UPDATE!

After some digging, I found out that these ringtones are NOT copyrighted. If they were, nobody would be able to set them as their ringtone as unauthorised public playing would be illegal.

The ringtones Bell, Marimba and more made by Dr Gerhard Lengeling are not copyrighted or owned by Apple. They are used under licence from him as it's his intellectual property. Therefore anybody can use them without a licence unless you're Apple.

myeducate wrote:

After some digging, I found out that these ringtones are NOT copyrighted. If they were, nobody would be able to set them as their ringtone as unauthorised public playing would be illegal.

How about all the people who use real songs as ringtones? iPhones even have features to turn iTunes songs into ringtones!

myeducate wrote:

The ringtones Bell, Marimba and more made by Dr Gerhard Lengeling are not copyrighted or owned by Apple. They are used under licence from him as it's his intellectual property. Therefore anybody can use them without a licence unless you're Apple.

If it's his property, why does only Apple have to pay then? Not to mention that Apple probably still wouldn't be happy about a company using that ringtone. The ringtone is so old and associated with Apple that Apple probably has the rights to it now, anyway.

you wrote:

..
If it's his property, why does only Apple have to pay then? Not to mention that Apple probably still wouldn't be happy about a company using that ringtone. The ringtone is so old and associated with Apple that Apple probably has the rights to it now, anyway.

HE WORKS FOR APPLE UNDER LICENCE!

myeducate wrote:

dude341 wrote:

myeducate wrote:

..
If it's his property, why does only Apple have to pay then? Not to mention that Apple probably still wouldn't be happy about a company using that ringtone. The ringtone is so old and associated with Apple that Apple probably has the rights to it now, anyway.

HE WORKS FOR APPLE UNDER LICENCE!

I think your quote kinda messed up. Add another end quote at the end.

Inkulumo wrote:

myeducate wrote:

dude341 wrote:

myeducate wrote:

..
If it's his property, why does only Apple have to pay then? Not to mention that Apple probably still wouldn't be happy about a company using that ringtone. The ringtone is so old and associated with Apple that Apple probably has the rights to it now, anyway.

HE WORKS FOR APPLE UNDER LICENCE!

I think your quote kinda messed up. Add another end quote at the end.

Thanks

No support. If Apple care, they'll come to Scratch and file a copyright notice.

python_megapixel wrote:

No support. If Apple care, they'll come to Scratch and file a copyright notice.

Again,

dude341 wrote:

No offence, but that's like saying let people rob banks until the bank says they don't want to be robbed.

dude341 wrote:

python_megapixel wrote:

No support. If Apple care, they'll come to Scratch and file a copyright notice.

Again,

dude341 wrote:

No offence, but that's like saying let people rob banks until the bank says they don't want to be robbed.

But what if the person that ran the bank didn't care it was being robbed? What if there was no bank to rob?

myeducate wrote:

dude341 wrote:

python_megapixel wrote:

No support. If Apple care, they'll come to Scratch and file a copyright notice.

Again,

dude341 wrote:

No offence, but that's like saying let people rob banks until the bank says they don't want to be robbed.

But what if the person that ran the bank didn't care it was being robbed? What if there was no bank to rob?

It would be a very unrealistic situation if a bank didn't care it was being robbed.
Apple would probably care about someone using their ringtones.
I don't understand what you mean by “what if there was no bank”

dude341 wrote:

myeducate wrote:

dude341 wrote:

python_megapixel wrote:

No support. If Apple care, they'll come to Scratch and file a copyright notice.

Again,

dude341 wrote:

No offence, but that's like saying let people rob banks until the bank says they don't want to be robbed.

But what if the person that ran the bank didn't care it was being robbed? What if there was no bank to rob?

It would be a very unrealistic situation if a bank didn't care it was being robbed.
Apple would probably care about someone using their ringtones.
I don't understand what you mean by “what if there was no bank”

i.e not copyrighted which it isn't

myeducate wrote:

snip

I'm pretty sure it is copyrighted.

dude341 wrote:

I'm pretty sure it is copyrighted.

myeducate literally just found that they aren't.

myeducate wrote:

After some digging, I found out that these ringtones are NOT copyrighted

TheRealNetherBefore wrote:

dude341 wrote:

I'm pretty sure it is copyrighted.

myeducate literally just found that they aren't.

myeducate wrote:

After some digging, I found out that these ringtones are NOT copyrighted

And didn't give any evidence, other than text I assume they wrote themselves.
use :/ not :|

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

snip

But what about this:

dude341 wrote:

Plus, it was found in the YouTube sound library. That's a bit of a loose connection if what you said was true.

I don't know what you mean by this, could you elaborate a bit please? Whether it was or wasn't in the Youtube sound library seems irrelevant to whether or not, assuming the song is copyrighted, the Scratch Team did or did not obtain permission to add “Ringtone” to the Defaults Sound Library. You seem to be talking about two different things here and I would like to go back to distinguishing between them.

1. The discussion of whether the song is or is not copyrighted.

2. If it does happen to be copyrighted, the discussion of whether or not the Scratch Team obtained permission to use the copyrighted song.

I would like to hopefully go back to #2, because you still seem to be assuming that the Scratch Team did not obtain permission to use the copyrighted song, but to me it makes most sense that they did considering the professionalism of the Scratch Team. Additionally, would it not be a better idea to ask an ST member if they received permission to use the copyrighted song before suggesting the removal? Suggesting the removal seems to be based ultimately on conjecture at the moment rather than any hard facts pertaining to the Scratch Team's obtainment of permission to use the copyrighted song.

Hope I maybe clarified things up a bit

turkey3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

snip

But what about this:

dude341 wrote:

Plus, it was found in the YouTube sound library. That's a bit of a loose connection if what you said was true.

I don't know what you mean by this, could you elaborate a bit please? Whether it was or wasn't in the Youtube sound library seems irrelevant to whether or not, assuming the song is copyrighted, the Scratch Team did or did not obtain permission to add “Ringtone” to the Defaults Sound Library. You seem to be talking about two different things here and I would like to go back to distinguishing between them.

1. The discussion of whether the song is or is not copyrighted.

2. If it does happen to be copyrighted, the discussion of whether or not the Scratch Team obtained permission to use the copyrighted song.

I would like to hopefully go back to #2, because you still seem to be assuming that the Scratch Team did not obtain permission to use the copyrighted song, but to me it makes most sense that they did considering the professionalism of the Scratch Team. Additionally, would it not be a better idea to ask an ST member if they received permission to use the copyrighted song before suggesting the removal? Suggesting the removal seems to be based ultimately on conjecture at the moment rather than any hard facts pertaining to the Scratch Team's obtainment of permission to use the copyrighted song.

Hope I maybe clarified things up a bit

I've already asked Paddle2See and he said he had already mentioned it with the moderators and I think he didn't get a reply or something.
Again, you don't understand Apple. Apple wouldn't do anything like give a random ringtone to a beginners programming language. They just wouldn't.

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

-snip-

I've already asked Paddle2See and he said he had already mentioned it with the moderators and I think he didn't get a reply or something.

Do you happen to have a link to you asking him?

turkey3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

-snip-

I've already asked Paddle2See and he said he had already mentioned it with the moderators and I think he didn't get a reply or something.

Do you happen to have a link to you asking him?

Hold on, let me find it

turkey3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

-snip-

I've already asked Paddle2See and he said he had already mentioned it with the moderators and I think he didn't get a reply or something.

Do you happen to have a link to you asking him?

Here, https://scratch.mit.edu/users/Paddle2See/#comments-43596242

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

-snip-

I've already asked Paddle2See and he said he had already mentioned it with the moderators and I think he didn't get a reply or something.

Do you happen to have a link to you asking him?

Here, https://scratch.mit.edu/users/Paddle2See/#comments-43596242

Would you at least agree with me then that if the Scratch Team received permission to use “Ringtone”, then it should not be removed?

turkey3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

turkey3 wrote:

-snip-

I've already asked Paddle2See and he said he had already mentioned it with the moderators and I think he didn't get a reply or something.

Do you happen to have a link to you asking him?

Here, https://scratch.mit.edu/users/Paddle2See/#comments-43596242

Would you at least agree with me then that if the Scratch Team received permission to use “Ringtone”, then it should not be removed?

Yes, but the problem is I doubt they have received permission to use it, as they got it from the YouTube sound library according to the update notes. The Scratch Team may be not even at fault, it would be Google/YouTube's fault for indexing a copyrighted sound in a non-copyrighted sounds library. However, the Scratch Team should have done some research first.