John's favorite ringtones

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:45:01 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> These MIDI files aren't performances -- they are just sequences of notes, much
>> like translated excerpts from sheet music into digital form.
>
>And a performance is just sequences of notes, translated from sheet music
>and many times into digital form. If I sit down at my digital piano, pull
>out a piece of sheet music and reproduce the sequence of notes on the music,
>saving it onto my computer as a .wav, .mp3 or .orc file, I have done exactly
>what you did with different tools and in a different format. The fact that
>these were done in MIDI does not have any bearing, as I've explained in a
>previous post. ...

What does have a bearing is that they weren't *recorded* from a copyrighted
*performance*, just *translated* from sheet music into electronic MIDI form.
Thus the only copyright is an original work copyright, not a performance
copyright.

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

---

› See More: John's favorite ringtones

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Hmm. Cellphone ring tones don't fit into the usual categories for fair
> use exemption.
>
> They don't seem to meet the four point test either.
>
> Again, just because there _are_ grey areas does not mean this is one of
> them.

For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain. If you own CD's
of ALL the original works, fair use comes into play. Posted on a web
site with the link VERY publically given on USENET for all to be invited
copy, is a VERY different matter, only thing worse would be for him to
be selling the ringtones. With Copyright holders gaining licensing fees
from cellular carriers legitimately producing and selling ringtones,
they certainly do have a valid case of losing revenue from PUBLIC
sharing of ringtones, and someone giving them away is almost as grievous
an offense as selling them.

John wrote:
> You've misrepresented my arguments,

If that is the case, I apologize. I would generallly appreciate being
told when I've done that.

I agree that on some of your arguments, you've provided reasoning, so I
won't ask about those. However, there are two claims that you haven't,
to the best of my knowledge, explained in any way at all:
1. How is your distribution of ring tones "educational use"?

2. Is there any difference other than the for-profit nature of
YourMobile that makes you think their case is different?

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

In <[email protected]> on 11 Jan 2005
04:03:26 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>John wrote:
>> You've misrepresented my arguments,
>
>If that is the case, I apologize. I would generallly appreciate being
>told when I've done that.

Thank you.

>I agree that on some of your arguments, you've provided reasoning, so I
>won't ask about those. However, there are two claims that you haven't,
>to the best of my knowledge, explained in any way at all:
>1. How is your distribution of ring tones "educational use"?

I didn't say it was. I meant simply that it was not-for-profit. The first
test is more complex than those two simple choices.*

>2. Is there any difference other than the for-profit nature of
>YourMobile that makes you think their case is different?

This isn't case law, since the matter was settled out of court, and the
commercial distinction is very important. Other patently obvious differences
include type, quality, and scope.


* Consider the following:

A. I think it's quite clear that including a short excerpt of the sheet music
to a song in an article published about the song would constitute Fair Use of
the song copyright; e.g., "Notice the chord progression in the first 12 bars
of this song."

B. I think it's likewise clear that it doesn't matter from the standpoint of
Fair Use whether the article is published in printed form or in electronic
form on the Internet.

C. I maintain that mechanical conversion of the sheet music excerpt into the
equivalent MIDI sequence as part of an electronic article doesn't change
either the copyright or the Fair Use exception.

D. The amount and type of accompanying material would seem to have little real
bearing on the issue of Fair Use, since to hold otherwise (e.g., one sentence
is too little, two sentences is enough) would make the law unworkable.

E. Thus the more important issues are:

* Test 3 (amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole): As I noted before, these are small excerpts.
Are they small enough? I know of no real legal guidance in this area -- do
you?

* Test 4 (effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work): Clearly zilch, particularly given that much more faithful
clips of comparable duration are freely and legitimately available on the
Internet.

I personally find this reasoning persuasive, but (as I've shown previously)
this is a difficult legal area in which reasonable people (even legal
scholars) can and do disagree.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 11 Jan
2005 10:51:07 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.

Because it's not unlawful. Period.

>If you own CD's
>of ALL the original works, fair use comes into play.

Actually no difference.

>Posted on a web
>site with the link VERY publically given on USENET for all to be invited
>copy, is a VERY different matter, ...

These aren't excerpts from CDs.

>... With Copyright holders gaining licensing fees
>from cellular carriers legitimately producing and selling ringtones,
>they certainly do have a valid case of losing revenue from PUBLIC
>sharing of ringtones, and someone giving them away is almost as grievous
>an offense as selling them.

Sound clips of comparable duration and much higher quality are freely
available from legitimate sources (e.g., iTunes).

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

This is getting boring...

John says it's ok, others say it isn't...

Sue eachother, but do it off-list.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
> >
> > Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>
> John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
> lawyer.
>
> John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.
>
> John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
> right?

For personal private use **IF** he owns legal copies of all the music in
question its OK, posting them on the Internet is a different matter, and
announcing that fact on USENET is worse, which apparently Navas realized
and then took them down. Since he had zero web pages up on worldnet, he
didnt take them down to free up web space as he claimed.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sven" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is getting boring...
>
> John says it's ok, others say it isn't...
>
> Sue eachother, but do it off-list.

John said one thing, did another.

I think he's still upset at being fired by Tech-TV two years ago.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
06:12:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
>>
>> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>
>John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
>lawyer.
>
>John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.

Nope. What part of this don't you understand? "Caveat: I am not a lawyer,
and this is not legal advice -- consult your own attorney."

>John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
>right?

Yep. And I'm not. I'm simply relying on authoritative sources; e.g.;

COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED

CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA

SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
[emphasis added]

Case closed.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 12:25:07 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
>> >
>> > Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>>
>> John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
>> lawyer.
>>
>> John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.
>>
>> John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
>> right?
>
>For personal private use **IF** he owns legal copies of all the music in
>question its OK,

Private use is OK no matter what the source. Read the law I just posted to
this thread.

>posting them on the Internet is a different matter,

Indeed -- it's Fair Use, a different exception.

>and
>announcing that fact on USENET is worse,

Actually makes no difference.

>which apparently Navas realized
>and then took them down. Since he had zero web pages up on worldnet, he
>didnt take them down to free up web space as he claimed.

I actually have a huge amount material on Worldnet, both private and public,
as anyone with any clue about the Internet can easily determine. (What does
that make you? Do you enjoy making yourself look solly? That particular
posting was simply temporary.

--
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]

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
> 06:12:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
> >>
> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
> >
> >John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
> >lawyer.
> >
> >John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.
>
> Nope. What part of this don't you understand? "Caveat: I am not a
lawyer,
> and this is not legal advice -- consult your own attorney."
>
> >John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
> >right?
>
> Yep. And I'm not. I'm simply relying on authoritative sources; e.g.;
>
> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>
> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
>
> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
>
> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
> digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
> analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
> the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
> MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
> [emphasis added]
>
> Case closed.
>

Not quite- all you have quoted absolutely applies- you were entitled to make
the recording. However, nowhere does it apply to the distribution of those
recordings. Notice that you highlighted a section that talks of
noncommercial USE for MAKING said recording. And in order to quote this
particular section of the code as your saviour, you would have to have made
a RECORDING, which you have vehemently denied doing (and then it would only
protect your ability to record, not distribute). The first part of this
section does not deal with the end product (only the device and method of
storage). Distribution of end product is not protected here.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 13:10:41 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sven" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is getting boring...
>>
>> John says it's ok, others say it isn't...
>>
>> Sue eachother, but do it off-list.
>
>John said one thing, did another.
>
>I think he's still upset at being fired by Tech-TV two years ago.

LOL! Yet another Zwick fantasy.
--
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]

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:58:48 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
>> >>
>> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.

>> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>>
>> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
>>
>> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
>> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
>>
>> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>>
>> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
>> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
>> digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
>> analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
>> the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
>> MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>> Case closed.
>
>Not quite-

Quite.

>all you have quoted absolutely applies- you were entitled to make
>the recording.

Yep. And that was the only applicable point in this context -- read the above
quotation.

>However, nowhere does it apply to the distribution of those
>recordings.

Indeed -- that's Fair Use, a different part of the law.

>Notice that you highlighted a section that talks of
>noncommercial USE for MAKING said recording. And in order to quote this
>particular section of the code as your saviour,

I didn't do that. Read more carefully.

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

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
09:58:48 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>
> >> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
> >>
> >> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
> >>
> >> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
> >> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
> >>
> >> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
> >>
> >> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> >> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of
a
> >> digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
> >> analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
> >> the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
> >> MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
> >> [emphasis added]
> >>
> >> Case closed.
> >
> >Not quite-
>
> Quite.
>
> >all you have quoted absolutely applies- you were entitled to make
> >the recording.
>
> Yep. And that was the only applicable point in this context -- read the
above
> quotation.
>
> >However, nowhere does it apply to the distribution of those
> >recordings.
>
> Indeed -- that's Fair Use, a different part of the law.
>
> >Notice that you highlighted a section that talks of
> >noncommercial USE for MAKING said recording. And in order to quote this
> >particular section of the code as your saviour,
>
> I didn't do that. Read more carefully.
>
> --

Actually, I did read just read a little more carefully- this entire scetion
of the code has absolutely no bearing on anything that is being disputed in
this thread. Nobody has calimed anywhere in this thread that you didn't
have the right to record those ringtones for your own private use, which is
all that is mentioned above. So I guess I'm a little confused as to why you
would feel the need to quote sections fo the code that nobody is disputing.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
> 06:12:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
> >>
> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
> >
> >John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
> >lawyer.
> >
> >John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.
>
> Nope. What part of this don't you understand? "Caveat: I am not a lawyer,
> and this is not legal advice -- consult your own attorney."
>
> >John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
> >right?
>
> Yep. And I'm not. I'm simply relying on authoritative sources; e.g.;
>
> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>
> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
>
> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
>
> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
> digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
> analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
> the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
> MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
> [emphasis added]
>
> Case closed.

But thats only part of what Navas did. You also listed in this newsgroup
the URL for ANYONE to download it, so it wasn't use by "a consumer".

And when this was pointed out to you, you quietly took it down off the
website.