iTunes update out. version 7.4

[GotPro]

I'm not sure why everyone is buying an app like iToner for ringtones?

Why not just use AudioHijack from Aomeba software, and record the stream you listen too from iTunes? It puts it in a folder... you call it whatever you want...

Then I go into iFuntastic, select ringtones, drag all the files there, and BOOM they are installed.

AND... after 7.4... they ALL still work, even AFTER syncing, and all my contacts STILL have their proper ringtones assigned!

And it's all free????? lol

 

[FJ218700]

sluggish cover flow?

anyone else getting sluggish cover flow after the 7.4 update?

I've so far only installed on my dual 867 at work, but immediately noticed the difference.

confirmations from other PPC owners?

 

[p0intblank]

Sweet, I love updates!

I don't see why most people are complaining about the additional $0.99 for a ringtone. It's much cheaper and more convenient when compared to competitors.

 

[mambodancer]

Distributing others' music without permission is stealing, taking and using that music is stealing, AND trying to get people to pay for music twice is armed robbery. However, in this case, I consider it as Apple asking you to pay for the convenience of the ringtone maker. Also, you're reallying not paying $2 for a ringtone, you're also getting a full song--you're really only paying 99 cents for the ringtone. This is a much better deal than cell users have been getting for some time, so I'd like to thank Apple for finally putting some competition into this market, and hopefully forcing things to a more reasonable price.

I for one will continue to add my ringtones the inconvenient way, I enjoy the extra work.

Then I suggest everyone read the actual decision by the US Copyright Office dated Sept. 4, 2006 regarding this matter.

A link to the decision is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ringtone-decision.pdf

An excerpt of the Summary Decision is part reads:

Summary of Decision. We find that ringtones (including monophonic and polyphonic ringtones, as well as mastertones) are phonorecords and the delivery of such by wire or wireless technology meets the definition of DPD set forth in the Copyright Act. However, there are a variety of different types of ringtones ranging from those that are simple excerpts taken from a larger musical work to ones that include additional material and may be considered original musical works in and of themselves. Ringtones that are merely excerpts of a preexisting sound recording fall squarely within the scope of the statutory license, whereas those that contain additional material may actually be considered original derivative works and therefore outside the scope of the Section 115 license.8 Moreover, we decide that a ringtone is made and distributed for private use even though some consumers may purchase them for the purpose of identifying themselves in public. We also conclude that if a newly created ringtone is considered
a derivative work, and the work has been first distributed with the authorization of the copyright owner, then any person may use the statutory license to make and distribute the musical work in
the ringtone. For those ringtones that are covered by Section 115 of the Copyright Act, all of the rights, conditions, and requirements in the Act would apply. For those ringtones that fall outside the scope of Section 115, the rights at issue must be acquired through voluntary licenses.

 

[Project]

I couldn't care less about the ringtones, but as a Hearing-impaired Apple user I am bouncing off the walls at the news that Closed-Captioning is now supported. Can anyone confirm? Is CC in videos already purchased? is there an indicator in the store as to what is closed captioned and what isn't? I might be spending more money on the iTunes Video store if I can buy closed captioned TV shows...


(I'm sure this post will get lost among the ringtone ranters.... )

Yes, click View > Show closed captions

Not sure how these are marked in the store though

 

[MacPrince]

First of all, let me offer my counter-anecdote: I put my own ringtones (both MP3 and AAC) on my iPhone with iFuntastic 3.0.3 (into /Library/Ringtones) and iTunes 7.4 did not touch them. Indeed, I've flipped the "Sync ringtones" checkbox on and off a few times, syncing every time, and iTunes doesn't seem to care that I've got my own ringtones.

And I have to quote this for truth:

But, two, you about theft and violation of copyright law you are so far wrong I have no idea where to being. It's fair use. If someone owns a song and wants to make a ringtone out of it and use it only on their personal phone and not distribute it in any manner either for a fee or for free, that is in no way a violation of copyright law. You're phone ringing does not constitute "public performance" any more than playing a CD on your portable boom-box at the beach does. So forget it; it's not copyright violation; when you sell your music the law *does not* give you total and complete control of how it is used. (Breaking Apple's DRM to get at an iTunes Store song to make your own ringtone outside the iTunes system might run afoul of DMCA, but that's another story.)

The doctrine of fair use is well established in our legal system. I can't see making your own ringtones- whether or not you pay for them twice- as anything but fair use.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Huh? I actually pay attention to the terms of service, and I have a copy from May 13 of this year. I can't find any mention of ringers or ringtones in it. It's in the current copy, but it definitely hasn't been there for years, and it definitely was added not only after Apple began thinking about phones but after Apple announced a phone and had begun thinking about selling ringtones.

Internet Archive of iTunes Music Store terms of service

Jerry

You are partially correct, Jerry. The earlier User Agreements do not have "ringtone" language, only "personal use", for which ringtones could possibly be argued to be included under (or argued against as a "public performance").

But Apple legal also added a condition that any future User Agreements are considered "amendments" to this original agreement, and that by agreeing to it you agree to the amendments. This same clause is in every subsequent agreement, which you agree to with every new update.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060712034859/http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

This is from the service agreement from July of 2006:

20. Changes. Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

And here is the other issue. You, by agreeing to the terms and conditions, agree not to circumvent any of the security systems within iTunes employed to constrain usage:

9 b. User Rules... You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

Those two together are a legal slam-dunk against ringtones. All Apple has to do is amend their agreement to limit such usages, have you agree to it with the next update, and the condition is retroactive to the first agreement, because it is essentially an amendment to it.

I don't know how this would stand up in court, but I think that is the legal reasoning. I am not an attorney, so I certainly could stand corrected.

 

[sanford]

I could digitize my art and sell it as computer or cellphone wallpapers. In which case, if you scan my art and use it for the same purpose, you would be stealing from me.

You are out of your ever-loving mind. If I buy, say, a lithograph you sell of one of your original works, I scan that and use it as a computer desktop background on my personal laptop, I am not stealing from you. I bought it, if I want to scan it and put it on my personal computer as a background, I certainly can. Now there's no way I can sell that computer background or even give it away. But I can use it for myself on my own personal computer. You *sold* it to me. I *own* that lithograph. I can repurpose it for *personal* use all I want. (Like right now I'm thinking about using it as toilet paper.) It's called fair use. Fair use! FAIR USE!!!! FAIR USE!!!! FAIR USE!!!!

I hate DRM-crackers and Internet pirates with a passion, but it's people like you who give them all the justification they need -- and even though I'm also in a creative field and am supported by the protections of copyright I'm starting to understand where they're coming from. You *sell* me something and you presume to tell me *you* still own it and can tell me what I may and may not do with it? My stars. Of course there are things I can't do with it even if I bought it from you, like resell it or by any means distribute it. But, brother, you need to get a firm grip on reality and stop acting like you are somehow so exalted you can retain absolute and total control of something you've *sold* for hard currency. Your bloated head may be telling you this but the law is not backing up your head.

 

[GotPro]

The doctrine of fair use is well established in our legal system. I can't see making your own ringtones- whether or not you pay for them twice- as anything but fair use.

Amen, Brutha.

I am a musician (not by career now, but was growing up... even received a full scholarship to Boston University to study Piano Performance)... and I NEVER STEAL MUSIC.

I've bought literally thousands of tracks of iTMS...

But I'm not paying 2x for a ringtone.

That's like me paying again for a song I want to play on my car CD player... JUST because someone might hear it when they are riding with me.

Absolutely RETARDED.

 

[s10]

Amen, Brutha.

I am a musician (not by career now, but was growing up... even received a full scholarship to Boston University to study Piano Performance)... and I NEVER STEAL MUSIC.

I've bought literally thousands of tracks of iTMS...

But I'm not paying 2x for a ringtone.

That's like me paying again for a song I want to play on my car CD player... JUST because someone might hear it when they are riding with me.

Absolutely RETARDED.

You don't pay twice for the song, you pay $99 for the possibility to make a ringtone.

 

[schulzmc]

But, two, you about theft and violation of copyright law you are so far wrong I have no idea where to being. It's fair use. If someone owns a song and wants to make a ringtone out of it and use it only on their personal phone and not distribute it in any manner either for a fee or for free, that is in no way a violation of copyright law. You're phone ringing does not constitute "public performance" any more than playing a CD on your portable boom-box at the beach does. So forget it; it's not copyright violation; when you sell your music the law *does not* give you total and complete control of how it is used. (Breaking Apple's DRM to get at an iTunes Store song to make your own ringtone outside the iTunes system might run afoul of DMCA, but that's another story.)

Very simple analogy. You buy a first edition of a new novel. You make a photocopy of the whole thing and sell it or give it away to someone. Copyright violation. You make a photocopy of the whole thing for you to personally read in the bath so you won't ruin your first edition. Fair use. Not illegal, no violation. Perfectly okay, no victims, have at it.

It does seem that the record companies do not follow your logic.

 

[sanford]

No, I'm not wrong. One, I'm talking about American law as its the only law I know, so I have to discount any Australian laws. Second, in the States you can sue anyone for anything. It's so lovely. Really it is. But as far as I know, that "Happy Birthday" case is hypothetical and has never been filed let alone tested in the justice system. It's very likely it would be called fair use, even in a public place. Same for playing CDs at the beach. Then a precedent would be established and all future very similar cases would be subject to summary dismissal shortly after they are filed.

Fair use is malleable and was intended to be that way: so as to protect against profiteering copyright violators but to allow the common man to use legally owned copyrighted material for personal use as he sees fit.

Honestly, I think you're the one who's wrong here, as depressing as it is. You can now be sued for singing Happy Birthday in public without paying a fee (this has actually happened), and I imagine you can for playing a CD in public like you describe as well, if they cared too. See, e.g.:

http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-singing-happy-birthday-in-public.html
http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=32

Just because something is ridiculous, almost never enforced, and almost impossible to enforce, doesn't mean it isn't a violation of civil law.

 

[williedigital]

Just go to the iTunes Music store, type in "Ringtones" and you will get your wish. It's been there for the last few years.

FYI-do the same thing for Sound Effects if you want to add additional sounds to iMovie or iDVD. Very cool.

I mean free ones. I'm sure they can create some non-copywrited ten-second clips for use with the iphone...

 

[sanford]

You realize that decision supports creating ringtones from existing songs -- "derivative works" -- as acceptable under the license implied when your purchased the CD containing the song? You get that right?

Then I suggest everyone read the actual decision by the US Copyright Office dated Sept. 4, 2006 regarding this matter.

A link to the decision is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ringtone-decision.pdf

An excerpt of the Summary Decision is part reads:

Summary of Decision. We find that ringtones (including monophonic and polyphonic ringtones, as well as mastertones) are phonorecords and the delivery of such by wire or wireless technology meets the definition of DPD set forth in the Copyright Act. However, there are a variety of different types of ringtones ranging from those that are simple excerpts taken from a larger musical work to ones that include additional material and may be considered original musical works in and of themselves. Ringtones that are merely excerpts of a preexisting sound recording fall squarely within the scope of the statutory license, whereas those that contain additional material may actually be considered original derivative works and therefore outside the scope of the Section 115 license.8 Moreover, we decide that a ringtone is made and distributed for private use even though some consumers may purchase them for the purpose of identifying themselves in public. We also conclude that if a newly created ringtone is considered
a derivative work, and the work has been first distributed with the authorization of the copyright owner, then any person may use the statutory license to make and distribute the musical work in
the ringtone. For those ringtones that are covered by Section 115 of the Copyright Act, all of the rights, conditions, and requirements in the Act would apply. For those ringtones that fall outside the scope of Section 115, the rights at issue must be acquired through voluntary licenses.

 

[GotPro]

You don't pay twice for the song, you pay $99 for the possibility to make a ringtone.

Well I tell you what. I'm willing to take on the RIAA as far as THIS issue is concerned.

I ONLY make ringtones of music I've PURCHASED for use under the FAIR USE doctrine.

I'll continue to "STEAL" these ringtones for these songs forever, using my copies of the downloaded songs, and even broadcast my addresses to the RIAA.

If they wanna come get me, come get me.

But they won't... why? Because they KNOW it's fair use. Just because some companies TRY to squeeze more money out of us does NOT make it illegal OR WRONG.

Have you ever heard of the RIAA coming after ANYONE for making custom ringtones for any phone or any device from music THEY OWN?

NO! Why? They know THEY HAVE NO GROUND TO STAND ON!

If they did, trust me, they'd be all over that like white on rice!

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Then I suggest everyone read the actual decision by the US Copyright Office dated Sept. 4, 2006 regarding this matter.

A link to the decision is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ringtone-decision.pdf

An excerpt of the Summary Decision is part reads:

Summary of Decision. We find that ringtones (including monophonic and polyphonic ringtones, as well as mastertones) are phonorecords and the delivery of such by wire or wireless technology meets the definition of DPD set forth in the Copyright Act. However, there are a variety of different types of ringtones ranging from those that are simple excerpts taken from a larger musical work to ones that include additional material and may be considered original musical works in and of themselves. Ringtones that are merely excerpts of a preexisting sound recording fall squarely within the scope of the statutory license, whereas those that contain additional material may actually be considered original derivative works and therefore outside the scope of the Section 115 license.8 Moreover, we decide that a ringtone is made and distributed for private use even though some consumers may purchase them for the purpose of identifying themselves in public. We also conclude that if a newly created ringtone is considered
a derivative work, and the work has been first distributed with the authorization of the copyright owner, then any person may use the statutory license to make and distribute the musical work in
the ringtone. For those ringtones that are covered by Section 115 of the Copyright Act, all of the rights, conditions, and requirements in the Act would apply. For those ringtones that fall outside the scope of Section 115, the rights at issue must be acquired through voluntary licenses.

That is a great bit of info. It clarifies that making a song you already legally own a ringtone is within the bounds of "fair use."

We still have this issue of circumventing Apple's security systems to do it, which one agrees not to do with every new update. But that is a far different question. If the above is settled law, then ringtone rippers are NOT "stealing" from artists. Please accept my apology for suggesting so.

I still think Apple is in an unenviable position, being pressured to charge for ringtones by the major labels as a condition of providing content. Even though the end result is something cheaper than a conventional ringtone would be, it still is a bit hard to swallow.

 

[TheSpaz]

Dang, no firmware update for the 2.5Mbps H.264 that the new iPods have. I guess it's due to upgraded hardware.

What did the old iPods have? Also, with iPod and such... what if you have an HDTV but, you're forced to watch everything in 480i.... crap! Why can't it play higher resolution video? Come on Apple!

 

[GotPro]

That is a great bit of info. It clarifies that making a song you already legally own a ringtone is within the bounds of "fair use."

We still have this issue of circumventing Apple's security systems to do it, which one agrees not to do with every new update. But that is a far different question. If the above is settled law, then ringtone rippers are NOT "stealing" from artists. Please accept my apology for suggesting so.

There is no issue here. You are completely ALLOWED to circumvent the DRM from Apple, PER STEVE JOBS.

Steve-ie himself even said at the "All Things Digital" conference that all we have to do is burn a CD for our own personal use, and the re-import it... and no more DRM!

It was in his interview with Walt Mossberg.

 

[sanford]

It does seem that the record companies do not follow your logic.

I take it you totally changed your post when you realized that the decision mambodancer excerpted is in support of legally making ringtones from music you've already purchased. Essentially, as fair use. So, no, the law is not always logical and straightforward, but yes, my analogy does fit as far as *personal* use of copyrighted media to which fair use is very liberally applied by courts when these licensing issues are challenged by one party or the other.

But, no, of course the record companies don't see it that way. They're going to structure their licenses to retain the most rights they can. But for their licenses to have any weight they have to be tested. Just because they stick it in a license doesn't mean it's legal or that rights they claim to retain would not be considered fair use if challenged.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Assuming you're a better musician than copyright lawyer, I'll check out your music on iTunes.

Geez, I hope so!

Thanks. You have to have a taste for 70's-era progressive rock, though. You have been warned.

Bart

 

[mambodancer]

Then maybe I am misreading the the last paragraph of this decision...

In general, a ringtone will fall within the scope of the compulsory license unless it has so altered the musical composition as to constitute a derivative work. Simply excerpting a single portion of a licensed sound recording of
a musical composition will not constitute the making of a derivative work. It is clear that many, but not all, ringtones will fall within the scope of the Section 115 license. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Copyright Royalty Judges to determine royalties to be payable for the making and distribution of ringtones under the compulsory license.

 

[s10]

Well I tell you what. I'm willing to take on the RIAA as far as THIS issue is concerned.

I ONLY make ringtones of music I've PURCHASED for use under the FAIR USE doctrine.

I'll continue to "STEAL" these ringtones for these songs forever, using my copies of the downloaded songs, and even broadcast my addresses to the RIAA.

If they wanna come get me, come get me.

But they won't... why? Because they KNOW it's fair use. Just because some companies TRY to squeeze more money out of us does NOT make it illegal OR WRONG.

Have you ever heard of the RIAA coming after ANYONE for making custom ringtones for any phone or any device from music THEY OWN?

NO! Why? They know THEY HAVE NO GROUND TO STAND ON!

If they did, trust me, they'd be all over that like white on rice!

Again, music rights has nothing to do with this... you simply pay Apple $99 for the service.

And if you don't want to pay, then don't do it and find another way of making an annoying musical ringtone... it is as simple as that.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

There is no issue here. You are completely ALLOWED to circumvent the DRM from Apple, PER STEVE JOBS.

Steve-ie himself even said at the "All Things Digital" conference that all we have to do is burn a CD for our own personal use, and the re-import it... and no more DRM!

It was in his interview with Walt Mossberg.

Interesting. But is this a blanket permission to defeat Apple's DRM in any form, for any reason?

 

[sanford]

You get a huge slap on the back for admitting your position was wrong. Quite nice of mambodancer to completely dismantle his own argument by posting an excerpt from a legal decision he thought supported him, wasn't it?

Of course, as you wrote, DMCA and breaking DRM is still an issue. As someone noted above, if Apple gives you permission to burn and re-rip iTunes Store music to get rid of the FairPlay DRM, then according to DMCA you may do so *via that permitted method*. This still would not cover software programs designed to strip the FairPlay DRM out of the original purchased tracks. It certainly opens the door, though, as it reduces the weight Apple puts on its DRM; but it's still not flat-out authorization to do so via any other procedure.

That is a great bit of info. It clarifies that making a song you already legally own a ringtone is within the bounds of "fair use."

We still have this issue of circumventing Apple's security systems to do it, which one agrees not to do with every new update. But that is a far different question. If the above is settled law, then ringtone rippers are NOT "stealing" from artists. Please accept my apology for suggesting so.

I still think Apple is in an unenviable position, being pressured to charge for ringtones by the major labels as a condition of providing content. Even though the end result is something cheaper than a conventional ringtone would be, it still is a bit hard to swallow.

 

[sanford]

Interesting. But is this a blanket permission to defeat Apple's DRM in any form, for any reason?

See immediately above post by me.