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 3

post #81 of 208
I'm not sure Apple had a whole lot to do with this—it probably has more to do with the will of the record labels—but this is something which should change, so more power to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post

I hate it when Hollywood types get their panties in a wad and start trying to make the world a better place.

Yeah... those dicks... trying to make the world a better place... jerks...
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #82 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonimo View Post

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

That's what I've always done.  Usually higher audio quality, gives me a backup to restore from if I have a big hard disk failure, it CAN be passed on to my kids and at least for catalog product, is usually far less expensive with many classic albums going for as little as $3.50.   And that's aside from getting decent liner notes and in some cases, really nice packaging. 

 

However, with Apple eliminating DVD/CD drives from their computers, it puts a little dent in this strategy, although I suppose you could still get an external drive.

 

But having said that, what stops me from giving my MP3 collection to my daughter?   If I transferred all my MP3 files from my machine to my daughter's machine, they wouldn't work?     I thought Apple eliminated DRM for most tracks, but even with DRM, you could make at least one copy.      And couldn't Bruce simply "transfer" the music to his kids by leaving them his account ID in any case?

post #83 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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.
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.
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.

 

More bull.

 

I have 30 year old CDs, all still playable. If I scratch them, my problem. Though if I was concerned about it I would make backups, legally as you point out.

 

Where does do the Terms of Service (It's not even an EULA, FYI), state specifically that I do not own my copy of the music? The Terms make liberal use of the word "purchase". Have you read the Terms?

 

Hint to you, a CD is a license for personal use, but it is not denominated. I can give the CD to anybody and that transfers the license automatically. You could say I own the use license, and thus I can do whatever I want with it. On iTunes I don't even own the use and it's actually worse because the Terms explicitly say that they Apple can cancel the service at any time for any reason and without notice:

 

Quote:
APPLE DOES NOT GUARANTEE, REPRESENT, OR WARRANT THAT YOUR USE OF THE ITUNES SERVICE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, AND YOU AGREE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME APPLE MAY REMOVE THE ITUNES SERVICE FOR INDEFINITE PERIODS OF TIME, OR CANCEL THE ITUNES SERVICE AT ANY TIME, WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU.

 

So basically it is pointless to read the Terms of Service because they give you no rights at all.

post #84 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

 

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.)

 

100% behind you.  However in the USA, the courts are currently split, likely because in Europe the consumer is put first, but in the USA, companies often are.

 

The argument is that since you never own the music file, you have no rights to transfer it.  In fact you agreed to a license specifically taking away your rights before you received the file.

 

I hope this goes to the Supreme court and common sense prevails there as it did in the past with physical copyright objects, and has done in Europe with software licenses.  Until then, this is rather gray area. 

 

There only thing definite is that there is a clear cut difference between a CD and a digital file:  The CD has protected transfer rights.  The digital file has an unknown history ahead of it.

post #85 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.

In terms of actual ownership you don't 'own' the music on that CD anymore than you 'own' the music you purchase from Apple or Amazon. The only difference in ownership is that you happen to own a physical object in the event of a CD. Both Apple and Amazon sell music which is DRM-free. Regardless of the EULA, they're not going to remotely disable those files. You can maintain them as long as you choose to do so. So the difference is nothing near what you choose to believe it in. You're just paying less attention to the 'ownership' of music delivered in one form over that of another while neither of which are enforced on a material level where your home is concerned.

Back to good ol' Bruce, he certainly could pass that music on to her. But passing on his account, or merging his account into hers, in the event of his death, is a slightly different story. And then there is the actual language regarding that account which implies something more in literal reading.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #86 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

 

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

 

 


I think 1) is ridiculously far in the future, considering you can still buy brand new, high quality turntables for LPs.

 

There is really nothing that would corrupt a well-stored ROM CD. Keep it away from UV and mold, and it will outlast you easily, and your children.

post #87 of 208

Steve Jobs told everyone how to get around this in the early days...  it's not that hard.

 

Purchase an album, burn to CD, re-rip to iTunes -- poof!  DRM-Free music.

 

The music industry will never sign-off on people "owning" the tracks they buy, so he'd better start buying blank CD's now.

post #88 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

 

 

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

 

 

1.  In the very distant future, maybe, but in the immediate distant future, no, because every Blu-ray drive can read both DVDs and CDs and the next generation of 4k or 8k video formats will also still maintain compatibility with DVD and CD.    And long before CDs are resigned to the trash heap of media history, you'll be able to copy them faster and with even more ease than you can already do today.     

 

2.  B.S.    I have CDs that are from the beginning of the format, almost 30 years old, and they still play perfectly.    There's no reason why commercially pressed CDs that are stored in their cases shouldn't last at least 100 years.    Even vinyl LPs produced in the 1950s and now 60 years old, if handled properly,  still play relatively fine today.     CD-Rs are another matter.   I already have CD-Rs less than 10 years old that won't play anymore.     

 

If you want to make an argument about the decline of the CD format, you can make one that says that within ten years, the major labels will largely stop producing CDs as CD sales are now at 25% of their 1999 peak.   

post #89 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post


In terms of actual ownership you don't 'own' the music on that CD anymore than you 'own' the music you purchase from Apple or Amazon. The only difference in ownership is that you happen to own a physical object in the event of a CD. Both Apple and Amazon sell music which is DRM-free. Regardless of the EULA, they're not going to remotely disable those files. You can maintain them as long as you choose to do so. So the difference is nothing near what you choose to believe it in. You're just paying less attention to the 'ownership' of music delivered in one form over that of another while neither of which are enforced on a material level where your home is concerned.
Back to good ol' Bruce, he certainly could pass that music on to her. But passing on his account, or merging his account into hers, in the event of his death, is a slightly different story. And then there is the actual language regarding that account which implies something more in literal reading.

 

The language gives Apple the right to disable his children's accounts if he passes the files to them, since it is a use outside the Terms of Service. I agree that this is not likely under current competitive market conditions, but times change and the point would be to nip this in the bud.

post #90 of 208

Wow, over 90 posts and not one "yippee-ki-yay motherf--ker!"  This time John McClane saves the world for real!

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #91 of 208
Originally Posted by diplication View Post
Wow, over 90 posts and not one "yippee-ki-yay motherf--ker!"  This time John McClane saves the world for real!

 

Post 45.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #92 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

 

More bull.

 

I have 30 year old CDs, all still playable. If I scratch them, my problem. Though if I was concerned about it I would make backups, legally as you point out.

 

Where does do the Terms of Service (It's not even an EULA, FYI), state specifically that I do not own my copy of the music? The Terms make liberal use of the word "purchase". Have you read the Terms?

 

Hint to you, a CD is a license for personal use, but it is not denominated. I can give the CD to anybody and that transfers the license automatically. You could say I own the use license, and thus I can do whatever I want with it. On iTunes I don't even own the use and it's actually worse because the Terms explicitly say that they Apple can cancel the service at any time for any reason and without notice:

 

 

So basically it is pointless to read the Terms of Service because they give you no rights at all.

Spot on.

post #93 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.

 

Great idea, and never too early to start.  I refuse to purchase music on iTunes even though I own several apple devices.  I purchase all my music on Amazon.com.  DRM free and very easy to transfer into iTunes after the fact.  Until Apple lets me load music onto non-Apple devices after I purchase it, then I will not make purchases from them.

 

I usually browse for new music on iTunes because you get much longer song previews and the quality of the preview streaming is better.  But once I find something I want to buy it's off to Amazon.com to make the purchase.

post #94 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Proof?

 

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4895

 

Quote:
Can I merge multiple Apple IDs into one?

You cannot merge two or more Apple IDs into a single one. You can, however, use one Apple ID for iCloud services and another Apple ID for store purchases (including iTunes in the Cloud and iTunes Match). See “Using one Apple ID for iCloud and a different Apple ID for Store Purchases” above for details.

 

More discussion here:

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/13/apple-not-offering-apple-id-merging/

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/06/17/multiple-apple-ids-frustrated-by-apples-no-consolidation-policy/

 

Workarounds here:

 

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1248112

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

 

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.

 

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

   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 #96 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode View Post

Steve Jobs told everyone how to get around this in the early days...  it's not that hard.

 

Purchase an album, burn to CD, re-rip to iTunes -- poof!  DRM-Free music.

 

The music industry will never sign-off on people "owning" the tracks they buy, so he'd better start buying blank CD's now.

 

Yep.  And except for the tunes bought in the very early days of iTunes, all his tracks are DRM free.  Copy them to a hard drive and they are safe from any "action" Apple might take to shut down his or their accounts.  

 

This is a case where someone who REALLY worries what's legal or not will be inconvenienced, but the average guy won't notice.  "So sad that our dad died, he had some cool music.  Oh we can just copy the files and drag them into iTunes.  Is that legal?  Who cares, it works, just like if each of us rip a copy of his CDs."

 

On the other hand, the APPS he bought are history, unless one of his daughters will take over his account and manage it as if he we still alive (good luck with that in the long run).

post #97 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.

In practical terms what is stopping you. They can't merge the stuff to their account but if they have your password they can change the name etc. unless you are someone famous or tell them, how is Apple going to know about the death.

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

 

Post 45.

Missed it.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #99 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?

 

Not really.  But people do it all the time.

post #100 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post


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

Go read the terms again. You didn't buy the song, you bought a license to it.

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 #101 of 208
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4895

 

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.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #102 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder View Post


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

Just because a lawyer read it, he still has to know the details of what he agreed to via his lawyer because it is binding to him. So when we say, for example, he agreed to doing a full frontal, no cock sock scene we don't have to waste hundreds of dollars delaying the shoot to get a copy of the contract etc.

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 #103 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.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sorry, but that doesn't change things all that much. When you buy a CD, you are not buying the music. You are buying the physical media with a license to listen to the music.


 

I seem to remember EULAs and licenses you signed up to, such as not being able to make copies of media, which judges subsequently disallowed.  Guess how we got our music onto our iPods before iTunes?  Remember audio cassettes?

 

I would like to see a record label try and enforce the license on the grieving progeny who had inherited their parents CD's.  The license is an ambit by the record labels which would likely be dissolved if any of them were so stupid as to take it before a judge. What they want they don't always get.

 

Next you'll be telling us you can't sell a book you bought or lend it to someone to read -   LoL

 

I buy CD's and I will leave them to my children or sell them if i wish.

post #104 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post



Nobody reads the terms of service, and, as they constantly change it is an undue burden to expect people to.

In your opinion. But your opinion doesn't change that you are bound to the terms whether you read them or not

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

Proof?

Call Apple Care and ask. It is a known fact that purchases on two or more Apple IDs can't be merged

Although it is erroneous to say 'non iCloud' v 'iCloud' since any Apple ID is an iCloud ID if you choose to use it as such.

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 #106 of 208
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
In your opinion. But your opinion doesn't change that you are bound to the terms whether you read them or not

 

A woman won a lawsuit because the judge ruled that no one reads or would want to read an EULA. I'll see if I can find it.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #107 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Go read the terms again. You didn't buy the song, you bought a license to it.

 

 

And licenses should be transferrable under first use doctrine. I own a licensed copy, even if I don't own the song.

 

Apple should not be able to stop me from giving my license to someone else, otherwise they are breaking first use doctrine. Whether that is illegal or not is up to the courts to decide.

 

I have read further that in some cases, first sale doctrine does not apply to licenses. IMHO that's BS. A license to me is something tangible, like a contract or a deed. It gives me authorization to do something. Just because it's digital, does not give it any special privileges. If I want to give the authorization given to me to another person, who can say I can't do that?

 

Imagine if in the real world, you weren't allowed to give the toilet paper you purchased to someone else in your house, because some clause in a license says so. lol I know that sounds extreme, but there is no difference in my mind to digital products (unless of course you are copying and not transferring)


Edited by enjourni - 9/3/12 at 9:40am
post #108 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.

why?

 

if corporations are people then trusts can be people, and therefore everyone in the corporation/trust can enjoy the right.;-)  (;-( )  then why not convey the rights to a revocable trust, and let the trustees of the trust enjoy those rights (beneficiaries are upon liquidation... the 'final' out clause of the death of a trust).   

 

If a trust can 'own' assets, then I think the trustees of the trust can use the trust's 'ownership' as a 'benefit.'  If you look at estate planning, placing assets into a trust and then just have 'a cascade' of trusteeship (first me and my partner, then a guardian, then children when of age... etc.) is a manner by which their is no asset transfer (no estate tax).  This is common in Farming and especially in CA real estate, where the normal estate transfer of real estate may push the estate tax into play, putting the real estate asset 'in trust' allows the the transition of assets through the assigning your survivors limited trusteeship and instructions on how assets in the trust are to be 'allocated' (not willed... say.. "joey gets the use of the family honda civic, Jamie and sue get the iTunes account").

 

I would think if Bruce would have gotten a credit card that was issued to the 'Children of Bruno Trust' with he as a trustee, and he uses that card as his AppleID CC, then I think legally, the current state of corporate law would be that the 'trust' is owning the rights to use, and the trustees would would be granted use of the trusts assets

post #109 of 208

This is retarded. He checked a box that said that he would not pass it on to his daughters (or whoever), and why not just authorize his daughter's Macs and iDevices so they can play it? Is that illegal too? I know that me and my mom share music through Home Sharing and that.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #110 of 208

If Bruce's iTunes songs are iTunes Plus, then he can already do whatever he wants with them within ordinary copyright restrictions, and he can pass them to his daughters on his death.

 

From the iTunes Terms and Conditions:

 

vi) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such products, and Usage Rules (ii) – (v) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store, and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.

 

If the songs are not iTunes Plus, then they have the nuisance of Digital Rights Management (DRM) built into them. There are ways to sort that out, including upgrading them to iTunes Plus.

post #111 of 208

He can just burn CDs and give them to his kids :)

post #112 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

More bull.

I have 30 year old CDs, all still playable. If I scratch them, my problem. Though if I was concerned about it I would make backups, legally as you point out.

So? The fact that you have some 30 year old CDs that are playable somehow means that ALL old CDs are playable?

I had a collection of a couple hundred CDs burn up in a fire. Are those still playable? And if I owned the music, why can't I simply demand a replacement?

With iTunes, if my computer burns up, I can download the music to my new computer without difficulty. So, in at least one respect, iTunes is better then physical CDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Where does do the Terms of Service (It's not even an EULA, FYI), state specifically that I do not own my copy of the music? The Terms make liberal use of the word "purchase". Have you read the Terms?

Yes, and I would suggest that you do so. You do not own the music. You own the right to use it under the terms of the license.

Here's an idea. If you think you own the music, why not print and sell 100,000 copies of it and see how quickly you get sued?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

Hint to you, a CD is a license for personal use, but it is not denominated. I can give the CD to anybody and that transfers the license automatically. You could say I own the use license, and thus I can do whatever I want with it. On iTunes I don't even own the use and it's actually worse because the Terms explicitly say that they Apple can cancel the service at any time for any reason and without notice:


So basically it is pointless to read the Terms of Service because they give you no rights at all.

That is incorrect, too. The terms of service give you the right to use the music under their terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post


And licenses should be transferrable under first use doctrine. I own a licensed copy, even if I don't own the song.

Apple should not be able to stop me from giving my license to someone else, otherwise they are breaking first use doctrine. Whether that is illegal or not is up to the courts to decide.

Then Bruce Willis can give the tracks to his kids and let the courts sort it out.

In principle, I agree that licenses should be transferrable under first use doctrine unless you gave up those rights. However, my guess is that this would be completely impractical from Apple's perspective. So that's why the EULA does not allow you to do it - by licensing the music and paying Apple $0.99, you essentially wave your first use doctrine rights.
"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 #113 of 208

uhhh...sorry...this is bullshit.

 

1) give your daughters your apple i.d.;

2) burn all your music to cd's/dvd's and call it a day. until apple changes things, you can still burn your music to portable formats and put it wherever you want.

 

like someone said here earlier. why just apple? why not amazon, too?

 

i'm guessing expendables 2 didn't give him much in terms of notoriety or profit and he needs something for retirement.

post #114 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by CILG View Post

If Bruce's iTunes songs are iTunes Plus, then he can already do whatever he wants with them within ordinary copyright restrictions, and he can pass them to his daughters on his death.

From the iTunes Terms and Conditions:

vi) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such products, and Usage Rules (ii) – (v) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store, and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.


If the songs are not iTunes Plus, then they have the nuisance of Digital Rights Management (DRM) 
built into them. There are ways to sort that out, including upgrading them to iTunes Plus.

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).
"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 #115 of 208

I'll pipe in by saying I agree in principle… that principle being, it shouldn't be treated any differently than bequeathing "physical media" like a book, a record or a CD… those fall under "fair use" laws and principles. WIth physical media, you BUY the medium (paper, plastic or whatever), although the CONTENT it contains is still only licensed, and remains owned by the author under copyright.

 

Why shouldn't the SAME CONTENT in a "digital media" format follow the same principle?

 

Of course, it's pretty difficult for a physical book to be read by three different people simultaneously in three different locations at once, and not always easy to PREVENT an eBook from being copied and read by three people at once, but that doesn't itself override the underlying principle of 'fair use'...

 

I think what he's asking for (if it's the ability to bequeath something in his collection to ONE of his children) is perfectly reasonable. And if it isn't, I'd be buying music on CDs from now on, and then ripping them to iTunes…

 

Books is something else. Not sure how I'd handle that. Although I'd MUCH rather bequeath a great PHYSICAL library of books to my kids than a disk full of eBooks… just saying. (I'm also an advocate for promoting more 'cross-medium' purchasing… for example, if I buy the physical book, I should ALSO receive the digital version for free, or at a substantial discount. Like DVD movies now, and some magazine/newspaper subscriptions do...)

post #116 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

 

Not really.  But people do it all the time.

 

And there's the rub.  People confuse what's easy to do with what's legal.  Most people know they can't legally allow others to download music from their MP3 collection, but think nothing of sharing a physical CD among friends.

 

That's why the RIAA now has a rather large FBI warning printed on the front of new music CDs: “FBI Anti-Piracy Warning: Unauthorized Copying Is Punishable Under Federal Law.”

 

   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 #117 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).

 

I think you're wrong there… "personal use" means allowing use within one's family… I'm "allowed" to stream my iTunes music all over my house… Apple has long supported the "family license" concept, allowing multiple computers "within the same household" to share content or applications…..

 

So, "personal use" means just that… personal, NOT commercial. (You can't take the word "personal" out of context of that full sentence…)

post #118 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Go read the terms again. You didn't buy the song, you bought a license to it.

 

Go read what I wrote, then go snark on the right person.  The person I quote complained that iTunes had a "Buy" button (which it does) but had no idea how Amazon handled it.  I simply showed him the Amazon "Buy This Album" button is functionally the same thing as what is on iTunes.

   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 #119 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Bonanza View Post

Either a very, very principled man or a very, very large collection. 1smile.gif

Or he hasn't had a hit movie for a while and needs the publicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse View Post

I agree there should be ownership and therefore the right to pass inherit, lust like physical media. 

But also just like physical media, each item should surely go only to one person, not all three. May be just sloppy writing in the article, but it implied the library going to all three daughters.

There's no way in the world that you'd have the right to own the music. Ownership implies the ability to resell, distribute, or do anything else with it. Someone like WIllis knows that. When you buy a DVD of one of his movies, you do not own the movie. You own the physical media with a license to use the content. That license is limited (you can not use it for a public performance, for example). The iTunes license is not significantly different. You own the physical media (your computer's hard drive) and a license to use the music. Just the same as Willis' DVDs.

The only significant difference is that's not clear is what happens if he dies and gives the computer to one of his kids. The computer certainly belongs to the kids, but the license may not transfer (I'm not sure). But that's a relatively minor difference - and one that few people are going to be concerned about.

It is totally unreasonable to expect that you own the music when you pay $0.99 for a track on iTunes. One could argue that the licensing rights should be broader, but that's a very different topic. And you can expect that if the music industry gives you more rights, they're going to want more money for each track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse View Post

I'd also imagine it's the music labels trying to avoid this, not Apple.

Obviously it's the music labels. Apple couldn't care less.

 

We share all our music and apps (3 iTunes Accounts) among all our Macs and iDevices and all of the Music, PhotoStream is in my iCloud account, which is available to all the Macs and iDevices.  There, likely, is a limit on the number of Macs and iDevices -- but Apple doesn't seem to enforce it.

 

I never thought about it, but I guess that my daughter and her 3 kids could just continue using my account -- just purchase new items using their accounts.   Or, they could update my account with their own credit cards.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #120 of 208

I agree with Bruce.  I have three books purchased by my grandparents in the late 1800, a couple of Mark Twain's Books and they're mine. I didn't lose them after they passed away. I currently have 87 digital books via Barnes and Noble and my Nook Color

 

This is not an Apple issue its an industry issue. I say we are due for a Class Action Suit.  If we buy digital copies(music, books, periodicals) we have the right to keep them. 

 

This is a very important issue. As the world begins to take more responsibility for our environment (Green Effort Movement) they will continue to push for the digital option.

 

And purchasing a digital copy should imply full ownership and it should be transferable to ones family/friends or your local University.

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]