In the past few days, both the LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle published pieces wherein they discuss recent moves by ASCAP and other music publishers to try and gather even more money from ringtone downloads.
Essentially, the argument made by the music publishing agencies is that songwriters are due two payments for ringtones. See, when ringtones are downloaded, then that's payment #1. The second payment comes into effect because the ringtone is played at an audible volume in public, thus making the song a "public performance" and entitled to payment #2.
Per The Chronicle:
The current dispute stems from a 2007 rate court decision that determined the act of downloading music files from Internet sites could not be considered a public performance. ASCAP claims that some wireless providers, which were previously paying for ring tone licenses for public performances, used that decision to justify canceling those payments.
That's actually a fairly rational argument. However, in a move that equals the massive fines levied against Jammie Thomas-Rasset by the RIAA, ASCAP has gone from a logical quest for their just dividends to a level of crazy I'm not quite sure of.
From the LA Times:
"As if that wasn't bold enough, the brief later says, "Whether the device is on or off, the volume is turned down, or the phone is placed on vibrate, AT&T has caused a public performance." (ASCAP brought a similar action against Verizon Wireless.) I'm no lawyer, but from a policy standpoint, it's absurd to argue that a public performance occurs when there's no performance to anyone, anywhere."
In other words, they're due the money even if the ringtone never audibly plays. Why would ASCAP or BMI try for money in such a ridiculous fashion?
Well, it appears that ringtone sales are heading downward (Yes, I'm aware that it's from Australia--I wanted a graph). The ringtone sales decline is blamed on the ability to convert pretty much any song you own into a ringtone without too much trouble, either courtesy of a 99 cent conversion in iTunes or a bit of work with some iTunes settings. Why drop a couple bucks for the latest T-Pain bit of Autotune when you can rock the intro to Pink Floyd's "Lucifer Sam"?
What do you think? As a songwriter, do you feel you're entitled to the public performance fee? Is this double-dipping? Do you cell-phone owners care one way or another?
Showing 1-9 of 9
I've made ringtones from Devo's "Girl U Want" and the Murder City Devils' "Dance Hall Music." But I see no reason to pay FURTHER to put them on my phone when I already own the music.
Yes, I am aware that if I want something on vinyl when I have it on CD or vice versa, I have to pay for another copy. That's analog, this is digital. Rules change.
My ringtone is and always has been the intro to "Street Spirit", which I made and emailed to my phone. It's badass and cost me nothing.
I will never buy a ringtone, especially now.
I kind of see my ringtone (the only one I ever bought, the chorus of "Alex Chilton" by the Replacements" as something along the lines of this: http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
Minus the catatonia.
Jason, you're forgetting that when we found you, you were the night manager at the Wichita On the Border and your ringtone was "Livin' La Vida Loca." Even when you set the phone to vibrate, it vibrated the ProTools horn riff.
Am I the only cell phone user on earth who has never purchased, downloaded or had any use whatsoever for a ringtone? They are shrill and annoying. I don't like them coming out of my phone and I like them coming out of yours even less. So there!
Ringtones already cost more than complete songs in most cases. And the only reason they cost so much is that the music industry jacked the price because it couldn't make money from traditional sales any more. They were too busy trying to litigate the fuck out of file sharing rather than trying to solve the problem. This is another attempt to grasp onto a failing business model.
This sounds like a ridiculous cash grab from a failing and flailing industry. I understand buying ringtones, that's completely rational, but the whole "public performance" thing is, pardon my insensitive language, fucking retarded (although this seems to be stating the obvious). What are they gonna do? Charge you for ten to thirty seconds of a song being played to the public? My biggest beef is this: Isn't this on the same level as the radio? I mean, I'm pretty sure we didn't have to pay dividends to every song we played on KJ...unless we secretly did and that's why we never had any money. Who came up with this idea anyway, Lars Ulrich?
I enjoy receiving ASCAP checks in the mail. Even if it's minimal, there's a quarterly reminder that my music is out there being played and payed for. Even if it's at .02 cents per play. You like the song, Pay for it. You wanna have "Welcome to The Jungle" for a ringer to prove your love of gay 80's Hair Metal, Pay for it.
like
dislike
