Shipley confronts Apple on "contain and engage"

Sorry, shawn, but it just isn't fair use - at least, not in the legal sense.

It isn't about "what the record companies are saying" at all, it's about what your possible defence could be to a claim of infringement. If you tried to defend the use of a ringtone under "fair use" you would find that your use is not for criticism, review or parody, and it is not a "private performance" because everyone in earshot can hear it, and they aren't a group of your friends you've gathered around a boom box, they're just ordinary members of the public.

You'd lose, is what I am trying to say - your claim of defence under fair use would likely be rejected. If you didn't pay the public performance licence fee, or make other arrangements with the copyright holder, then you'll be guilty of copyright infringement.

And for the record, playing a boom box in a park IS sometimes a public performance, it depends on the situation.

I agree with most people that ringtones SHOULD come under fair use, but they don't, and we have to live with it.

Your statement about Sony makes no sense - Sony have made mp3 players and CD players, yeah, and they can be used both legally and illegally, right?

Same with their phones - yes, they let you load any mp3 to use as a ringtone (just like their mp3 players let you load any mp3 to use as a song) but if you load a song you haven't paid the "ringtone penalty" for, then it's not legal to use it as a ringtone (just as, you can load a pirated mp3 onto Sony's mp3 player, but it doesn't make it legal to play it, if you haven't paid for it).

So Sony have indeed made devices that could cost SonyBMG money, yes they have.

KeynoteKen; Palm was actually very successful early on, a clear market leader, the problem is that they dropped the ball later on by not advancing the platform.

I think it's scary how the RIAA has a ruling saying that they don't have to pay the artists for the ring tones. So we're getting doublespeak on why we have to pay for them, one is that it's a derivative work and they deserve the money, but it's not a derivative work so they don't have to pay the people that made the original audio.

iTUNES EMBARGO WEEK

I am a huge Apple fan and own many computers, laptops, and iPods, and even the AppleTV... mostly because everything just worked.

I am pissed about the VideoOUT issue and the games issues, even though I don't use either one. However, I do see it as a step in the wrong direction and a clear example of Apple losing its focus and becoming monarchistic.

The iPod community should come together to have an iTUNES EMBARGO WEEK. We should let Apple know that the ultimate power still lies in the hands of its consumers, and that we can choose not to spend money at the iTunes Store. I think the issues are large enough that it could garner significant media attention so as to alert the average iPod user, not just the enthusiasts who read blogs.

Listen to these people:

9. Thayne Miller
13. Alexis

I waited a while to comment on this (Shipley's piece) to get a little distance and try to think more clearly. It sucks in principle. However, in reality it really hasn't negatively affected me. In fact, when you weigh it all against the amazing computers, software and devices I now enjoy, I've come out way ahead (if maybe a little cash-poor).

I'm not happy with a lot of what Apple is doing lately. But the fact is, to go any further, they needed partners. Partners bring baggage, and that's what we're seeing here. No, it isn't "Apple" anymore - at least not Apple 2001. Guess what guys (and Will) - that's a good thing.

Some devices are open, some are not. You're free to do whatever you want with that shiny iPhone you bought, but Apple isn't under any obligation to support your efforts. The comment that made the most sense on this was that the iPhone's processor and battery can't handle too much extraneous crap. That's the price for a small, thin device that can do all the things the iPhone can. Some of you are WAY too quick to forget all the crap Apple took over battery life issues BIG lawsuit. Remember? Hm. Maybe you don't. But Apple takes battery life seriously now. In fact, it seems to drive a lot of their design.

Lord, I'm tangenting.

Look, Apple is fighting a lot of battles right now; technological battles to make devices better and battles with the media companies. They're trying to make great products and give the customer a fair shake. They've done more than any other company I can think of, but there's a price. There's always a price. It's unfortunate some don't like the price, but the alternative is no iPhone, no iTunes, hell probably even no iPod.

As far as Shipley, his prejudices are so showing through I can't believe he can write that piece with a straight face. Dude - you want to develop for the iPhone. We get it. You don't need to mask that fact in a rambling metaphysical examination of the Apple universe, truth and light. You'll probably get your SDK - probably on v2 or 3 of the iPhone, or whenever Steve thinks it's "ready." You should probably stop whining until then, because you're just wasting your time and breath.

And generally, I think we all need to take a collective breath and give Steve/Apple some room. Hell, if nothing else give them the benefit of the doubt for a little while at least. It's funny that we all (or those of us who have been "here" in the Apple universe for a while) wanted so badly for Apple to compete again, to get healthy as a company, to put out better computers and software. Well, we got that. We got that and a lot more. Now all we can do is complain.

@VanillaSpice : no, it really is fair use. The record companies are trying to say it is a "public performance" and thus requires additional licensing. However, playing a CD on a boom box in a park isn't a "public performance". It's all about the cash the phone companies have been harvesting from their overcharged customers; the record companies want a slice.

Case in point: Sony (you know, that company that *is* one of the record companies) makes the SE W810i walkman phone. Out of the box it plays any song loaded as an MP3. However, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint all hobble the phone so it cannot do that. They add custom features to drive purchases to their own music stores. If it was illegal use of copyright, would Sony, a company harmed by that action, create devices capable of illegal behavior? No, they wouldn't.

I can unlock my Sony phone when my AT&T contract is up (at which point I'm considered the actual owner of the device) and AT&T cannot legally stop me. If I buy an iPhone, Steve Jobs has seen to it that it can *never* be unlocked from Apple, even if you can eventually unlock it from AT&T.

When you buy this device, you are buying a portable computer capable of playing/displaying media files, connecting to the internet via two radios, and making telephone calls. You can call it a phone that plays music, or a music player that makes calls. Either way, it's a multi-purpose device. Most people see the iPhone and other smartphones for what they are: multi-purpose devices. This is why many of us are not satisfied with a device that's been intentionally hobbled in order to drive revenue. As consumers, we recognize a scam when we see one. Don't sell me a portable computer and full market price and then tell me you've disabled functionality for the sake of selling it back to me later at a per use price (ring tones).

It's a valid but nasty business model. You treat your customers as idiots if you think they don't realize what you've done.

This has nothing to do with stability. The iPhone's ability to run 3rd party software doesn't make it *mandatory*. You aren't going to wake up one day with lots of clutter on your device unless you yourself placed it there. If you load bad software on your home computer and it crashes you don't blame Apple--you rightly blame the software.

People are so tired of being fleeced by their cell phone companies and I guess they figured Apple would arrive and "think different." They innovated alright, they figured out a way to skim some of AT&T's profits into their own pockets. Apple has become like the companies we were hoping they'd save us from. And that, probably more than anything, is what is driving the complaining.

RE:#20 VanillaSpice

Oh SNAP! You just burned all these mofo's!!

DIG!

The i-Phone is a i-Phone not a i-Wish phone.
Don't like it don't buy it.

Don't want to pay for stupid ring tones - don't buy them.

The Apple god(Steve) has helped design his followers a new product.
We should all follow his word, our glorious leader has spoken.

Charging for ringtones is a necessary evil for Apple to cover it's bases. If they give them away for free, they will get the labels and the ever annoying RIAA after them, and that's just not smart. Take issue with the RIAA, not Apple.

panTIes in A bUnch .... ouch

it has been less than 3 months since the iPhone was released.

i know the internet usually brings about instant solutions, but this time it might take a few months to come around to a solution.


yikes, get an orange out of the fridge, grab a book, and let let this debate drip down the river ....

....as compared to $.99 + $.99...


Hmm.