p2pnet news view Music:- Sung to the tune of “Money, money, money,money, money, money”. (From Cabaret – lyrics).

ASCAP, the “same folks who went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire, appears to believe every time your ringtone rings in public, “you’re violating copyright law by ‘publicly performing’ it without a license,” says the EFF’s Fred von Lohmann in Deep Links.

That’s the import of a brief [2.5mb PDF] it filed in its court battle with AT&T, he says.

In a not entirely disassociated post, in 2008, “a district court set a totally arbitrary royalty fee that AOL, Yahoo and RealNetworks had to pay ASCAP for music streamed over their services,” said TechDirt’s Mike Masnick recently. He also pointed out reading through the details was, “immensely troubling,” because it, “seemed to calculate the amounts on a somewhat meaningless formula based on taking a percentage of revenue from the companies that had absolutely nothing to do with music itself,” he said.

ASCAP reckons the world owes its claimed 350,000 members not merely a living, but a luxurious one.

Now, back to von Lohmann on the organisation’s efforts to wring every last penny our of ringtones, “This will doubtless come as a shock to the millions of Americans who have legitimately purchased musical ringtones, contributing millions to the music industry’s bottom line,” he says, going on »»»

Are we each liable for statutory damages (say, $80,000) if we forget to silence our phones in a restaurant?

ASCAP’s outlandish claim is part of its battle with major mobile carriers (including Verizon and AT&T) over whether ASCAP is owed any money for “public performances” of the musical ringtones sold by the carriers. The carriers point out that the owners of the musical compositions (i.e., songwriters and music publishers) are already paid for each ringtone download, but ASCAP claims that it’s owed another royalty for the “public performances” (i.e., ringing in a restaurant) of those same ringtones.

Fortunately, ASCAP is wrong. Even if the incidental mobile phone playback of a short snippet in a public place were viewed as a “public performance” (something no court has ever held, and that would also put you in jeopardy for playing your car radio with the window down), the Copyright Act has a specific exception, 17 U.S.C. 110(4), that covers performances made “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” That should take care of ringtones going off in the restaurant.

Confronted with Section 110(4), ASCAP makes an even more dangerous and wrongheaded argument — that the carrier cannot “stand in the shoes of its customer” when asserting a copyright defense like Section 110(4). In other words, because AT&T is in the ringtone business for the money, it’s on the hook even if the customer isn’t.

To appreciate how anti-consumer this argument is, consider what it would mean in practice. Congress has decided that many activities should be beyond the reach of copyright law, including not only the performances covered by Section 110(4), but also fair use and first sale, among other things. It’s thanks to these exceptions and limitations that libraries can lend books, you can use a TiVo, and Apple can sell iPods to help you get the most from your CD collection. ASCAP is arguing, however, that just because you can’t be held liable for copyright infringement for these things, a copyright owner could still sue any technology company that helps you enjoy your rights under copyright law.

Fortunately for consumers, ASCAP’s theory is foreclosed by the Sony Betamax ruling, where the Supreme Court held that because it’s a fair use for you to time-shift TV, it’s also perfectly legal for Sony to sell you a VCR to do it. Sony did not have to run a second fair use gauntlet for its commercial VCR-selling business.

In short, if there’s no infringement liability for the customer, there can be no secondary liability for the carriers. (ASCAP also has a theory that the carriers are direct infringers because they set up the system that causes phones to ring in public, but that theory is pretty handily wiped out by the recent Cablevision ruling, where the court found that setting up a “remote DVR” service doesn’t make you a direct infringer when your customers use it.)

Or, put another way, the EFF adds, “if it’s noninfringing for you, it’s also noninfringing for a technology company to provide you with the means to do it”.

This would make a great ringtone. Or has it been done already?

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Deep Links – ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings, June 19, 2009
TechDirt – YouTube Ordered To Pay $1.6 Million To ASCAP, May 19, 2009

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 am and is filed under P2P. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 1078 times