Should Wireless Companies Have to Pay Artists for Ringtones?

The United States District Court, Southern District of New York says yes. Strangely, AT&T and the Electronic Frontier Foundation say no. As the article on Ars Technica states, it is very odd indeed when the EFF and AT&T agree upon anything.

On Wednesday EFF called the move “outlandish” and “a ploy to squeeze more money out of the mobile phone companies.” The advocacy group filed a friend of the court brief with the United States District Court for the Southern District New York this week, which is hearing the dispute between ASCAP, AT&T, and Verizon over whether the telcos have to pay the music licensing body royalties for wireless ringtones. Joining the amicus brief are Public Knowledge and the Center for Democracy and Technology. Meanwhile CTIA – The Wireless Association, to which the big telcos belong, has also filed an amicus brief in the case.

For me, this is the very first time I have thought the EFF is wrong. Fair is fair, and if AT&T, Verizon, and any other carrier that wants to make money from the ringtones, let them compensate the artists for them. Otherwise, simply offer pitiful remakes of the songs, such as third rate television shows do -  and even then, some compensation should be given, unless these companies start having their employees begin humming new, and public domain titles for download. We’ll see how much revenue AT&T and Verizon rack up when they start offering Susie, in accounting singing her hot rendition of Mary Had A Little Lamb or Joe the network tech, giving it his best attempt at Greensleeves. (Of course, compensation for things not within their job classification arise, but that’s a whole different problem!)

What I don’t agree with is that the 4 to 8 bars of a ringtone should stand equal to a performance. Compensation should be considerably less for the ringtone, but should exist.

As for the providers, the position they take would be substantially easier to support if the ringtones were provided gratis, as part of the cell phone plan. In that way, the service would be what was being paid for, not the content. Not that I don’t think this is the correct position, i simply mean that the position would be more defensible.

Think about it for a moment. Now, beyond the idea that you dislike having to pay for things, is it really fair for your wireless carrier to make money for something in which they are only acting as a conduit?

What do you think?

§

•