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 2

post #41 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post

EULA
Apparently Mr. Willis doesn't know how to read an end-user license agreement or he skips over it just like everybody else does.
This is so freaking stupid.
I hate it when Hollywood types get their panties in a wad and start trying to make the world a better place.


I HATE that too.  Wouldn't it be a shame if one of them succeeded.

post #42 of 208

If he has iTunes music that came from a DRM version of iTunes, he should just subscribe to the MusicMatch service for, what is it, $25 and reconvert his music.  Then it turns into DRM free versions and there is no issue, since nobody is going to sue him for handing over music however he pleases, even though it's technically illegal.

 

The spirit of Apple's license allows use of up to 5 computers regardless of ownership, so unless he has more than five daughters, all of them can use his music on one computer each.  Of course once they are out of DRM, the reality is any music can go anywhere, but I would say he is not violating the spirit of the agreement by distributing it to up to five people.

 

This doesn't seem worth a lawsuit, then, does it?

 

D

post #43 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Maybe, but don't forget that Apple has a "Buy" button in iTunes, not a "License" button.

It's only deceptive to those that didnt read the terms. Those that did know that they are buying the license when they hit the button.

Buying a CD isn't really that different. You don't suddenly own the song and all rights to it. You own a license to play it. Yes you can will those CDs to someone but you can also will a hard drive full of mp3 as well. Funny thing is there are ways to strip the tags off the songs so iTunes won't know they originally came from an account and they will keep working just fine.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #44 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Apple pioneered the concept of a DRM-free downloadable music store:  http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

 

 

Wrong.  EMusic was drm free long before Apple.

post #45 of 208

Yippie Ki-yay, mother fu......

post #46 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Or he hasn't had a hit movie for a while and needs the publicity.

Or Daily Mail needs hits. Figure this will strike a nerve because Apple is big and they can play it as yet more Apple Greed. And Willis is just big enough that folks will buy the notion he might perhaps maybe is going to sue.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #47 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

 

Apple probably can't do this though since they don't own the music they sell.  They are a reseller of licenses. What Apple is allowed to do with music is based on their agreements with the actual owners of the content.
 

 

Yes, right, because poor little Apple has no leverage...

post #48 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Maybe, but don't forget that Apple has a "Buy" button in iTunes, not a "License" button. The buy button is deceptive, and so would any statement such as that made by SJ on numerous occasions that in iTunes you buy a song because people like to "own" their music.

 

I don't know how Amazon portrays it, but I don't care because I don't buy from them.


Amazon says I can buy an album with 1-click: 

 

Although both Amazon and iTunes made me accept a license agreement in order to use their software to download the files to my computer.

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #49 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post


Amazon says I can buy an album with 1-click: 

 

Although both Amazon and iTunes made me sign a license agreement in order to use their software to download the files to my computer.


Speaking of software, I wonder if Mr. Willis realizes he also doesn't "own" the software on his computer...


Edited by John.B - 9/3/12 at 7:45am

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #50 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboybazza View Post

have to say i agree i buy 3-4 albums/movies a month not to mention apps and  and to think when i go they just disapear into the either and cant be accessed by my son is insane. think i will have to start buying elsewhere and just transferring to itunes instead of buying from apple, until this whole mess is resolved.

 

 

...and which digital music vendor doesn't have to abide by the terms set by the RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION of AMERICA? where in Google's or Amazon's TOS does it say you can "transfer the rights" to your purchases? and if you're DEAD you're not really going to care if your kid has your iTunes id/pass, now are you? 

post #51 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

why not put in his will, "transfer itunes music to my daughters" and let the trustee deal with this?

Because legally he can't. When Apple finds out he's dead, they can -- per the terms he agreed to -- freeze his account. Which could include cutting off access to any credits on his account, no redownloading of tracks and possible due authorization of all computers and devices linked to the account which means purchased music would stop playing. And no one will be able to access the account.

This is why Willis is allegedly so upset, but frankly I think the story is bogus.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #52 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder View Post

 

Wrong.  EMusic was drm free long before Apple.

 

With music that, frankly, most people weren't interested in.  I'll try again:

 

Quote:

Apple pioneered the concept of a DRM-free downloadable music store with content from the major labelshttp://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

 

 

Better?

 

I'll go back and edit the original post.

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #53 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post


Speaking of software, I wonder if Mr. Willis realizes he also doesn't own the software on his computer...

 

That will hardly matter in 30 years.

 

Do you use software from 30 years ago? :)

post #54 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by cico View Post

Sooo... Our grand-grandchildren will have like four or five accounts to update stuff from/with? Not really handy..
Still, good luck Bruce! Win for us 1smile.gif

Not at all. Because when they find out you are dead, they will freeze your account. No updates from that account

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #55 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


Oh, come on, it changes every few weeks and it's huge. Where is the value prop in using a service that periodically requires hours of your time to make sure you are not being treated deceptively?

Hollywood employment contracts are just as lengthy, come up just as often if not sometimes more, and Willis is expectedly to know what was just signed in detail.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #56 of 208

Let someone make those same demands about a Bruce Willis movie they digitally purchased and we'll see what his repsonse is. Poor Bruce, he must be in some need of PR by 'taking on a cause'.

post #57 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder View Post

That will hardly matter in 30 years.

 

Do you use software from 30 years ago? :)

 

Will it matter tomorrow?  Do you have any guarantees that you won't die in the next 30 years?

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #58 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple doesn't own the rights to the music.

 

They sell under license for those who do, just like any other retailer of digital goods.

 

 

True, but Apple negotiated the rights. Further, if he wins, the labels will be forced to change the terms. 

post #59 of 208

Perhaps, in the interests of equity, the rights conferred to the copyright holders by statute should be mirrored for the licensee. Namely, the licence is good for the licensee's life plus seventy years.

Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #60 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Hollywood employment contracts are just as lengthy, come up just as often if not sometimes more, and Willis is expectedly to know what was just signed in detail.


Not really.  Because his contract is about millions, he has a lawyer review it. 

 

We are talking normal people wanting to 'buy' a 0.99c song.

post #61 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80025 View Post

Let someone make those same demands about a Bruce Willis movie they digitally purchased and we'll see what his repsonse is. Poor Bruce, he must be in some need of PR by 'taking on a cause'.

 

 

I suspect he'd feel the same way if they purchased the rights. Further, Bruce is paid to act in the movies, he doesn't own them. It would be more fair to ask Bruce what he'd think about his albums he recorded. I doubt Bruce is in the need of anything. 

post #62 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

By "owning" people understand "owning a copy of", not the rights to distribute and so on. This is totally obvious because the analogy is with physical media. My CDs go to my daughters with no licence bs to worry about. Not so sure why this is hard for you to understand.

First, where's your evidence that people 'understand' it that way?
Second, even if they do, why should their misinformation override a license agreement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

It's not a minor difference. It's a huge difference and people will be mad about it when they find out, as I just did today. I'm not buying any content from iTunes till this is settled (I'll continue to rent movies though, since the terms there are clear).

So you haven't been paying attention for the last 20 years? I suppose you think you own the software you "buy", too.

See my post above. No one in their right mind would think that they own the music. And especially not an entertainer like WIllis who should be intimately familiar with the way media licenses work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

$0.99 per track isn't cheap or expensive. It's the market price under then notion widely held by buyers that they are buying, and it is a similar price to physical media price. The problem here is that the sale is deceptive.

That part is true. $0.99 (or whatever any given track might cost) is the amount you pay for a license with specific rights. If you want more rights, expect to pay more. Personally, I'd rather have the license stay where it is rather than adding more rights and adding cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

The solution here is for Apple to permit transfer of a collection to another iTunes account in good standing. Apple could charge a reasonable service fee to do this (some paperwork would be needed in the case of "willed" collections), but it cannot expect people to simply accept that their collections vanish into thin air and heirs who use them are treated as pirates.

Apple can't do that. They have an agreement with the record labels and Apple can not unilaterally change it.

Bottom line is that if you want to own music, you need to create it yourself. If you want to listen to someone else's music, you need a license agreement. Feel free to try to negotiate a different license agreement.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #63 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

True, but Apple negotiated the rights. Further, if he wins, the labels will be forced to change the terms. 

 

I'd be more inclined to believe that the labels set those terms (e.g. "line in the sand").

 

I'd also be more inclined to expect the DoJ would put Apple at a distinct disadvantage with Amazon, just like they're doing with ebooks.

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #64 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


It's only deceptive to those that didnt read the terms. Those that did know that they are buying the license when they hit the button.
Buying a CD isn't really that different. You don't suddenly own the song and all rights to it. You own a license to play it. Yes you can will those CDs to someone but you can also will a hard drive full of mp3 as well. Funny thing is there are ways to strip the tags off the songs so iTunes won't know they originally came from an account and they will keep working just fine.

 

So you are advocating illegal copying then? Of stuff you paid for? How much sense does that make?

 

Nobody reads the terms of service, and, as they constantly change it is an undue burden to expect people to. Since Apple reserves the right to change the terms at any time, or to cancel the iTunes service at any time, it is a waste of effort to read the terms:

 

Quote:
Apple reserves the right at any time to modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional terms or conditions on your use of the iTunes Service. Such modifications and additional terms and conditions will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Service will be deemed acceptance thereof.

 

Finally, the terms are not able to redefine the meaning of the English language, and include in numerous portions the word "purchase", the meaning of which would be defined by legal precedent far more than it would be by the Terms.

post #65 of 208
Quote:
Bottom line is that if you want to own music, you need to create it yourself. If you want to listen to someone else's music, you need a license agreement. Feel free to try to negotiate a different license agreement.

 

Bull. Bottom line is that if I want to own a copy of the music I have to forget iTunes and their ever-changing service terms, and go and buy the CD. End of story, I don't need to negotiate anything with anybody, I just need to go to the store, the old-fashioned way.

 

Like I said above, I am reverting to CD buying till this thing is settled. As it is, it's a public relations clusterfrack for Apple.

post #66 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

We should be able to will or convey rights to digital music that we purchased. But only to one person.

Absolutely. Music and electronic books, as if they were still physical copies.
post #67 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Bonanza View Post

very large collection. :)

 

 

Die Hard (of hearing)... 

 

Just as Paul Ryan's playlist begins with AC/DC and ends with Zeppelin, and that Mitt's "type" of music may be found in elevators. Why can't the same case be said here?  I mean, who here would want their parent's collection of music?  Has anyone cared to ask the girls?  Wonder if even Bruce did?   

/

/


Edited by Rot'nApple - 9/3/12 at 8:11am

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #68 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

 

Bull. Bottom line is that if I want to own a copy of the music I have to forget iTunes and their ever-changing service terms, and go and buy the CD. End of story, I don't need to negotiate anything with anybody, I just need to go to the store, the old-fashioned way.

 

Like I said above, I am reverting to CD buying till this thing is settled. As it is, it's a public relations clusterfrack for Apple.

 

You do not possess any more ownership of music if you buy it on a CD vs Digitally legally speaking.
 
post #69 of 208

!. All this was in the license signed, so this is not a discovery

2. I can't imagine Apple objecting if the Labels will allow it.

3. Given how the system is set up, it may be tricky to technically make the adjustment, but not impossible.

 

Wish him the best of luck, but Apple is really not the target, but the Labels who set the terms.

post #70 of 208

Does anyone else think he looks like Ive in that picture?

 

On-topic, the argument in favor of purchasing vs subscriptions a long time ago was that people wanted to own their songs. That's true of me, and it's apparently true of Bruce Willis. Considering that it was actually the iCEO of Apple (much respect to him) making that argument back then, Mr Willis' complaint seems a fair one.

post #71 of 208

If he succeeds, then iTunes just becomes another file sharing site.  I'll bet Willis wouldn't like it if someone downloads one of his movies and then gives it to someone else.

post #72 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Does anyone else think he looks like Ive in that picture?

On-topic, the argument in favor of purchasing vs subscriptions a long time ago was that people wanted to own their songs. That's true of me, and it's apparently true of Bruce Willis. Considering that it was actually the iCEO of Apple (much respect to him) making that argument back then, Mr Willis' complaint seems a fair one.

Aside from the fact that the EULA that you sign specifically says that you do NOT own the music.

More importantly, Willis should know better. He's in the entertainment business and the license for his movies is very similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


Die Hard (of hearing)... 

Just as Paul Ryan's playlist begins with AC/DC and ends with Zeppelin, and that Mitt's "type" of music may be found in elevators. Why can't the same case be said here?  I mean, who here would want their parent's collection of music?  Has anyone cared to ask the girls?  Wonder if even Bruce did?   
/
/

You might be surprised. Today's kids have a much broader taste in music than you might think - possibly broader than any recent generation. My daughter is 13 and she listens to the Grateful Dead, Beatles, Guns N Roses, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, and many more of the classic rock bands in addition to her own newer music.

Not that it changes anything. Whether the kids like the music or not doesn't affect any of the issues here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Bull. Bottom line is that if I want to own a copy of the music I have to forget iTunes and their ever-changing service terms, and go and buy the CD. End of story, I don't need to negotiate anything with anybody, I just need to go to the store, the old-fashioned way.

Like I said above, I am reverting to CD buying till this thing is settled. As it is, it's a public relations clusterfrack for Apple.

So you simply want to parade your ignorance. Feel free.

Hint: you do not own the music on a CD. If you did, you could legally give it away to anyone you want. You could record it in any way that you want. In reality, you have neither of those options. You purchase the physical media and the right to play the music solely for personal, noncommercial use.

Even the transfer is not all that different. If your CD gets scratched and becomes unplayable, you do not get a new CD. You lose "your" music. With iTunes, if your computer crashes, you still have the right to install the music onto the replacement computer - so iTunes is even more forgiving in some ways. Also, iTunes allows you to make up to 5 copies on 5 different computers for your own personal use. With a CD, you can not legally do that. You're allowed one backup for archival purposes.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida View Post

2. I can't imagine Apple objecting if the Labels will allow it.

3. Given how the system is set up, it may be tricky to technically make the adjustment, but not impossible.

 

Wish him the best of luck, but Apple is really not the target, but the Labels who set the terms.

 

Apple can't even merge non-iCloud (@yahoo.com, @gmail.com) Apple IDs with the new iCloud (@me.com) Apple IDs.  :LOL:

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

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

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #74 of 208
Apple is just the point of sale, the sue doesn't proceed against Apple, it is against record companies and movie studios (in movie cases). Regarding apps, everybody knows licensing is the model since Bill Gates invented it. So, I'm with Willis, if I paid for it the it should be mine and I should do whatever I like with it, but isn't Apple's fault that's the industry. Now…. Apple should let people give, pass or gift anything they have bought to another account. Say you what to give your daughter your collection of The Beatles you should be able to do so, of course, if you give it to her then you'll not have it anymore. Technically that shouldn't represent any troubles, legally maybe that's a real mess. The total industry legal terms are a mess.
lvidal.-
Reply
lvidal.-
Reply
post #75 of 208
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
Apple can't even merge non-iCloud (@yahoo.com, @gmail.com) Apple IDs with the new iCloud (@me.com) Apple IDs.  :LOL:

 

Proof?

post #76 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

 

You do not possess any more ownership of music if you buy it on a CD vs Digitally legally speaking.
 

 

Don't be dense, I own a copy, and I can give it to anyone I please at any time.

 

If you want to be legalistic, I own a non-denominated license for personal use in perpetuity. This is why I can transfer it freely to anybody else for their personal use. Music in an iTunes account is denominated and apparently not transferable, and this is why Willis could decide to sue.

post #77 of 208

Back when we bought physical CDs, the labels didn't care as much because there was no easy way to pull the songs off the CD and distribute them to people who hadn't bought them. The internet made it possible to mass-copy the value of a CD, thus depriving labels of their $$$. Thus the "you license it, you don't own it" position they are taking.

 

However, you still have a basic right to sell/give your CD or other physical product to somebody else (your children or whoever), once it's been paid for. This is called "First-sale Doctrine" and is a basic tenet of copyright law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. From wikipedia:

 

Quote:

The first sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. 

The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 197617 U.S.C. § 109

Section 109(a) provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord." The elements of the first sale doctrine can be summarized as follows: (1) the copy was lawfully made with the authorization of the copyright owner; (2) ownership of the copy was initially transferred under the copyright owner's authority; (3) the defendant is a lawful owner of the copy in question; and (4) the defendant's use implicates the distribution right only; not the reproduction or some other right given to the copyright owner.

 

 

Wikipedia goes on to talk about the difficulty in translating this law to the digital age, where digital works can be freely copied.

 

Quote:

The Copyright Office took the position that the doctrine should not apply to digital copies by stating that "[t]he tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the first sale doctrine and critical to its rationale."[1]

However, on July 3, 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.[2][3] The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first sale doctrine is in force.[4][5] The ruling applies to the European Union, but could find indirectly its way to North America; moreover the situation could entice publishers to offer platforms for a secondary market.[3]

 

I think the Europeans have the right idea ;-) In other words, the spirit of the First Sale Doctrine DOES still apply in the digital age. Especially in those cases where a person can sell or transfer their license to a digital product to another person after making their purchase (such as leaving the person their purchases in a Will.)

 

As long as something tangible (like a license) is being TRANSFERRED and not COPIED, then we revert back to the first sale doctrine before the digitial age, and I think it should be permitted. (Obviously when when a person dies they no longer are able to use their purchases, so this is a transfer and not a copy.)

post #78 of 208
At least this story makes sense. I read another this morning where I thought Bruce was referring to his own recorded music. It turns out, the only song of his available in the iTunes Store is "Respect Yourself".
post #79 of 208
I agree with Bruce that we should have this right, but I don't think Apple should be the ones he sues. This is likely put in place by the record labels. Apple has only so much power. I hope for the best for all digital music users.
post #80 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

 

Bull. Bottom line is that if I want to own a copy of the music I have to forget iTunes and their ever-changing service terms, and go and buy the CD. End of story, I don't need to negotiate anything with anybody, I just need to go to the store, the old-fashioned way.

 

<...>

 

 

1) In a distant future, you will not be able to buy a CD reader, because it will no longer exist

2) in a future which is closer to this (and not as distant as you would imagine) your CD will be corrupted, and unreadable

 

Some other comments have already made about Apple term of service . I confess I am too lazzy (and not sufficiently aware about legal matters) to check whether the answer to the question is already there or not (probably yes). Anyway, the rights about music expire about a certain period of time (too complex for me to elaborate on this issue, as well). Therefore, the tricky question which could be raised to Apple could be : ho do you manage to turn the "bought AAC" files into simple "AAC" files after this period ?

 

I am sure Apple engineers would be able to find a way to address this technical issue ....

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]