Ringtone annoyance.

[Sobe]

Why does it cost extra? I refuse to pay for a feature that my phone already has. It has the ability to play MP3s over the loudspeaker. I'm not going to pay $.99 to get those songs to play when a call is coming in. Especially when I can just put MP3s in /var/root/Library/Ringtones and have it do that for free.

By that logic no one would ever pay for any digital media they had ever been exposed to.

Someone could claim that they heard it over a loudspeaker or a concert or on the radio and remember the tune in their head.

I'm sure many musicians and artists have the equivalent of photographic memories when it comes to exactly what makes up a particular piece of media.

If they can replay it in their own personal memory, why should they have to pay for a copy of what they already have?

 

[Kadman]

By that logic no one would ever pay for any digital media they had ever been exposed to.

Someone could claim that they heard it over a loudspeaker or a concert or on the radio and remember the tune in their head.

I'm sure many musicians and artists have the equivalent of photographic memories when it comes to exactly what makes up a particular piece of media.

If they can replay it in their own personal memory, why should they have to pay for a copy of what they already have?

Your logic is very entertaining. LOL!!

That's not what he said at all. His point is that if the device he has can play the song already, he shouldn't have to pay again if the same device/speakers play the song because it's triggered by a different event (ringing of the phone vs pressing "play").

Wow, just WOW!!

 

[Sobe]

Your logic is very entertaining. LOL!!

That's not what he said at all. His point is that if the device he has can play the song already, he shouldn't have to pay again if the same device/speakers play the song because it's triggered by a different event (ringing of the phone vs pressing "play").

Wow, just WOW!!

Again missing the point.

I was commenting on the ramifications of his arguments as opposed to the argument itself.

Subtle point, perhaps, but if you're going to play do try to keep up.

 

[Kadman]

There is a difference between being subtle and missing the point. Unfortunately, yours was the latter...

 

[hard-case]

By that logic no one would ever pay for any digital media they had ever been exposed to.

Someone could claim that they heard it over a loudspeaker or a concert or on the radio and remember the tune in their head.

I'm sure many musicians and artists have the equivalent of photographic memories when it comes to exactly what makes up a particular piece of media.

If they can replay it in their own personal memory, why should they have to pay for a copy of what they already have?

Interesting, but the analogy does not confrom to the scenario which was described. If I "hear" a song over a loudspeaker, or at a concert, that does not confer any right whatoever regarding a license said particular song, regardless of how "perfect" my memory may be. However if I were to purchase that song on compact disc, from an authorized distributer (such that it equates to a legal purchase, and such as it was posited in the original scenario), then I DO have a legitimate license with regards to that music. Included within the rights of that license are the ability to convert said piece of music to a digital format and to place said digital format of the music onto a device intended for personal playback use.

Now, according to the copyright office, a mastertone ringtone created from said legally purchased song is NOT a derivative work, and thus does NOT require an additional license. Secondly such ringtones, even when played through the phone in a public location, are according to the copyright office still classified under private use.

Consider the case of a 1.0.2 firmware iPhone, and someone who has purchased a CD, created a ringtone, and utilized iToner to place it on the phone. So how then is it a violation of copyright law, when one has legally purchased a license for a particular song, legally converted said song to a digital format, legally transported said digital format file onto a legitimate playback device, and legally utilized a feature of the device for private use? How explicitly is the copyright of the musician violated?

 

[CWallace]

Nobody's forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the service, use another one.

Unfortunately, Apple is forcing me to do it their way by actively denying me use of any other service (iToner, etc).

Now, if I could send Apple 98 cents for each ringtone on my phone that they don't offer on the iTunes Store period, much less as a downloadable ringtone, and then flag that ringtone as "valid" so each update to iTunes would't destroy it, I'd be more then happy to do that because money isn't the issue - choice is.

 

[RL600]

Meh... put it on vibrate/silent - save yourself $2 and you'll annoy less people at the same time

+1 !

I hate being somewhere and being scared by someone's phone with horrible speaker phone blasting the latest rap song you've already heard a million times over the radio.

Old Phone ringtone for life!

 

[metelskiy]

+1 !

I hate being somewhere and being scared by someone's phone with horrible speaker phone blasting the latest rap song you've already heard a million times over the radio.

Old Phone ringtone for life!

I have purchased one song today and made a ringtone, I had no choise. I purchased some groban - costa alla vita, that's the only ringtone i found on iTuens that i had on my samsung.. the rest 150 of russian ringtone i haven't found any of them on iTunes... Starting to hate Apple........

 

[mustang_dvs]

Why am I forced to buy a song twice? I buy a CD, I rip it to iTunes and if I want to make a ringtone, I have to buy the song again from iTunes.

I suggest you direct this question to the fine folks at the RIAA. (You'll recognize them by the cartoon dollar signs in their eyes.)

I think this is all because Apple is also in the music business, unlike AT&T. For the record companies, a ringtone is a separate license from personal music. If Apple didn't play along, I bet you'd see more labels pulling out of the iTMS.

Are you kidding? AT&T, like all the cell providers, gets gobs of money from their branded ringtone services -- funnily enough, the iTunes ringtones are the cheapest out there (and, unlike Sprint and Verizon, they don't expire after a period of use). Still, the blame for the pay-per-ringtone model should be laid at the feet of the labels and the RIAA.

Apple needs to make it so iTunes will let you take ANY digital audio file and turn it into a ringtone. iTunes Music Store music, ripped CD, recording of me singing Mary Had A Little Lamb, various midi files, anything! When they do that, I'll upgrade to 1.1.1, but until they do that - I'm all hacked, all the time, always 1.0.2, and never buying anything from Apple that isn't a physical object with actual monetary value - none of this "intellectual property" nonsense.

That's essentially what the WWDC build of iTunes would have let you do, and according to published (but under-reported) reports, that's what Apple was planning, until the RIAA stepped into the picture and threatened to pull the plug on the iTMS altogether. It was their insistence that users pay twice for ringtones and only be able to use purchased ringtones on the phone. It was their insistence that changed the iTunes license agreement to prohibit the use of regularly purchased iTMS music as a ringtone, shortly after the WWDC iTunes/iPhone was previewed.

Now, if I could send Apple 98 cents for each ringtone on my phone that they don't offer on the iTunes Store period, much less as a downloadable ringtone, and then flag that ringtone as "valid" so each update to iTunes would't destroy it, I'd be more then happy to do that because money isn't the issue - choice is.

Apple gets between 6 and 7 cents for each ringtone you buy (if it follows the profit structure of the iTMS) and most of that goes to infrastructure costs. Ringtone availability is set by the labels, not Apple. Blame them (for all of this mess).

 

[megfilmworks]

Please show me where copyright law expressly prohibits "ring tones" as a method of playing a song that you purchase as part of a CD.

It has nothing to do with your rights, but Apples obligations to the copyright holders. Not sure why everyone keeps referencing the RIAA, as ringtone licenses are (for the most part) negotiated by the Harry Fox Agency, and these opt in or opt out agreements are all different and negotiated with each distributor.

 

[megfilmworks]

Now, according to the copyright office, a mastertone ringtone created from said legally purchased song is NOT a derivative work, and thus does NOT require an additional license. Secondly such ringtones, even when played through the phone in a public location, are according to the copyright office still classified under private use.

I think here is where most people get confused. Your right to make ringtones from purchased works is clear. Apple, as a distributor of music and manufacturer of digital players has licensing agreements that can preclude Apples from giving you a scheme to accomplish this on an iPod (or iPhone). Two separate issues.

 

[Avatar74]

Unfortunately, Apple is forcing me to do it their way by actively denying me use of any other service (iToner, etc).

Now, if I could send Apple 98 cents for each ringtone on my phone that they don't offer on the iTunes Store period, much less as a downloadable ringtone, and then flag that ringtone as "valid" so each update to iTunes would't destroy it, I'd be more then happy to do that because money isn't the issue - choice is.

I was referring to the product as a whole. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you to buy an iPhone. You chose to buy a product from a company known for providing hardware with integrated and highly proprietary software. If what you wanted was a highly customizable gadget, there was every indication that Apple is not in the business of making and distributing such products.

Sure I don't like the fact that Lexus uses Toyota parts (imagine that) but you know what? I won't buy a Lexus for that reason... They're overpriced Toyotas.

What if I didn't like the user interface of the iPod Nano? Should I complain that Apple's holding me hostage?

NO. Don't buy the friggin' product, or accept the limitations that go with it. You just "had" to have an iPhone... why?

Choice is the issue? Absolutely right it is... You had a choice not to buy an iPhone. At the time it was released they never promised ringtones. Nor did they ever promise that you could make your own for free from any song you wished. If you were dumb enough to buy it based on what you think it should have, and then it didn't live up to your imaginary specs, that's not Apple's fault... that's yours.

But for argument's sake let me add this:

That Apple doesn't help the hackers figure out how to circumvent their new firmware isn't active denial of anything... it's just Apple not helping third parties circumvent the agreements that Apple has with the copyright holders of material sold at retail (iTMS) by Apple. Apple has no contractual or moral obligation to help protect the interests of hackers who are too impatient and stupid to appeal to Apple in the only way the recording industry responds to... with their pocketbooks.

People successfully brought "Family Guy" back on the air with their pocketbooks... They bought copies of Family Guy on DVD by the droves. Fox wasn't interested at all in resurrecting the series until they saw dollar signs. They don't care how many times you bitch on a message board, or how many letters you write... it's not until you speak with your pocketbook that companies listen. That's the reality of it whether you like it or not.

It's not Apple's fault that self-interested hackers (and don't give me the bs that they have some altruistic agenda at heart... their primary concern is their own convenience) do not understand this very basic principle of commerce.