A mobile phone forum. Mobile-Forum

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Mobile-Forum forum » General mobile phone forums » GSM
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

John's favorite ringtones



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 10th 05, 09:15 AM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Sun, 09 Jan
2005 01:57:32 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick wrote:

Thank you for that clarification. Maybe Navas will now wake up, take his
illegal ringtones off his website and apologize, since you proved him
wrong.


Nope. Read my rebuttal.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
  #22  
Old January 11th 05, 12:30 AM
Scott Stephenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Navas" wrote in message
...
Again, I respectfully disagree.

There are both original work (expression) copyrights on songs, and

performance
copyrights on performances. In this case, only the original work

copyright is
applicable, since I'm *not* using copyrighted recordings. With regard to
original works:

A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce,
distribute, perform, display, or license his work. See 106 of the
act. The owner also receives the exclusive right to produce or
license derivatives of his or her work. See 201(d) of the act.
Limited exceptions to this exclusivity exist for types of "fair use",
such as book reviews. See 107 of the act. ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html

With regard to Fair Use:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000107----000-
..html

In my opinion, my short MIDI excerpts fall under Fair Use provisions.
Furthermore, I know of no case which holds otherwise -- do you?


Yes- there have been many cases where artists and songewriters have
forbidden the use of short sound clips in rap/scratch songs, or have
received monetary damages for such use. And before you ask for specific
cites, remember- Google is your friend.

You'll also need to educate me on which specific clause of 'fair use' you
are claiming applies to you posting these on the Internet- none offer the
protection you claim.




That there are commercial ringtones is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.


It is very relevent- it shows that people can play by the rules. It also
shows that there are perfectly viable (and legal) ringtones available for
download. This is further proof that yours do not fill any market void.


Two paragraphs copied out of a novel aren't plagarism if the source is
identified (Berne Convention), which I have done (at least in part).


No you haven't- there is no mention of the copyright holder or author, which
would be in the source identification you mention above.



  #23  
Old January 11th 05, 12:44 AM
Scott Stephenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Navas" wrote in message
...


In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that

home
recording for personal use is protected under the doctrine of fair use.


Absolutely correct. However, Betamax did not protect the recording and
distribution of any part of a copyrighted work by the general public. You
can record it and listen or watch it as many times as you want, but the
minute you make a copy available to your friends, you are breaking the law.
Period.

Nobody is denying your right to make these midi files for your own use. The
rub is with the distribution of work product you have no right to
distribute. And the claim that you won't get caught would be slightly lower
on the moral eveolutionary scale than the "Who reads their contract" excuses
we see here on a daily basis.


  #24  
Old January 11th 05, 12:58 AM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:30:05 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...


In my opinion, my short MIDI excerpts fall under Fair Use provisions.
Furthermore, I know of no case which holds otherwise -- do you?


Yes- there have been many cases where artists and songewriters have
forbidden the use of short sound clips in rap/scratch songs,


Again, these aren't recordings, and no performance copyrights are at issue.

or have
received monetary damages for such use. And before you ask for specific
cites, remember- Google is your friend.


Been there; done that. What part of "I know of no case which holds otherwise"
was unclear? So if you do you actually know of any, why not post at least one
of them? I've posted citations -- why not you?

You'll also need to educate me on which specific clause of 'fair use' you
are claiming applies to you posting these on the Internet- none offer the
protection you claim.


See my prior posts.

That there are commercial ringtones is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.


It is very relevent- it shows that people can play by the rules. It also
shows that there are perfectly viable (and legal) ringtones available for
download. This is further proof that yours do not fill any market void.


And that's irrelevant from a legal standpoint. That you can sell (say) water
for $2 per bottle doesn't mean that water can only be obtained that way.

Two paragraphs copied out of a novel aren't plagarism if the source is
identified (Berne Convention), which I have done (at least in part).


No you haven't- there is no mention of the copyright holder or author, which
would be in the source identification you mention above.


The name of the clip is identified, and since these are well-known, there's no
real issue.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular
  #25  
Old January 11th 05, 01:04 AM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:44:48 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that home
recording for personal use is protected under the doctrine of fair use.


Absolutely correct. However, Betamax did not protect the recording and
distribution of any part of a copyrighted work by the general public.


I didn't say that. I said:

Copyright law does allow people to use copyrighted songs and performances
on cell phones (absent a specific prohibition), just as it allows them to
make their own recordings.

You apparently now concede that point.

You
can record it and listen or watch it as many times as you want,


On your cellular phone.

but the
minute you make a copy available to your friends, you are breaking the law.
Period.


I didn't say that either.

Again, these aren't recordings, and no performance copyrights are at issue.

Nobody is denying your right to make these midi files for your own use. The
rub is with the distribution of work product you have no right to
distribute. And the claim that you won't get caught would be slightly lower
on the moral eveolutionary scale than the "Who reads their contract" excuses
we see here on a daily basis.


I never made such a claim, so kindly refer from making such an accusation.
My claim is that short MIDI clips are Fair Use. You disagree. Fair enough.
End of story.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular
  #26  
Old January 11th 05, 01:12 AM
Scott Stephenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Navas" wrote in message
...


And that's irrelevant from a legal standpoint. That you can sell (say)

water
for $2 per bottle doesn't mean that water can only be obtained that way.


I would have expected much better from you. Water does not have the legal
protection of creation that any art form does. What you are promoting is an
attitude of sharing anything, as long as you don't get caught. Trying to
cover it up with a twisted and incorrect interpretation of law is pretty
pathetic.


Two paragraphs copied out of a novel aren't plagarism if the source is
identified (Berne Convention), which I have done (at least in part).


No you haven't- there is no mention of the copyright holder or author,

which
would be in the source identification you mention above.


The name of the clip is identified, and since these are well-known,

there's no
real issue.


And this is proof that you don't have a clue about what you are talking
about- that doesn't satisfy a single element of copyright identification.
You better research some more.





--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular



  #27  
Old January 11th 05, 01:24 AM
Scott Stephenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Navas" wrote in message
...
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 10 Jan 2005

16:44:48 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that

home
recording for personal use is protected under the doctrine of fair use.


Absolutely correct. However, Betamax did not protect the recording and
distribution of any part of a copyrighted work by the general public.


I didn't say that. I said:

Copyright law does allow people to use copyrighted songs and

performances
on cell phones (absent a specific prohibition), just as it allows them

to
make their own recordings.

You apparently now concede that point.

You
can record it and listen or watch it as many times as you want,


On your cellular phone.

but the
minute you make a copy available to your friends, you are breaking the

law.
Period.


I didn't say that either.


You didn't say it- you did it by posting them for community download on a
public website.


Again, these aren't recordings, and no performance copyrights are at

issue.

They most certainly are recordings, and there is more than a performance
copyright on these songs. Someone owns COMPLETE CONTROL of the use of the
melody and words to these songs- how, when and where they are distributed in
a public forum being among those.


Nobody is denying your right to make these midi files for your own use.

The
rub is with the distribution of work product you have no right to
distribute. And the claim that you won't get caught would be slightly

lower
on the moral eveolutionary scale than the "Who reads their contract"

excuses
we see here on a daily basis.


I never made such a claim, so kindly refer from making such an accusation.
My claim is that short MIDI clips are Fair Use. You disagree. Fair

enough.
End of story.

--


Not this time- you are BREAKING THE LAW by performing, recording and
distributing the work product of someone else without their permission.
The performance may not be at issue, but the recording and distribution is
not allowed. Period. I'll tell you what- take a one frame still from one
of Elvis' movies and put it on a t-shirt, but do a very amateur job of it- a
little blurry, make his hair red. Go stand in front of Graceland and give
the t-shirts away. Let me know how long it takes for someone to slap you
with a cease and desist order. The same argument you are trying to make
would apply- its a very short clip of the movie, modified by your own hand.

Your little convenient "end of story" is not lost on me. You can't admit
when you are wrong. And trying to avoid the issue by issuing an "end of
story" is slightly less desireable than a total evasion of the issue.
Actually far below the standards of posting that you encourage here.


  #28  
Old January 11th 05, 01:45 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John wrote:
My claim is that short MIDI clips are Fair Use.


YourMobile.com was sued by EMI, and settled out of court, acquiring a
license and paying royalties for their distribution of ringtones.
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-275232.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?...75&area =news

You claimed that your distribution of MIDI clips was legal based on
fair use.
There are four tests used to examine whether fair use exemptions apply.
Which of these do you claim apply?

1. Transformative. Any commentary, or artistic interpretation? Has the
author of the allegedly infringing work added anything or modified it
in some way?

In this case, it's quite clear that merely selecting a recognizable
portion
of a melody isn't "transformative" in any meaningful way.

2. The nature of the work. Factual works are generally afforded less
protection; a list of dates is unlikely to be protected. Artistic works
are
afforded more protection.

Music is clearly artistic, so it fails on this test.

3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

This is an area that is fuzzy and has contradictory case law. However,
you should note the second part, "substantiality." If you're using the
most recognizeable part of a song, that could easily be argued to be
substantial enough. Most current pop songs aren't much more than a
short, repetitive bit with fluff around it to make it into a proper
track length

4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
At least over here in Europe, it seems like people are quite willing to
spend ridiculous amounts of money on ring tones. There is a market for
ring tones, and your providing them will reduce the copyright holder's
market for them.

Out of those four tests, you _might_ pass one of them. One out of four
renders your copying not fair use. You're welcome to respond as to
previous arguments, and say "I disagree." I know you disagree. However,
continuing to say "I disagree" without any actual argument makes you
sound more like a five year old.

You quoted the Berne Convention. It is _not_ binding law in the USA.
Congress passed a law to implement a subset of the provisions of the
Convention in the way that they wanted to. The fact that the Berne
Convention says something is absolutely irrelevant. If it's not in the
US Code, it is not the law.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appii.html

I've explained why and how the law you claim supports your position
demonstrates that your actions are against copyright law. If you really
do feel that your use passes the tests then, please, explain which
tests and why.

  #29  
Old January 11th 05, 02:29 AM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:12:33 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

And that's irrelevant from a legal standpoint. That you can sell (say) water
for $2 per bottle doesn't mean that water can only be obtained that way.


I would have expected much better from you.


Likewise.

Water does not have the legal
protection of creation that any art form does.


I didn't say it did -- I was only responding to your argument.

What you are promoting is an
attitude of sharing anything, as long as you don't get caught.


That's untrue, unwarranted, and uncalled for.

Trying to
cover it up with a twisted and incorrect interpretation of law is pretty
pathetic.


That's not what I'm doing. You've let your emotions get out of control.

The name of the clip is identified, and since these are well-known, there's no
real issue.


And this is proof that you don't have a clue about what you are talking
about- that doesn't satisfy a single element of copyright identification.


The intent of identification is to demonstrate that the clip isn't being
presented as an original work, that it falls under Fair Use. True, it would
have been better had I provided more information, but since I did clearly
identify the clips, I think the spirit of the provision was satisfied. As
always, YMMV.

You better research some more.


I suggest you take your own advice. I also suggest you calm down.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular
  #30  
Old January 11th 05, 02:55 AM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:24:46 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

In on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:44:48 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" wrote:


You
can record it and listen or watch it as many times as you want,
but the
minute you make a copy available to your friends, you are breaking the law.
Period.


I didn't say that either.


You didn't say it- you did it by posting them for community download on a
public website.


Again, I didn't "record it" from a performance.

Again, these aren't recordings, and no performance copyrights are at

issue.

They most certainly are recordings,


Again, they are not "recordings" of performances -- they are MIDI note
sequences, roughly comparable to a digital sheet music clips, analogous to
electronically quoting short excerpts of published works.

and there is more than a performance
copyright on these songs.


Again, there is no performance copyright, since these are not recordings of
performances.

Someone owns COMPLETE CONTROL of the use of the
melody and words to these songs- how, when and where they are distributed in
a public forum being among those.


From my prior citation, a copyright grants only "the exclusive right to
reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work" and "the
exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or her work" subject
to "limited exceptions" ("fair use").

I never made such a claim, so kindly refer from making such an accusation.
My claim is that short MIDI clips are Fair Use. You disagree. Fair enough.
End of story.


Not this time-


[sigh]

you are BREAKING THE LAW ...


In your opinion. Not in my opinion. And stop shouting -- you've really let
your emotions get the better of you.

I'll tell you what- take a one frame still from one
of Elvis' movies and put it on a t-shirt, but do a very amateur job of it- a
little blurry, make his hair red. Go stand in front of Graceland and give
the t-shirts away. Let me know how long it takes for someone to slap you
with a cease and desist order. The same argument you are trying to make
would apply- its a very short clip of the movie, modified by your own hand.


Your analogy is fatally flawed: I didn't start with a copyrighted performance.
What I did was roughly analogous to publishing a caricature of an excerpt from
the script of the movie, something that's done all the time under the Fair Use
exception.

Neither of us are lawyers, so this is just a difference of opinion, nothing
more. I'm tired both of rehashing the issue and of the way you've
misrepresented my position, which is why I say "end of story." Are we done
now, or do you insist on having the last word (in which case you may have it)?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
John's favorite ringtones FredP Ericsson 0 March 10th 05 06:14 AM
John's favorite ringtones Jack Zwick Cingular 157 January 20th 05 01:50 PM
John's favorite ringtones Jack Zwick Ericsson 152 January 20th 05 01:50 PM
John's favorite ringtones Jack Zwick AT&T Wireless 125 January 18th 05 03:58 PM
Free Ringtones - Free Polyphonic Ringtones - Free Voice Ringtones George General 0 January 17th 05 09:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 Mobile-Forum.
The comments are property of their posters.