or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Actor Bruce Willis won't sue Apple over iTunes music ownership [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Actor Bruce Willis won't sue Apple over iTunes music ownership [u] - Page 4

post #121 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The bolded part says that you're wrong. Personal use does not involve giving something way.
The only possible argument that he might have is first use doctrine, but I believe that is waived in the EULA. The courts have upheld EULA agreements (see Psystar, for example).

Personal use has always included the ability to give away your single copy of whatever it is that you bought to anyone you choose. Also, passing something by will or devise is not exactly giving something away to the extent that it is a formalized transfer of property rights.

post #122 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I fail to see how that is proof that Apple cannot do it. It's proof YOU cannot do it. Now. But says nothing about their ability to do it.

 

Then schedule a genius appointment and get back to us with the results.

 

I didn't say it wasn't technically possible.  I said Apple can't do it.   Either due to legal reasons or for fear of a MobileMe-style fallout, we may never know, but we know they can't make it happen.

 

TUAW's TJ Luoma was told:

 

Quote:
When I realized what had happened, I contacted Apple support again, asking if they could merge my accounts. The answer I was given was not just "no" but 'absolutely not, under any circumstances ever.' While I am paraphrasing the support rep's response, that captures the spirit of it. I asked nicely, I complained, I sent separate requests hoping to get someone else, and I have asked again periodically whenever it occurred to me to do so. The answer remains a resolute and unwavering "no."

 

So be sure to get back to us when you see some progress on merging Apple IDs.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #123 of 208

As a practical matter he could take his Apple ID/password and will that to an individual. Playing music files (and movies) from that account would be subject to the "5 computer rule" so could be legally be played on other computers. Or, if one converts the 256K Purchased AAC music file to 256K AAC (losing a very small amount of music info in the process) it appears to wipe the file of account identifying tags. As I understand it neither is probably allowed by the user agreement but how (or why) are they going to check? What is allowed, though cumbersome, is creating music CD's from the Purchased AAC files. You could certainly give those to your heirs. If one isn't worried about legal (since DRM went away) there is no technical reason a Purchased AAC file (with the identifying account info intact) can't be played on any computer. 

 

Seems to me the "freezing the account" threat is for those who are stupid enough to disseminate copies on file sharing servers with their names still attached. And why would I worry about my account being frozen if I'm dead?

 

I think those who question whether the kids would even want the music are most on the mark.

post #124 of 208
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
I didn't say it wasn't technically possible.  I said Apple can't do it.   Either due to legal reasons or for fear of a MobileMe-style fallout, we may never know, but we know they can't make it happen.

 

Of course they can't. Just like they can't make a phone and can't get the music labels to agree to digital sales, much less DRM-free files.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #125 of 208

Good luck, I think he's totally right.

post #126 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

 

Can you rip MP3s from that album for your computer/iPod/iPhone and still legally give the CD away?  Without deleting the MP3s?

 

No, and nobody is asking for that. You would need to delete them, which is reasonable.

post #127 of 208
There is only one word that defines this behavior of the music industry: theft. Besides this one:
The Mickey Mouse law ("The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") is not fair: 
Copyright Term Extension Act 
The copyright should be void no longer than 20 years, at most, after publication, like patents (not never, like now).
post #128 of 208

The court & lawyers' fees will probably be more than buying the same songs three times over...

post #129 of 208
Originally Posted by zunx View Post
There is only one word that defines this behavior of the music industry: theft. Besides this one:
The Mickey Mouse law ("The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") is not fair: 
Copyright Term Extension Act 
The copyright should be void no longer than 20 years, at most, after publication, like patents (not never, like now).

 

20 years, no. Too short. Infinity minus one (like it is now), also no. 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #130 of 208

Dear Bruce Willis,

 

Bruce, respectfully, that is an uninformed stance. We as listeners do not own the songs/product. The ownership belongs to the songwriter/composer &/ or record label. You and the general public must realize musicians, composers, songwriters etc do this for a living. It really comes down to artists getting paid for their work. It is not Apple (not that I think Apple is generous to artists-they are not! )  Income is already abysmally poor in this digital download environment for most artists even the very accomplished ones. This would further reduce the income for singer/songwriters, instrumentalists, composers, producers, studios and the like which it has already done. This would further erode the creative flow of wonderful music which it also has already done and continues to do. Our population, especially the young folks think that music is free. Well, it is not and should not be, this is how artists make a living! Do you really think that $.99  per song is expensive? What do you think the artist collects after a $.99 per download? The answer is not much! It varies according to the artist of course. We already have incredible rights whether legal or not - people do with it what they will. Nobody is policing this! Hundreds of thousands of people download, copy, steal, share, send, burn some more, give away. This is killing the "good music" business!

Artists (especially in great numbers) are hanging by a thread. It is necessary to protect what is left. You must realize how difficult it is to make a living wage as an artist. If you were playing the guitar and singing for a living ie: paying your mortgage, all your bills & continuing the wonderful life style that you have I think you would change your attitude.  I respectfully disagree with your stance on suing apple for not allowing you to pass on your music collection. I know what I am talking about, I have been a performing artist my entire life. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Dave

post #131 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Of course they can't. Just like they can't make a phone and can't get the music labels to agree to digital sales, much less DRM-free files.

 

Be sure to get back to us when you make some progress on that front.  All the information I have says it won't happen.  Short-sighted, really, to make everyone create all these new iCloud accounts that can't be linked back to their most loyal customers' original Apple IDs, but Apple is like that sometimes.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #132 of 208

Apparently the story isn't true.

 

Originally Posted by John.B View Post
Be sure to get back to us when you make some progress on that front. 

 

I don't work for Apple in their licensing and deals department. It's not for me to make any progress in this regard whatsoever. Stop pretending it has anything to do with me, or you, for that matter.


All the information I have says it won't happen.  Short-sighted, really, to make everyone create all these new iCloud accounts that can't be linked back to their most loyal customers' original Apple IDs, but Apple is like that sometimes.

 

All the information we had said they'd never make an MP3 player or phone. Short-sighted, really, for you to think that something that isn't physically impossible would be operationally impossible should Apple decide to do it.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #133 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Tofani View Post

Dear Bruce Willis,

 

Bruce, respectfully, that is an uninformed stance. We as listeners do not own the songs/product. The ownership belongs to the songwriter/composer &/ or record label. You and the general public must realize musicians, composers, songwriters etc do this for a living. It really comes down to artists getting paid for their work. It is not Apple (not that I think Apple is generous to artists-they are not! )  Income is already abysmally poor in this digital download environment for most artists even the very accomplished ones. This would further reduce the income for singer/songwriters, instrumentalists, composers, producers, studios and the like which it has already done. This would further erode the creative flow of wonderful music which it also has already done and continues to do. Our population, especially the young folks think that music is free. Well, it is not and should not be, this is how artists make a living! Do you really think that $.99  per song is expensive? What do you think the artist collects after a $.99 per download? The answer is not much! It varies according to the artist of course. We already have incredible rights whether legal or not - people do with it what they will. Nobody is policing this! Hundreds of thousands of people download, copy, steal, share, send, burn some more, give away. This is killing the "good music" business!

Artists (especially in great numbers) are hanging by a thread. It is necessary to protect what is left. You must realize how difficult it is to make a living wage as an artist. If you were playing the guitar and singing for a living ie: paying your mortgage, all your bills & continuing the wonderful life style that you have I think you would change your attitude.  I respectfully disagree with your stance on suing apple for not allowing you to pass on your music collection. I know what I am talking about, I have been a performing artist my entire life. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Dave

Dave, I have passed on you letter to Bruce and he would like to say several things in response:

 

1. He understands the concept of artists making a living by being paid (handsomely) for their creative work; in fact, he's all for it;

2. He agrees that paying $.99 for a copy of a song is not unduly burdensome;

3. Passing on his single copies of his songs to his daughters will in no way harm the artist's economic prospects.

post #134 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apparently the story isn't true.

Double thanks. First, for linking to someone saying it's not true, and a second thanks for linking to a page with a pic of a hot chick.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #135 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Amazon has the same licensing.
Shouldn't he be suing the labels over this?

LOL. I'm sure Zune Pass and RIM's PlayBook music store will sue Willis if he doesn't sue them. They're jealous its always iTunes this and Apple that.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #136 of 208
Bruce has one weakness. Shoot the glass.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #137 of 208
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Double thanks. First, for linking to someone saying it's not true, and a second thanks for linking to a page with a pic of a hot chick.

 

That's his wife, isn't it?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #138 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don't work for Apple in their licensing and deals department. It's not for me to make any progress in this regard whatsoever. Stop pretending it has anything to do with me, or you, for that matter.

 

All the information we had said they'd never make an MP3 player or phone. Short-sighted, really, for you to think that something that isn't physically impossible would be operationally impossible should Apple decide to do it.

 

Magnanimous of you, really, to assume Apple is going to suddenly fix a problem they themselves created almost a year and a half ago (It's been the first question in their iCloud ID FAQ for almost a year), but have steadfastly ignored ever since.

 

You're entitled to your opinion that Apple could fix this and that a fix is around the corner just as soon as they make it a priority, but I haven't seen any evidence any of this can or will take place.

 

Maybe you could head over to this thread on the Apple support forum and spread the good cheer that Apple can accomplish anything, once they put their minds to it?


Edited by John.B - 9/3/12 at 11:14am

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #139 of 208
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
…a problem they themselves created almost a year and a half ago…

 

Never heard of .Mac or iTools, huh?

 

(It's been the first question in their iCloud ID FAQ for almost a year), but have steadfastly ignored ever since.

 

Could you please actually try to understand what I'm telling you, or is that too much to ask? Don't bother answering; we already know.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #140 of 208

Whoops, I was late on that one....

 
 
post #141 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Never heard of .Mac or iTools, huh?

 

Where did I say this was the first time Apple created an incompatibility or frustration for their existing user based?  For that matter, where did I say it wasn't?  Are you implying the solution for .Mac users was adequate?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Could you please actually try to understand what I'm telling you, or is that too much to ask? Don't bother answering; we already know.

 

I'm saying Apple sometimes has poor follow-through.  Yes, they are capable of great things, but sometimes at the expense of fixing problems with existing products or services.  Perhaps they can merge existing Apple IDs with iCloud IDs.  But that's nothing more than semantics when history has shown (and is currently showing) they won't bother to fix the problem.

 

I'll tell you what.  Check back with me in three months or six months or whatever interval you choose, and we'll see if they've made any progress.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #142 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmamatic View Post

All music is licensed this way. Even your CDs. Same with your movies and TV shows. The only ones who own the music are the record companies. We just license the music (games, CDs, DVDs, etc.).
Willis will lose and frankly I'm shocked that a Republican like him would want to challenge the powers of the music corporations. Isn't he a corporate champion himself as a supporter of so many Republicans?

Dude, it's been debunked, it's a fake story...
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #143 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonimo View Post

Itunes s**ks... buy CDs instead.

I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet.  And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple.  For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE.  It's ALWAYS said BUY.  And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances.  My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.

post #144 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post

I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet.  And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple.  For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE.  It's ALWAYS said BUY.  And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances.  My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.

Everything you wrote is bullocks. You really think that when you buy The Beatles Abbey Road album that you own the rights to the song? Good one¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #145 of 208

Good point. I agree. Of course the hard copies of the Mark Twain books belong to you. It is your to keep. (I don't agree with Bruce Willis)

 

However, the digital world is "very" different. One copy of a digital product can mean 100s, 1000s & even millions of unpaid copies out there. Often a digital copy can spread like wildfire. Authors are struggling as it is and need those digital sales counted.  That "is" how they get paid. Income is already abysmally poor in this digital download environment for most authors even the very accomplished ones. Re: We cannot have full ownership of a digital copy. We are not the owners of the product, ownership is the author &/or publisher.

 

The class action law suit should be for the authors, musicians, photographers to get better deals from the publishers especially the very large corporations.

 

Best regards

post #146 of 208
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Tofani View Post

...

 

However, the digital world is "very" different. One copy of a digital product can mean 100s, 1000s & even millions of unpaid copies out there. Often a digital copy can spread like wildfire. ...

 

It sounds like you are saying that those of us who don't pirate need to pay multiple times what we used to pay a single time in order to compensate for all the freeloaders out there.

 

No thanks.

post #147 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post

I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet.  And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple.  For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE.  It's ALWAYS said BUY.  And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances.  My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.

 

Actually, no. When you buy a CD, you are LICENSING the music for personal use. The music isn't YOURS to do with as you please. No rights were transferred to you. You can't, for example, broadcast it or put the songs on another CD and sell that. iTunes just made it easy to license your music without having to obtain a physical CD first. On the whole, I like that better because I can buy individual songs, not be forced to buy the whole album.

 

Edit: SoplipismX beat me to it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #148 of 208
OK time for some legal facts (USA) just so that we all have a common basis of understanding.

1. When you purchase a CD you get the physical media plus a license to play the music for personal use. Because of court decisions, you may also legally sell, rent, or give away the CD. You may also (and this is a more recent development) rip the CD to your personal devices and play it from there, again for personal use. If you transfer the CD to someone else you are not allowed to keep your ripped copy. You may not play the music commercially (e.g. DJ at a party, music in a bar/restaurant, etc.) without acquiring a different (and much more expensive) license. You may not share your ripped or copied version with others even for free.

2. When you purchase a digital download of music you have only the rights granted to you by the license you agree to. If these do not include transfer rights, well you don't have any transfer rights.

The latter is why this (apparently fictitious) lawsuit would not last 10 minutes in court.
post #149 of 208

but, isn't all iTunes music DRM free now?

post #150 of 208

bring back demonoid

post #151 of 208

Publicity hound.

 

The music is all DRM-free, so what is he actually asking Apple to do here?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #152 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez 
Music in an iTunes account is denominated and apparently not transferable, and this is why Willis could decide to sue.

Apple says you can share music with other people on the same computer:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1203

Apple can freeze an iTunes account meaning redownloads aren't possible just like you don't get another CD if you lose the disc but you can have backups.

The main concern here would be DRM content, which doesn't apply to music any more but if you think about movies and books, how much would it really cost to replace your library? 100 movies x $10 + 100 books x $5 + 1000 apps x $0.99 = ~$2500.

Leave behind $2500 and your kids can decide if they have the same taste in movies, books and apps. Not likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Apparently the story isn't true.

Phew, when I die, I was hoping to leave my music collection to everyone in the world. Everybody like Bananarama?



Yeah, of course you do. That's the main thing with digital ownership is that there can never be one unique copy. Although leaving my collection to everyone in the world seems absurd, it's no different from leaving it to 10 children who each have 10 children, who each have 10 children and all their cousins.

Some else accessing the account is fine. I've setup accounts for other people, Apple is none the wiser, how are they going to know when someone dies?
post #153 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

Actually, no. When you buy a CD, you are LICENSING the music for personal use. The music isn't YOURS to do with as you please. No rights were transferred to you. You can't, for example, broadcast it or put the songs on another CD and sell that. iTunes just made it easy to license your music without having to obtain a physical CD first. On the whole, I like that better because I can buy individual songs, not be forced to buy the whole album.

 

Edit: SoplipismX beat me to it.

You and jragosta do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever.  There are actually several rights you have for example backing up or creating a copy of a file for personal use is one of them.  First sale doctrine is also one of them.  The issue here is what happens to someone's legally owned purchased digital files when they die.  What record labels and apple are saying is that the music you purchased can't be transferred to someone after your death.  No one is talking about making copies and giving them away for free or selling them, why you guys act like as soon as someone dies that the files are going to be mass copied and then sold or given away for free is unknown to me.  The argument that is being made here is that when he or she dies, the digital file(s) he or she has on his or her computer should be allowed to cut and then paste on his or her heir's computer or whatever device they are using, now lets say Bruce has multiple copies one on his iphone, mac, ipod, ipad well than the copies would all have to be transferred to the heir, it can't be given out to multiple heirs, that is not in dispute.  Again the argument is that Bruce buys a song off of iTunes and that song is on his mac, when he dies that song file should be allowed to be moved off of that computer, unless the heir gets computer, and onto the heir's computer, no one is saying make a copy and all other copies on the other apple devices either have to be transferred to the heir's devices or have to be deleted..

 

 

Originally Posted by jragosta

First, where's your evidence that people 'understand' it that way?
Second, even if they do, why should their misinformation override a license agreement?
 
 
 

It's called common knowledge that people understand it that way.  I'm one of those that understand it that way and the other forum posters that support Bruce means they also understand it that way.  Because if they don't change the agreement they will find that people will stop buying from the store.

post #154 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post


2. When you purchase a digital download of music you have only the rights granted to you by the license you agree to. If these do not include transfer rights, well you don't have any transfer rights.
The latter is why this (apparently fictitious) lawsuit would not last 10 minutes in court.

Actually, the latter is why it would spend a lot more than 10 minutes in court.

 

The First-sale doctrine overrides (exempts you from) any attempted contracts to block your ability to re-sell/transfer (distribute) something you have purchased.  It is there to protect the consumer and prevent copyright owners from blocking a resale.

 

And when websites have links using terms such as 'buy', you really are creating an inferred sale, no matter what small print you tag on.

 

This would spend a long time in court... and I'm sure will one day.

post #155 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noliving View Post

You and jragosta
 do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever.

Sure it can. There is nothing preventing you from giving your username and password to another person.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #156 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noliving View Post

You and jragosta do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever.  

 

No one is talking about making copies and giving them away for free or selling them, why you guys act like as soon as someone dies that the files are going to be mass copied and then sold or given away for free is unknown to me.  

 

Yes, I understand. However, I didn't read what jrag wrote so don't lump me into whatever he wrote. I was responding to another post which confused ownership of CDs with ownership of music, and pointing out that you don't own the music. Making copies and giving them away was just an example of one of the rights you don't possess. But, yes, I am aware of fair and personal use licensing for music CDs. I never said Bruce Willis wanted to give away copies of his music library when he died. Stop twisting my post into something it is not.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #157 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Update: However, after the story began gaining attention, one of the actor's daughters, Emma Hemming-Willis, denied the rumor via Twitter. "It's not a true story," she wrote.
"

erm, thats his Wife BTW

Tallest, you might want to edit the post.
Edited by irnchriz - 9/3/12 at 1:36pm
post #158 of 208
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post
Tallest, you might want to edit the post.

 

Thanks for the head's up. If you (anyone) sees an error like that again, just PM me with the thread URL itself and I'll fix it probably faster than seeing comments in a thread.

 

Done and done. I also tried out a new piece of formatting for that; I think updates should be offset with a visual cue. Let me know what you (anyone) think.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #159 of 208
I agree with Bruce; a license, your kidding. iTunes might not be the number one seller of music surpassing Wal-Mart if everyone had known up front they were not purchasing the music. They were only being licensed to listen/view it; a tad misleading I would say, shame on you iTunes. Billy R Ramsey
post #160 of 208

Itunes music is now DRM free. If somebody has a large collection and they wish to pass it on to their heirs, then they could just copy over all of the songs, and the heir can import the tunes into their own library, and they will now have access to it. That's what I would do.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Actor Bruce Willis won't sue Apple over iTunes music ownership [u]