
So no one pays if I am alone at night on the street and my cell phone rings?
I am totally agree with you
Stop humming that song, your violating a composer’s copyright.
Lol, I wonder if it covers only interpretation by the original band/signer.
I guess you have to pay to make covers of a song?
Playing a song in my garage counts? Since my neighbors can hear it?
When I listen to the original song so loud in my house that the neighbors hear it also counts?
Anyone know at what point it is determined as a public performance? I did not look at their website to see if the information is available, I am too disgusted to go there.
Can I whistle ?
Not if we can hear you whistle!
Well said. Paying a huge sum as interim license and getting it back from customers is really frustrating. I think copyrights have once again intruded the private wish of the consumers
Why does this get so many people’s undies in a bunch? The sole purpose of organizations like ASCAP is to get money for its members. Otherwise it has no reason to exist. So I find it funny that when an organization does exactly what it is supposed to do others who have no dog in the fight get all irritated. What happens now is that whenever a musician indicates that he or she would like to be compensated for their work there is a knee jerk reaction against it. Obviously if Verizon is selling Jay Z ringtones then Jay Z deserves compensation. Whether or not this is the right way to go about it – who knows? That’s for the lawyers to hammer out and it looks like they did.
consumers ALREADY pay for the ringtone itself. that’s why.
so you think buying a ringtone on your phone gives you no right to actually USE it?
I’ll make an organisation to get money from Child Please.
ASCAP – Does anyone else read that as AssCap? Doesn’t that sound like a fitting description for these guys? I bet the group is made up of a bunch of lawyers that get paid 5 million every few years just to not sue people. In the intervening years its hookers and blow in Vegas.
How do i get in on this racket?
I actually read it as AssHat. But I’m dyslexic.
Isn’t that free publicity? Why are they always looking at the glass half empty and they are getting screwed. You can obviously tell they’re not consumers themselves. Why aren’t these companies run by people that actually like music?
Also, ( I know this is like my 32324th post on this article but hey) how come there aren’t more outrage here? If someone makes an article about how buggy their iPod is there is 150 posts about MS vs. Apple with a couple of hate comments.
But Asscap wants someone to pay for you cell phone ringing no one is outraged??? Come on guys! Where are the hate comments and flames posts?
“…the claim is ridiculous because after all one doesn’t need a public performance license to drive around town in a convertible with the radio on.”
Your quote should read: “One doesn’t need a public performance license to drive around town in a convertible with the radio on. Yet.”
This has to stop. This has to stop now.
I have no idea where this went wrong, but this idea of royalties and rights has now gone so far off the rails I’m not sure where common sense and reason can enter back into these conversations.
Fair compensation is just that, but this is just complete and utter nonsense turned up to eleven. The most common of stupidity on Verizon’s part.
Not true. Radio stations track and pay ASCAP/BMI for every performance of every song. You might not be paying for it, but someone is.
No, he’s got it right. Someone has already paid for the use of that ringtone. Two someones, as the article points out. This is asking that one of the two someone’s pays for it again b/c it is being used in the way that the artists/industry agreed to let it be used — if not explicity, it is at least implied with the cellphone the tune is being used on being a mobile device, by definition.
Whoops! Not so fast on the radio playing buster. No really. A radio station pays ASCAP/BMI fees to the tune of about $5/song in big cities. Yes you read that right. $5/song.
Now if you play the radio in a public place YOU ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO ASCAP/BMI FEES. It is the law! Even though the station ALREADY paid…you have to pay as well. It (along with perfectly bad programming) is why you don’t hear radio in restaurants for example. They MUST PAY AN ADDITIONAL FEE based on their revenue.
So keep that convertible top down, and play the radio quietly. The ASCAP/BMI police are listening.
On Verizon..does anyone think Verizon pays that licensing fee? Or do you think it will end up on you in the form of higher costs for the ringtones?
Just asking
How can it be possible. it’s not possible to be more stupid that that. please!! maybe i should pay a fee to wipe my ass.. after all, every time i use toilet paper I could be violating some copyright law..
Well I just like to point out something. Of course you yourself don’t need a license to go around town playing the radio with your top down. It has already been paid for by the radio station you are listening to or by the price you paid when you bought that hot new CD.
If Verizon and any other cell provider who sells ringtones that happen to be of specific artists and don’t have any kind of license deal with ASCAP or SoundExchange then those fees must be paid as those are potential performances.
I’m not a true expert on this stuff but I do know a little from when running a internet radio station.
From the article:
“For the record: carriers already pay royalties to song owners for the right to sell snippets to their customers in the form of ringtones.”
Yes, Sebtoast, but buying the ringtone only confers upon the purchaser a licence to play the recording for private use.
I would also suggest, in reply to Dan Swatik’s comment, that if you go around town playing a CD with your top down that could break the rules pertaining to a public performance, as you do not have a public performance licence for the recording on the CD – by your purchase of the CD you are only licenced for your personal, private use.
No, you don’t receive any sort of public performance license when you buy a CD. If you were to park your car while playing a CD, and invite others to listen, you’d probably be breaking the law. If you were to charge them to listen, you’d definitely be breaking the law.
Yes you are right I stand corrected on that I should check myself.. basically what I meant to say is what you said if you are charging money for it then yes you are breaking some laws.
However; if it were just the radio then no as the radio station has paid those fees
If Verizon continues to sell ringtones in spite of this, then we can get an idea of how much they make off them. (I would venture to guess its a lot…)
Ringtones: $2.50
Carriers take 50%
Mechanical (Songwriting royalty): .24
Proceeds to copyright owner: $1.00
Cost to edit/ format precut tones for multiple handsets: $2k+
Beware of how you answer your phone in the future! Depending on which sounds you make when you utter your welcoming “Hello” into the phone you might infringe the copyright of some song that has used the same two tones on the syllables he-llo.
I had a problem with my phone the other day. I dialed the operator and said “Mr. Telephone Man, there’s something wrong with my line.” The police were waiting for me when I hung up.
I’m confused about the EFF siding with the plaintiffs. Did AT&T and Verizon Wireless sue the ASCAP? Or did you mean that the EFF sided with the defendants?
From the article:
“Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sided with the defendants in the case (AT&T and Verizon Wireless), called the organization’s claims downright ‘outlandish’ and urged a federal court to reject the “bogus” copyright claims.”
So the EFF sided with the defendants – the carriers – AT&T and Verizon. They called the ASCAP’s claims ‘outlandish’ and ‘bogus’.
Next time you have a party, you might have to ask everyone to throw you a few bones so they can enjoy the music for the night. Heaven forbid that you play some of your music that your purchased for the entire group.
I am wondering the same thing but if you are at your place does that count since it is a private residence?
ASCAP is exactly right. It’s unconscionable for someone to NOT get paid in perpetuity for their work. As an architect, I’m outraged that I am not receiving royalty payments for the daily public performances of all of my buildings. People are enjoying my buildings for free!!
Lol and someone actually bought it so you already got paid. But you would make more money every time someone uses a building.
I should do the same, I’d make more money charging every time someone uses a computer I built.
RTFA
rightly said …then dress companies will start charging royality for wearing cloths in public. ..(well victoria secrets can charge as people dont enjoy watch there stuff but what they leave un covered
.
They music shouldnt be played at all or you need to build sound proof houses as someone outside can listen and you could end up paying royalty.
I am overwhelmed with guilt. As I walked to lunch the other day I inadvertently looked up and saw your building—and failed to pay.
Please do forgive me. I promise from now on I will only walk with blinders on while staring at my feet.
I think the point here is that Verizon (and the customer ultimately) has already paid royalties and fees to sell the Jay Z song, but the ASCAP now wants compensation EVERY time your phone rings.
It may seem like consumers “have no dog in the fight”, but Verizon doesn’t print its own money…so where do you think they’re going to get the funds to pay the ASCAP?
This is a trickle down tax to Verizon customers and I’m afraid it will set a bad precedent for other companies.
Fight back!
i think ASCAP should pay us for all those annoying Laddy GaGa ringtones that we hear all the time!!!!!
ASCAP represents songwriters and the publishers of their songs. The carriers make very large profits on ringtones that would not be possible if those songs were not popular. The suit requires the carriers (not the users) to pay royalties to the songwriters when those carriers profit from their work. Is there something wrong with writers being compensated when others profit from their labor?
This is a very uninformed post- ASCAP represents the little guys, not the music industry. Every time you hear a song on the radio, that station pays a tiny fee to ASCAP or BMI which remits it to the writer of that song. Same thing for elevator music, jukeboxes, etc. Any public performance from which the entity playing the music makes a profit- not you blasting music in your garage.
And the link with cell phone is? They are making less money because I have a cell phone?
And the article still says about the carrier paying not the user.
And ASSCAP doesn’t represent the little guys, no one represents me or you.
Your missing the point and your an idiot – this is NOT RADIO – and to be clear – I receive royalties on music SOLD or licensed.
There is something WRONG with your notion of WRITERS or COMPOSERS being compensated – when the original ringtone licenses and use cases didn’t contemplate ‘ performance royalty’. To me ringtones generate more revenue than a downloaded track – while I like the idea of additional income – the reality is are farmers going to ask for a consumption royalty from restaraunts when they cook the food and profit from it – here the ringtones are SOLD to consumers for their use – the fact my ringtones may be heard by others is a GOOD thing.
As to your notion that ASCAP represents the little guys – you must also have a little mind – ASCAP represents ASCAP FIRST – what next a tax on boom boxes at the Beach ?
We are not talking about royalties, we are talking about publishing. If you are a songwriter with people paying for your songs then you are almost certainly a member of ASCAP or BMI. Royalties go to the performing artist, not the writer. ASCAP was formed to compensate writers when their works are performed FOR PROFIT. Excuse the caps but this is the difference.
And BTW, music is not ‘free’ unless you steal it.
I get publishing and performance royalties and I also have watched ASCAP and BMI do what they need to do with Ringtones and if you follow the dollar –
Ringtones: $2.50ish
Carriers take 50%ish
Mechanical (Songwriting royalty): .24
Proceeds to copyright owner: $1.00
Here is what happens when ASCAP rings in on this with a FEE – those who buy the track download will create their own RINGTONES and since they OWN that song, that is being utilized on a device they OWN – I can’t wait to see some court or ASCAP/RIAA idiot try to go after that user in court – maybe a 10 second preamble stating that playing the ringtone could result in 5 years in prison and or a 250,000 fine.
As an artist I want to generate more income revenue – then again – at what cost to the market and consumer ? Only time will tell and my guess is there is something that will replace ringtones that take care of rights.
If I like a song enough to pay freakin verizon for a ring tone (assuming I an inept enough to not make it myself), I probably have bought the song already, so… why do I have to pay for it twice? btw, I made a sound in third grade music that sounds suspiciously like the ring tones that are default on most phones. Why is ascap extorting someone and paying me the royalties? Are they asleep at the wheel?
First threatening the Girl Scouts over licensing fees for singing copyrighted songs around a camp fire, and now extorting fees from carriers for ring tones because they’re considered “public performances” when it’s heard in public?! Who the F is running the show at ASCAP? In what world is this *fair and sensible*? I’ve seen the list of members at ASCAP, and I’m sorry guys, but your music ain’t that good to be pulling this kind of sh$%. I’ll be perfectly happy listening to something else.
This group sounds about as ridiculous at PETA. They should be taken behind the woodshed and beat mercilessly.
Of course they will only charge the carriers for allowing us the privilege of paying for ring tones. And of course the carrier will just eat that cost as service providers always do…oh wait that’s not how it works at all. Morons.
I guess kiddies playing ringtones on youtube will be banned now too ?
Don’t they already cut songs from videos?
I have a talented parrot who sings Metallica songs… I just hope they don’t sue him.
It’s pretty outrageous. They are also trying to get iTunes to pay the same performance license fees on the demo clips before purchasing a song. These 30 second clips are promotional material for users to buy the songs. When a user buys the song, these companies are paid royalties (through mechanical licenses). Demanding to be paid on the 30 second demo is not only greedy…it’s foolish.
They are trying to get ‘performance license’ fees for downloaded media as well. ASCAP/BMI are claiming that a digital download is a performance of a song. A performance of a song is when somebody sits there and plays or sings the song. A download of the song is NOT a performance.
I am heavily involved in a project that is fighting this fight as well. I work with a site that teaches guitar lessons online (including song lessons). For the song lessons, these companies want us to pay for a ’sync license’ because we are putting their music to video. This was intended for putting the actual recording to video such as a movie or commercial, NOT for someone playing a song on their guitar teaching others the music. Beyond that, we already pay a performance license fee for just playing the song. Furthermore, our project is promoting these artists and their songs. Our users are seeing the song lessons, learning it, and becoming fans of these artists (buying their albums, concert tickets, and merchandise because of us).
The music industry wouldn’t have such a bad name for itself if they’d just be cooperative and back off on the greed a little bit.
You are making money using these songwriters’ work to teach guitar, right? Why shouldn’t they be compensated? You’re stealing their music to make money, plain and simple. Otherwise just write your own and you’ll have no problems- oh yeah, maybe no one wants to play your stuff…
What if I just gave away copyrighted books as part of a program teaching people to read? Is that cool?
“Beyond that, we already pay a performance license fee for just playing the song.”
I am not sure I understood his whole comment but he is already paying a certain fee…
It is still stupid to charge for everything every time.
I think everyone here agrees that ASSCAP’s members are entitled to money for their songs but you need to stay logical.
I completely agree that the artist needs to be compensated. This is why we pay a performance license for performing their song. If we were to use the actual song, we’d pay a master recording license (and that’s fine too).
I have two issues:
1) Paying ‘composition fees’ for posting notation / tablature of songs (even if it’s an interpretation / cover of a song). Beyond that, they want outrageous amounts for these licenses and are not very cooperative on being reasonable.
2) Paying a ’sync fee’ to the publisher while also paying a performance fee to them
However…in the end it is THEIR work so I don’t have much ground to stand on. They can charge me $1,000,000 to use it if they wanted. My point is that they should be reasonable when negotiating these fees. It’s much better to work with the population/companies rather than fight against them. In the end, they’d make less enemies and ultimately make more money.
Martin, you greedy selfish capitalistic ba*d.
)
(sorry, someone earlier asked where the flamers are
Actually, it would be beyond cool if you gave away books as part of a scheme to encourage kids to read. Isn’t a world of kind, educated people FAR more important that some people making a few bucks off royalties? Oh wait, greed. Greed’s pretty cool, let’s rather go for that.
Besides, you’re missing the point – which has already been pointed out (that the teacher has already paid for the music and that the kind of double-charging they’re trying to do is ridiculous and far-fetched and cannot be justified except by “it’s mine and I’m greedy, so pay me more”)
Love music, hate the greed in the industry.
And just to respond to the topic in it’s entirety quickly: it’s inherently ridiculous and I can’t believe that reasonable people would pay them. I also can’t believe that a court would actually hear this dispute.
The fact that someone created the music has been twisted FAR out of proportion as an argument to all of these charges. Honestly, if a singer sings something, it’s a bit beyond logic that they would end up being paid if someone’s phone rang next to them. (not to say it isn’t technically feasible, but more that the amount that they actually get – that the ASSCAP brigade is ‘protecting’ them for – is so negligible that they’re probably better off opposing it themselves as they’d get support from listeners).
Peace
What you guys need to understand is that when a person or group negotiates fees with someone it is based on their understanding of what they can get. If you made a song and told your neighbor he could use it for just $5 for a year but then after a year you find out he is playing the song exclusively at parties where he makes $100k you would get the idea that maybe you should ask for more than $5. And it would be within your rights to do that. It’s in his rights to stop using your music too.
So can that guy on youtube farting tunes be harmed by these bullies?
Shouldn’t we also blame Verizon for simply caving instead of making this a battle? If there were a judge that had ever used a phone, they’d understand how ludicrous this entire situation is.
You’re under the mistaken impression that these large corporations are not in the end being run by the same group of international bankers.
These “legal battles” you see over copyright are all part of the same game of making it acceptable in the public eye, by continually seeing the same thing — it becomes normal. The corporations earn more profits, the consumer pays more for their blind faith consumption.
A recap and a point that no-one seems to be making.
Music publishes make money from the initial sale of a track. On top of this they want additional money every time it’s “performed.”
In order to not piss off the consumer they shake-down the distributors, which then pass on the expense to the consumer.
Everyone in the chain pays more, even those of us that don’t use ring-tones.
AssCap wants to charge a “performance” fee for 10-15 second clip of a song that was already purchased and which isn’t intended to entertain those within earshot. It’s actually more of an annoyance than a performance.
15 seconds of a tune being accidentally overheard by someone is in no effin’ way a “performance.”
If you purchased the track yourself then you are free to create a ringtone from it for your own personal use. If you download a ringtone that someone else like verizon created from a piece of music then you pay for that ringtone. Ascap collects a percentage of the sale of that ringtone. They do not collect a percentage everyt time the phone rings with that ringtone. In essence Ascap is collecting a music royalty called a performance royalty from the initial sale of the Ring tone.
This whole discussion stems from a misunderstanding regarding the meaning and pupose of a performance royalty in the case of a ring tone. If they intend to charge a royalty fee every time your phone plays the ring tone then I would agree, to call it a performance everytime the phone rings is crazy, but that isn’t what is going on here.
I have multiple personality disorder. If I hear an artist’s music my head, how much do I have to pay in public performance fees?
I completely agree that the artist needs to be compensated.
Copyright is DOOOOOMED.
It is simply unenforceable society where the marginal cost of duplication is zero, and our society is about there.
ASCAP can drop dead. I have a pirated MP3 on my phone. If they force Western companies and the Japanese to make it so that phones won’t play MP3s, the Chinese will gladly step in and grab the market.
Some people may not like this, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Easy: Just stop using songs as your ringtones!! It’s annoying anyways! I’ve had my phone on vibrate for over 2 years now… I can barely stand that.
Well the fact is that songs are somebody’s intellectual property and they worked hard to create it. They deserve to be paid when people use the song. If you are playing it on your cell phone then you are using the song.
We don’t complain when we have to pay to enjoy an ice cream cone that someone else made. Ascap collects royalties for the owners of the music. We shouldn’t complain that artists receive payment for their labor. This is a good thing because it encourages artists to create wonderful new things.
People who don’t understand this are just not thinking hard enough. Why should anybody work for free?
I can completely understand paying someone for something they created, ONCE. They aren’t working for free, they have already been paid. And they definitely aren’t expending additional energy every time a telephone rings.
I wonder how long it’ll be until ASPAC applies the same logic to print publications, so that everytime someone checks out a library book they’d have to pay up. Where will it end?
A lot of confusion herein of the various rights associated with copyright. Buying the sheet music, for instance, from which the artist(s) derive a royalty, does not convey the right to perform the song in public nor to make copies for one’s friends on the theory that the artist(s) “already got paid.” Sync rights reflect the fact that a song driving a visual sequence makes more of a contribution to the whole than does the same song played briefly in the background.
ASCAP is a licensing agency doing its job when it looks at the issue of ringtones. If I buy a ringtone just for the fun of owning it, I’ve infringed no performance rights any more than I have by buying sheet music that never leaves my piano bench. If I never venture out in public with my cell phone, but just get a charge out of hearing a particular ringtone when someone calls me, I don’t have to license that performance, any more than I do if I play my sheet music at home for my own enjoyment.
Most people, however, buy ringtones not for the sheer fun of ownership or the enjoyment of private use, but (alas) to project a certain image when their phone rings in public. They are selecting that song for its performance benefit, and the artist(s) whose talent and effort made them select that song are entitled to remuneration for that public performance. These rights are not revoked by the fact that technology has complexified intellectual property, and ASCAP is correct to pursue that remuneration on behalf of its members.