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 6

post #201 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post

Wasn't really looking for agreement or disagreement, what I said is fact-based.
If it floats your boat to use the word "own" have at it. but you won't be able to have an interchange with someone who understands copyright law and how it relates to digital media. I will repeat: you do not "own" your iTunes digital media in any operative sense of the word. If you owned it, you could sell it. But you don't so you can't.
The keywords to look for are copyright (year) (owner ) All Rights Reserved on the content or click through to get it. That is all that's needed to invoke the entire copyright law.

 

Interesting. So in your opinion if I was to take a look at a song in my iTunes collection (get info), and I saw the following in the summary, what would the significance be?

 

2004 Motown Records, A Division of UMG Recordings, Inc.

 

Now can I sell it?

post #202 of 208
Not opinion but basic copyright law and practice. This is copyrighted content, that is what the copyright symbol and words mean.

Correction/amplification: one no longer needs to say "All Rights Reserved", and also the absence of a copyright notice does not mean the work is not copyrighted.

Why would you say "Now can I can sell it"? I have said several times already, no you can't. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to copy, distribute, retransmit, and publicly perform and display the work. Distribute meaning sale, rental, etc.

There does not need to be a separate terms and conditions document spelling this out. The simple presence of the copyright notice is sufficient,

There are exceptions such as the first sale doctrine but we've already discussed that.

This is all very basic description of the copyright laws, not an opinion. And it's been this way for a long time.

I admit that many people are surprised when they hear this, but many people are surprised about many things in the law. I can't help that.
post #203 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post

Not opinion but basic copyright law and practice. This is copyrighted content, that is what the copyright symbol and words mean.
Correction/amplification: one no longer needs to say "All Rights Reserved", and also the absence of a copyright notice does not mean the work is not copyrighted.
Why would you say "Now can I can sell it"? I have said several times already, no you can't. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to copy, distribute, retransmit, and publicly perform and display the work. Distribute meaning sale, rental, etc.
There does not need to be a separate terms and conditions document spelling this out. The simple presence of the copyright notice is sufficient,
There are exceptions such as the first sale doctrine but we've already discussed that.
This is all very basic description of the copyright laws, not an opinion. And it's been this way for a long time.
I admit that many people are surprised when they hear this, but many people are surprised about many things in the law. I can't help that.

 

Thanks.

post #204 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonimo View Post

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

Burn a cd(s) of the songs and there you go.  The cds are mp3 and no DRM.  PERIOD.

 

NOT AN ISSUE.

post #205 of 208
Originally Posted by eldernorm View Post
Burn a cd(s) of the songs and there you go.  The cds are mp3 and no DRM.  PERIOD.

 

Well, CDs are digital lossless. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #206 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Well, CDs are digital lossless. 

 

Yep.  This is why I tend to buy CDs myself instead of digital downloads, even if they are DRM free.  (a) you get full fidelity audio on the CD.  (b) you get the right to sell/give away the CD.  
 
This is probably an obvious point:  just because a digital download is DRM free does not mean it's legal to copy/distribute it.  The technical means used (or not used) to limit copying/distribution, and the copyright law, are two different things.  In fact, the copyright law makes no reference to technical means of copy protection.  DRM vs. non-DRM is a whole different thing from the copyright law.  
 
I hate analogies but here you go:  just because your door doesn't have a lock on it, doesn't mean it's legal for someone to enter your house without your permission.  
 
post #207 of 208

Copyright law has always allowed people to resell used books and records. There is no authority that copyright law prohibits you from treating your digital media in the same way that you treat non-digital media. So sell your digital copy, then delete the copy left over. This wasn't an issue with previous technology but now it is because it's so easy to make copies. The problem is with technology that threatens some people's business models. This is not a reason to deny people the basic right to dispose of personal property as they see fit, and to resell digital copies they bought. 

post #208 of 208

I have no problem with your having your opinion about things, but the facts are that the copyright law specifically reserves the right to resell or otherwise transfer copyrighted materials for the copyright owners.  I listed the basic copyright law rights that are reserved for the copyright holder in a previous post, and this was one of them.

 

In the USA, there are exceptions carved out of this overall rights reservation, but you have to understand, those are specific exceptions with specific conditions attached to them.  The copyright law does not have to "prohibit you from treating your digital media in the same way you treat non-digital media".  The overall copyright law prohibits you from ANY resale, transfer, rental, etc. of copyrighted material.  Then, the First Sale doctrine comes along and says that the physical object you purchased may be resold -- a book, a CD, a painting.  But that's all.  Digital media is not included in that exception.  And that exception does not cover anything but transfer of the physical object, for example, making a copy of a physical object's contents (e.g. reprinting the painting, ripping the CD, making a photocopy of the book) is not an exception.  (That said, ripping CDs for personal use has actually been declared legal by some recent cases, which is why a product like iTunes allows you to do it.)

 

BTW Fair Use is another exception that's widely misunderstood, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

That said, there is an active court case scheduled to go to trial next month (I referred to it in an earlier post) to see if resale of digital media passes a court test, if done under controlled conditions by a third party.  That decision will be interesting.  But for now, it's the way I said it is.  

 

 

 
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]