SC rules ringtone sampling not a copyright violation
File photo
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has ruled that letting customers listen to a 20-second sample of a ringtone before buying it does not violate copyright laws.
In a 28-page decision on G.R. No. 184661, written by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the high tribunal affirmed a Quezon City Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of the music industry’s complaint that a mobile phone app developer violated their copyright.
The complaint was filed by the Filipino Society of Composers and Publishers (Filscap) against Wolfpac Communications Inc., which developed a phone app that allows a preview of ringtones before purchase. Filscap collects royalties for songwriters and composers.
The case dates back to 2004, when Filscap noticed Wolfpac’s advertisement in a newspaper for its app that previews ringtones online before purchase.
Filscap said this required a license and payment of royalties and demanded that Wolfpac secure the necessary performance licenses and pay appropriate royalties.
But Wolfpac argued that payment was not required since there were no public performances or violations of copyrights.
Lower court’s ruling
In 2008, the Quezon City court dismissed Filscap’s complaint, ruling that while the transmission of data or downloading of ringtones constituted communication to the public, the 20-second prelistening function does not constitute a public performance.
It added that ringtone sampling constituted “fair use” because composers authorized Wolfpac to convert their musical works into ringtones; the nature of musical work requires audio exhibition; the 20-second duration of the samples is insubstantial; and allowing the playing of samples will foster patronization of the musical works.
The legal doctrine of fair use is one of several exceptions to copyright violations.
In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Wolfpac’s use of sample ringtones in a prelistening function is communication to the public.
The main purpose of the songs is to entertain, the high court said, but Wolfpac used it to provide potential consumers with the means to make an informed choice whether or not to download the songs.
“Although the songs are unaltered, Wolfpac’s use of the song samples in a pre-listening function changed the purpose of the songs,” it explained.
It also ruled that fair use “is an exception to the copyright owner’s monopoly of the use of work to avoid stifling the very creativity that the intellectual property law is designed to foster.” /cb/abc
