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.
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
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">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.</span>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">If the songs are not iTunes Plus, then they have the nuisance of Digital Rights Management (DRM) </span> <span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">built into them. There are ways to sort that out, including upgrading them to iTunes Plus.</span>
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'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...)
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.”
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…)
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.
Either a very, very principled man or a very, very large collection.
Or he hasn't had a hit movie for a while and needs the publicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse
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
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.
Comments
Go read the terms again. You didn't buy the song, you bought a license to it.
Originally Posted by John.B
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink
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
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.
In your opinion. But your opinion doesn't change that you are bound to the terms whether you read them or not
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.
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
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
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.
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.
He can just burn CDs and give them to his kids
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.
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?
That is incorrect, too. The terms of service give you the right to use the music under their terms.
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.
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.
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'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...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
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.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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…)
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Bonanza
Either a very, very principled man or a very, very large collection.
Or he hasn't had a hit movie for a while and needs the publicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangermouse
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
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.