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

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.

 

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:

 

 

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

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.

 

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.

Good luck, I think he's totally right.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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.

Apparently the story isn't true.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bruce has one weakness. Shoot the glass.

 

That's his wife, isn't 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

 

Never heard of .Mac or iTools, huh?

 

 

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.

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

 

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?

 

 

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.

Dude, it's been debunked, it's a fake story...

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¡

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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

bring back demonoid

Publicity hound.

 

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

 

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.

erm, thats his Wife BTW

Tallest, you might want to edit the post.
Edited by irnchriz - 9/3/12 at 1:36pm

 

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.

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

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.