PDA

View Full Version : Royalty Rate Unchanged, Apple's iTunes Safe For Now




MacRumors
Oct 3, 2008, 03:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple generated some headlines (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/30/apple-threatens-to-close-itunes-store-over-possible-royalty-hikes/) on Tuesday when statements by iTunes vice president Eddie Cue suggested that Apple might shut down iTunes rather than pay increased royalty rates to music publishers.

Few took the threat seriously, but CNet reports (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10056852-93.html) that the Copyright Royalty Board decided to keep royalty rates at 9.1 cents. Music publishers had been pushing for an increase to 15 cents per track, while Apple was insisting that the price increase would not be tolerated by the market.

The 9.1 cents/track rate is now set for the next five years. An Apple spokesperson stated they were very pleased with the decision.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/03/royalty-rate-unchanged-apples-itunes-safe-for-now/)



Fast Shadow
Oct 3, 2008, 03:33 AM
There is big news in that article - the rates for downloadable songs and CDs may have remained unchanged, but a rate of _24 cents_ has been established for ringtones. :eek:


The three-member board that sets statutory copyright licenses e-mailed the Digital Media Association (DiMA), the National Music Publishers' Association, Apple, and other download stores with its decision to keep the royalty rate at 9.1 cents a song. The board also set the same rate for CDs and established a 24-cent rate for ringtones.

edesignuk
Oct 3, 2008, 03:35 AM
An Apple spokesperson said stated they were very pleased with the decision.heh, I bet they were.

DARKJ3DI
Oct 3, 2008, 03:42 AM
yay the music store stays.

sammich
Oct 3, 2008, 04:14 AM
There is big news in that article - the rates for downloadable songs and CDs may have remained unchanged, but a rate of _24 cents_ has been established for ringtones. :eek:

I don't get it? What is so special about a ringtone? 'Hey, let's buy a 20 second snippet of a song for about 5x the price of the whole song itself'.

cal6n
Oct 3, 2008, 04:19 AM
I don't get it? What is so special about a ringtone? 'Hey, let's buy a 20 second snippet of a song for about 5x the price of the whole song itself'.

That's what's so special. The fact that it's just a snippet. There's very little additional work for the middlemen, so they're entitled to a smaller cut (even though it's still too big), leaving more for the composer.

Remarkably sensible decision.

*edit* Oh, and the Music Store was never in threat. That statement was Apple's way of saying that they would ensure that any royalty increases would be paid out of the record companies' profits, rather than the music-buying public's pocket.

Seen in that light, leaving the download-able rate untouched seems like rather a poor decision.

Matek
Oct 3, 2008, 04:22 AM
Wait, so if a song is $0.99, 90 cents goes to Apple? If not - what exactly is this royalty about?

moopf
Oct 3, 2008, 04:30 AM
Wait, so if a song is $0.99, 90 cents goes to Apple? If not - what exactly is this royalty about?

No, I think apple keeps around 30%. The rest, of which this royalty is a part, goes to the record labels. They then pay this royalty. The problem Apple saw (as I understand it) was that they would be expected to up that 70% to cover the extra royalty but what they really wanted was for the record label to pay the extra out of the 70% they already get.

So, actually, it's the record labels being greedy.

Plas00
Oct 3, 2008, 04:40 AM
No surprises there,

When you ask for a salary increase and your boss tells you is either u keep working for the same money or the street it is for you, and basically there's not many options that offer what u already have u will definitely just shut up and keep working.

In a way good that iTunes have the power to make things stay the way they are I really can't care less how they divide the money people pay por the tracks.

229dan229
Oct 3, 2008, 04:43 AM
the 30% royalty to Apple is only for the App Store. For music they get a lot
less than that, iTunes is there to persuade people to buy iPods not so much fill their pockets.

Loge
Oct 3, 2008, 04:44 AM
I don't get it? What is so special about a ringtone? 'Hey, let's buy a 20 second snippet of a song for about 5x the price of the whole song itself'.

Clearly writing a snippet of a song is much harder than writing a complete song.

Seriously, who is still paying high prices for ringtones, when most phones will just let you use files that you already have?

Sensible decision though, perhaps if they'd asked for a bit less than a 66% hike, they might have got an increase.

motulist
Oct 3, 2008, 04:48 AM
Ya know what? The prices SHOULD have gone up. This royalty fee was money that was gonna go to the artists (afaik).

Matek
Oct 3, 2008, 04:48 AM
the 30% royalty to Apple is only for the App Store. For music they get a lot
less than that, iTunes is there to persuade people to buy iPods not so much fill their pockets.Not exactly true. I did some googling now and Apple pays about 65 cents for a single, which means they get about 35 cents.

Ya know what? The prices SHOULD have gone up. This royalty fee was money that was gonna go to the artists (afaik).I agree, artists should get a bigger share of money, but not at the price of music simply being more expensive! Record labels, retailers and everyone else who makes money by just being the middle man and not participating in the creative process should get less.

Courtaj
Oct 3, 2008, 04:50 AM
Seriously, who is still paying high prices for ringtones, when most phones will just let you use files that you already have?

Those who either (a) don't like using the start of the song, or (b) can't be ars*d / don't know how to edit the track to make their own ringtones.

I say, charge 'em!

Anyway, as a "public performance," surely ringtones are a breach of copyright. Perhaps that explains the higher charge. Technically it's copyright infringement, but we (the record labels) will let you do it if you pay us up front.

booksacool1
Oct 3, 2008, 05:16 AM
I agree, artists should get a bigger share of money, but not at the price of music simply being more expensive! Record labels, retailers and everyone else who makes money by just being the middle man and not participating in the creative process should get less.

Agreed. Having said that though, apple is already getting a reasonably generous cut. 30-35c markup on an item that originally cost 65-70c is a 50% margin. Artists getting too little, recording labels, retailers (apple) etc getting too much. That's the problem.

Marky_Mark
Oct 3, 2008, 06:01 AM
Try as I might, I can't feel too sorry for the artists, they still drive round in big cars, live in bigger houses, and get to swan around the Cote d'Azur and the Caribbean all summer. When they sign up with a record label, it's hardly the world's best kept secret that the label gets a big slice of the pie. However, for many artists, the marketing clout the labels can bring to bear is the reason the artists make any money at all. Apple is just another distribution channel/reseller, and is increasingly becoming the modern standard for such. Each has their part to play; the proportions of the revenue might be unfairly weighted, but many artists are still exceedingly well-off.

matticus008
Oct 3, 2008, 06:10 AM
No, I think apple keeps around 30%. The rest, of which this royalty is a part, goes to the record labels.
More or less. Apple doesn't really keep the 29 cents, though. More than half of it goes to others (via processing fees, bandwidth providers, and taxes), and much of what's left goes to the cost of maintaining the Store, which is not a trivial expense. I asked a client what their datacenter air conditioning bill was, and the bill at the thoroughly mid-sized facility was pushing $2 million/year. Apple's bill is much higher, and that's just a minor operating expense for something like the iTunes Store.
Wait, so if a song is $0.99, 90 cents goes to Apple? If not - what exactly is this royalty about?
No. This royalty is for the songwriters. Basically, once a song has been published or recorded with permission, anyone else can re-record or redistribute the song for 9.1 cents per copy (as long as the recording and distribution are themselves lawful). No express permission from the songwriter is required; no objection of the songwriter carries any weight. In the case of studio recordings, however, the sound recording must also be licensed, and this is where the performers, the studio, and the record label get involved.

In the end, the total royalties on a single song are about 70 cents. This royalty is somewhat unique because it is set by law, for historical reasons, whereas the other royalties are negotiated and are not compulsory.
the 30% royalty to Apple is only for the App Store. For music they get a lot less than that
Apple gets about the same gross intake for both. Their expenses are higher for music, though, so the net profit is somewhat less than the App Store.

Anyway, as a "public performance," surely ringtones are a breach of copyright. Perhaps that explains the higher charge.
That's part of it. A duly licensed ringtone includes a right of public performance. They're more expensive, though, because they can be. They are utterly frivolous purchases, and they're priced accordingly.

Where you get into trouble is with making your own ringtones. That public performance is not licensed. It is not fair use. It is copyright infringement. There's some unconvincing argument that the copying is de minimis. At the end of the day, though, it's not worth enforcing, and it's certainly not worth litigating.
Agreed. Having said that though, apple is already getting a reasonably generous cut. 30-35c markup on an item that originally cost 65-70c is a 50% margin.
It's a 41% margin (29 cents on 70), and a gross margin, at that. Depending on which analyst you believe, the net profit is somewhere between 5 and 12 cents. Apple, furthermore, is really doing most of the work: recommendations, reviews, previews, sales, distribution, customer support. In other words, just about everything the record label would otherwise be doing. The record company probably paid for the studio time, some marketing of its own, and an advance to the artists, so they certainly deserve a cut. But they're getting 50 cents or more of the 70 cents for royalties. The performers get whatever they've negotiated with their labels. The songwriters get 9 cents. Various other entities get a few pennies.
Artists getting too little, recording labels, retailers (apple) etc getting too much. That's the problem.
Retailers getting too much has never been, and likely never will be, the problem. Just ask Tower Records.

kornyboy
Oct 3, 2008, 06:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

I'm glad to hear this. It was a bit of a shock to hear that Apple threatened to close the store. Though I don't think that was likely to happen, I do think that the extra cost would have been passed on to people buying the music.

ATimson
Oct 3, 2008, 06:53 AM
Where you get into trouble is with making your own ringtones. That public performance is not licensed. It is not fair use. It is copyright infringement.
Has a court yet determined that it actually is public performance? Because if a ringtone is, they're essentially saying that listening to music with your car windows down, or watching a movie without the curtains closed, is also a public performance.

johnmcboston
Oct 3, 2008, 07:32 AM
Try as I might, I can't feel too sorry for the artists, they still drive round in big cars, live in bigger houses...

There are a few big artists that are lucky enough to be this successful, but most of the artists out there just get by with a career in music.

To be honest, I've gotten so disgusted with this whole music mess, I now get most of my music form people you've never heard of, and shop at places like AMIE street and CD Baby, where artists get a lions share of the proceeds. And I get great music!!

adderz
Oct 3, 2008, 07:34 AM
Try as I might, I can't feel too sorry for the artists, they still drive round in big cars, live in bigger houses, and get to swan around the Cote d'Azur and the Caribbean all summer.

Thats a bit of a misconception. Not every artist is Britney Spears or Fall Out boy. For every one that lives the high life their are 20 bands trying to make it big. They all have to start somewhere and ALOT dont make it at all. You cant start out at the top.

I would thinking becoming an artist would be a HUGE risk to take. If it doesnt pay off your stuck with nothing.

Kilamite
Oct 3, 2008, 07:43 AM
Good news that nothing is going up in price.

Where you get into trouble is with making your own ringtones. That public performance is not licensed. It is not fair use. It is copyright infringement. There's some unconvincing argument that the copying is de minimis. At the end of the day, though, it's not worth enforcing, and it's certainly not worth litigating.

You should check out the wee neds and lassies we have at the back of buses in Scotland that blare out their chip munk music to the rest of the bus.

QuarterSwede
Oct 3, 2008, 08:27 AM
Personally, I think they should have raised the rate as it's been 9c/track for years. Good thing most great artists aren't on major labels anymore and a good many of them have their own label or use grassroots ones that pay far more.

Has a court yet determined that it actually is public performance? Because if a ringtone is, they're essentially saying that listening to music with your car windows down, or watching a movie without the curtains closed, is also a public performance.
Ringtones have never been seen as a public performance because 1) they're far too short at about ~24 sec max (you can sample music under 8 seconds for free anyway) and 2) it isn't advertised and 3) your playing to a very limited audience (not very loud). If you were playing it at the Karaoke bar then yeah, they would consider that a public performance.

Thats a bit of a misconception. Not every artist is Britney Spears or Fall Out boy. For every one that lives the high life their are 20 bands trying to make it big. They all have to start somewhere and ALOT dont make it at all. You cant start out at the top.

I would thinking becoming an artist would be a HUGE risk to take. If it doesnt pay off your stuck with nothing.
Too true. MOST artists/songwriters make a pittance compared to them. By the way, a superstar makes on average 12-15c a song but they make far more on tour because the labels have nothing or very little to do with it (for most artists if they have a good manager).

Loge
Oct 3, 2008, 08:42 AM
Personally, I think they should have raised the rate as it's been 9c/track for years. Good thing most great artists aren't on major labels anymore and a good many of them have their own label or use grassroots ones that pay far more.


How long has it been 9c? How much is it for a CD? Isn't this just going to mean the songs will get shorter?


3) your playing to a very limited audience (not very loud).


If only. :p

QuarterSwede
Oct 3, 2008, 08:56 AM
How long has it been 9c? How much is it for a CD? Isn't this just going to mean the songs will get shorter?
mp3, CD, whatever, the artists gets 9c/per track. It's been that rate since at least 2004. Songs shouldn't get any shorter (can't see the logic in that reasoning).

Courtaj
Oct 3, 2008, 09:01 AM
You should check out the wee neds and lassies we have at the back of buses in Scotland that blare out their chip munk music to the rest of the bus.

What is with that awful "music"? I'm at a loss. Kids today. Go figure. This is why I almost never bother going upstairs on buses in Edinburgh any more. Tougher penalties for aesthetic crimes are needed, and fast.

Schizoid
Oct 3, 2008, 09:23 AM
Phew! That was a close one! We nearly lost the iTunes store! wow..
Whatever will I do if I don't get the PRIVILEGE of paying 7 quid for a crappy twenty year old film!

eastcoastsurfer
Oct 3, 2008, 09:28 AM
I don't get it? What is so special about a ringtone? 'Hey, let's buy a 20 second snippet of a song for about 5x the price of the whole song itself'.

Unless you have the latest garage band, I don't think you can put ringtones on the iPhone w/o purchasing them. If phone makers (and this includes you Apple) would quit locking their phones in order to nickel and dime people you might have a point...

kingtj
Oct 3, 2008, 09:57 AM
It's not so much the ring-tones that the more "tech savvy" among us care about. (You're right... we'll just make our own and find a way to get them uploaded to most phones out there.)

Where they've still got you is when you want to use one of those services that substitutes the standard sound of your phone ringing with music (often called "ringbacks"). Since this is what the caller hears before you pick up your phone, it has to be managed at the phone company's end - not on your phone. So you have no control over being forced to pay their fee for each custom song clip you want to assign.....



Seriously, who is still paying high prices for ringtones, when most phones will just let you use files that you already have?

Sensible decision though, perhaps if they'd asked for a bit less than a 66% hike, they might have got an increase.

jdmlight
Oct 3, 2008, 10:22 AM
Unless you have the latest garage band, I don't think you can put ringtones on the iPhone w/o purchasing them. If phone makers (and this includes you Apple) would quit locking their phones in order to nickel and dime people you might have a point...
I can make my own ringtones really easily on my Palm Centro with a free app called MiniTones...

:D

scotty96LSC
Oct 3, 2008, 10:48 AM
Now I can still count on one Christmas gift I will be getting for the next five years -- iTunes Gift Cards.:D

theBB
Oct 3, 2008, 12:15 PM
Unless you have the latest garage band, I don't think you can put ringtones on the iPhone w/o purchasing them. If phone makers (and this includes you Apple) would quit locking their phones in order to nickel and dime people you might have a point...

You don't need GarageBand:

http://theappleblog.com/2008/08/07/free-custom-iphone-ringtones-using-only-itunes/

seashellz
Oct 3, 2008, 02:58 PM
God what blundering idiots-dont they realize that iTunes probably increases sales of CDs?-as a person who may like physical product, but wants to hear a song or two first.

They are using a dinosaur business model-they should all team up with APPLE
to sell albums extra contents-and yes-printable booklets for your CD
what IS the roylalty rate industry wide-if its around $.10 what are they complaining about?

edoates
Oct 3, 2008, 03:56 PM
Not exactly true. I did some googling now and Apple pays about 65 cents for a single, which means they get about 35 cents.

I agree, artists should get a bigger share of money, but not at the price of music simply being more expensive! Record labels, retailers and everyone else who makes money by just being the middle man and not participating in the creative process should get less.

According to TuneCore, the current rate Apple pays for song Tunecore puts up is 70 cents for a single, $7.00 for an "album." Record labels may have negotiated a different price.

From that 70 cents, the entity putting the track in iTunes pays all expenses: song writer royalties, performance royalties (if that's you or your band, you keep that), etc.

Eddie O

edoates
Oct 3, 2008, 04:11 PM
Quote: It's a 41% margin (29 cents on 70), and a gross margin, at that. Depending on which analyst you believe, the net profit is somewhere between 5 and 12 cents."

If the sales price is 99 cents, and Apple's keeps 29 cents, that a 29.2% gross margin (gross margin is the sales price minus COGS: gross income (29 cents) divided by net sales (99 cents)). And in fact, according to the Investor World web site definitions, the "gross income" is the sales price minus COGS, returns, operational expenses, etc..

But we'll keep it simple: Apple's gross margin is about 29% before other expenses, but after paying COGS.

Eddie O

matticus008
Oct 3, 2008, 06:07 PM
Has a court yet determined that it actually is public performance? Because if a ringtone is, they're essentially saying that listening to music with your car windows down, or watching a movie without the curtains closed, is also a public performance.
Congress has.

"To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;" 17 USC 101.

Listening to your music with the windows down and watching a movie do not fall into that definition. Your phone going off in the middle of a shopping mall does.

You should check out the wee neds and lassies we have at the back of buses in Scotland that blare out their chip munk music to the rest of the bus.
They still do that? I thought that went out in the 80s. ;)

Ringtones have never been seen as a public performance because 1) they're far too short at about ~24 sec max (you can sample music under 8 seconds for free anyway) and 2) it isn't advertised and 3) your playing to a very limited audience (not very loud).
None of that matters. A 30 second ringtone out of a two-and-a-half minute song is not de minimis (not that there is any such standard). Advertising has nothing to do with it. The audience is not limited--you're standing in the middle of a crowd of strangers when it goes off.
How long has it been 9c? How much is it for a CD? Isn't this just going to mean the songs will get shorter?
Jan 1, 2006. The rate is the greater of 9.1 cents per song or 1.75 cents per minute, so it will have no impact on the length of songs.
mp3, CD, whatever, the artists gets 9c/per track. It's been that rate since at least 2004.
No. The songwriters get the rate above, and the current rate took effect in 2006.

If the sales price is 99 cents, and Apple's keeps 29 cents, that a 29.2% gross margin (gross margin is the sales price minus COGS: gross income (29 cents) divided by net sales (99 cents)).
If you'll look at what you quoted, the issue was the margin of markup, not gross margin. It is 41% on the 70 cents. Gross margin on the sales price is a different figure, and is indeed 29.2 cents, but that was not the assertion.

ATimson
Oct 3, 2008, 06:21 PM
"To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;" 17 USC 101.

Listening to your music with the windows down and watching a movie do not fall into that definition. Your phone going off in the middle of a shopping mall does.
City streets are open to the public, as is the sidewalk in front of your house. So no, those would still fall into that definition.

matticus008
Oct 3, 2008, 06:29 PM
City streets are open to the public, as is the sidewalk in front of your house. So no, those would still fall into that definition.
Not unless a substantial number of persons is gathered at your window or around your car. Open to the public is not itself enough.

You can listen to your music on your fishing trip without there being a problem. You need at least about 30 people around at the same time in most cases. If you're playing your car stereo that loud, the more likely concern is a ticket for nuisance. There have been some cars in parking lots that have crossed the line into public performance, but it is quite rare.

mathcolo
Oct 3, 2008, 06:32 PM
I personally think that if Apple shut iTunes down then the whole company would die off. The only reason MOST people care about Apple is iTunes.:rolleyes

ATimson
Oct 3, 2008, 07:02 PM
Not unless a substantial number of persons is gathered at your window or around your car. Open to the public is not itself enough.
Funny, because that's not what the statute you quoted said. I assume that this comes from some sort of case law like I originally inquired about? :)

You can listen to your music on your fishing trip without there being a problem. You need at least about 30 people around at the same time in most cases. If you're playing your car stereo that loud, the more likely concern is a ticket for nuisance.
In my experience, you're not likely to get 30 people who can hear your ringtone, either.

But if there's a 30 person threshold, then just making a ringtone isn't a problem, unlike what you originally said--only using it in an infringing manner, when 30 or more people can hear it.

matticus008
Oct 3, 2008, 09:08 PM
Funny, because that's not what the statute you quoted said. I assume that this comes from some sort of case law like I originally inquired about? :)
"To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;" 17 USC 101 (emphasis added).

It's exactly what the statute says.
In my experience, you're not likely to get 30 people who can hear your ringtone, either.
Nonsense. Classrooms, trains, airplane cabins, airport waiting lounges, shopping malls, conference rooms, courtrooms, hotel lobbies, supermarket checkout lanes, and ball parks are just a few off the top of my head. Most of the time, there may not be that many people around, but a lot of the time, there are.

In any case, ringtones are licensed for public performance, and royalties are paid for them. 24 cents to songwriters, and substantially more to labels. It's a settled matter.
But if there's a 30 person threshold, then just making a ringtone isn't a problem, unlike what you originally said--only using it in an infringing manner, when 30 or more people can hear it.
No, because reproduction and derivation are not rights you possess. The making itself is an infringement. The use of it in public is also an infringement.

ATimson
Oct 3, 2008, 09:46 PM
"To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;" 17 USC 101 (emphasis added).

It's exactly what the statute says.
You're ignoring the "at a place open to the public or" half of the clause. Both places are restricted, not just when people are around, unless there's case law saying that the one takes precedence over the other.

No, because reproduction and derivation are not rights you possess.
My understanding was that it was distribution that was the problem, not the reproduction proper. But as I can't find the page the Copyright Office used to have detailing Fair Use, I'll concede that such reproduction and derivation does not seem to be explicitly allowed, though it may fall under the provisions of 17 USC 107.

(That said, is there any legal difference between the process to encode a CD onto your computer, and the process to create a ringtone? It sure doesn't seem like there should be one; they're the same technical process.)

eleven59
Oct 3, 2008, 11:39 PM
God what blundering idiots-dont they realize that iTunes probably increases sales of CDs?-as a person who may like physical product, but wants to hear a song or two first.

They are using a dinosaur business model-they should all team up with APPLE
to sell albums extra contents-and yes-printable booklets for your CD
what IS the roylalty rate industry wide-if its around $.10 what are they complaining about?

"dinosaur business model"... Those are the words ive been looking for for the past several years... and yet, artists, labels, and even many fans still think that way... :confused: :(

signed 2008

matticus008
Oct 3, 2008, 11:51 PM
You're ignoring the "at a place open to the public or" half of the clause. Both places are restricted, not just when people are around, unless there's case law saying that the one takes precedence over the other.
What on earth are you talking about? Neither your living room nor your car is open to the public. The first phrase does not apply to the scenario you introduced.
My understanding was that it was distribution that was the problem, not the reproduction proper.
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work..." 17 USC 106.

If it's reproduction, and it's not authorized, and there's no statutory license in the balance of Chapter 1, it's copyright infringement.
(That said, is there any legal difference between the process to encode a CD onto your computer, and the process to create a ringtone? It sure doesn't seem like there should be one; they're the same technical process.)
17 USC 107 does not apply; fair use covers parody, criticism, reporting, academic uses and other public acts. Setting aside that CD ripping isn't fair use either (it's personal use), there is a significant difference: making a ringtone involves reproduction, derivation (selection and arrangement), and a change in medium and character of the work. You're not engaging in a noncommercial personal use to enjoy the song; you're engaging in an adaptation to use the work in a manner inconsistent with the copyright owner's interests.

This is entirely academic, however, because no one has ever been sued for making their own ringtone without public distribution. There is nothing to gain by suing someone for it.

twoodcc
Oct 5, 2008, 08:40 PM
very glad to hear this. though i'm sure we'll hear more about this in 5 years from now