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.
The same thing is true of his movies. You do not buy the movie. You buy the physical media (DVD or BluRay) and a license to watch the movie for personal use only. In some ways, the movie license is more restrictive. If I buy a DVD in the US, I can not play it on non-US players. An iTunes track, OTOH, will work in any country where the music is licensed. Maybe we should all sue Bruce Willis because we can't watch his DVDs if we move to Brazil and buy a DVD player there.
Because he can. Most of the rest of us could ot afford such a lawsuit. Thanks to him, there is now somebody fighting for this that will set a precedent for the rest of us.
so he is saying he was so stupid he never read the agreement he was agreeing to until after he had spent thousands of dollars over the years, and its Apple's fault he didn't read it and doesn't agree with it and kept spending money anyways?
seriously, his daughters probably don't like his music... but why not just give the password to his daughters?... (and the cost of the suit will be more than the cost of the music by far)
or,
why not put in his will, "transfer itunes music to my daughters" and let the trustee deal with this?
1) Probably not, but it does bring up a fair point of being able to transfer ownership access of digital content you've legally purchased. It could take many years and Willis might be remembered for being the catalyst here or not remembered at all for this be will need laws on this as do move farther down this rabbit hole.
2) While that is what Apple will probably tell him it does mean that any DRMed content will need to be tied to a device (or at least a user account on a "PC") so the content can be accessed. This isn't user friendly. The content owners might not care but Apple will care about this. Something will have to come of all this.
3) You can put it in your will that the content is to be transferred but it's as legally binding as me donating all the world's water to Mars upon my death to be transfered via a Stargate that is to be placed on both the bottom of Marianas Trench and and in a low orbit above Mars. Apple doesn't own the content either. They are merely a distributor so just as Best Buy can't legally pull a CD out of your hand and give it to another person they can't simply make a transfer to another person, much less three.
Legally, there is no grounds for this lawsuit. Apple can put whatever terms it wants to in its license and when you make a purchase you agree to those terms.
To sue because "it's not fair" is not going to get him very far in a court.
Its not Apple... its the music industry. And I'm not certain you actually "own" the music if you buy a CD. You didn't buy the copyright for the song when you bought a CD, you can't play it and charge money to others. All you bought was the right to listen to it. Its not Apple's fault and its no different than any other online provider. Apple has had to drag the music industry into the 21st century.
Or he hasn't had a hit movie for a while and needs the publicity.
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.
Obviously it's the music labels. Apple couldn't care less.
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.
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).
$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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Amazing how stupid tabloid stories can spread like wildfire. Why is this even news? Just because if you use the word Apple in a story you get page hits? Ridiculous.
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 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.
Maybe we should all sue Bruce Willis because we can't watch his DVDs if we move to Brazil and buy a DVD player there.
He is not suing the music artists, but the store for having unfair licenses. A comparable action is you suing the store that sold you your DVD. Feel free.
Do you really read every word in the terms and conditions you frequently have to accept to keep an Apple account? That is not an issue when you walk out of your store.
There is no doubt this is an issue that needs sorting. Either that or we need to go back to buying CDs where we have the government protected right to transfer ownership (at least in the USA). Trust me, if the companies had their way, you would have no transfer rights even for your DVD/CD.
There is a good chance if this was ever taken to the supreme court, they may find in favor of the people and apply the First-sale doctrine to all the people who are effectively being scammed - yes scammed - because most people think they own the music they buy online. In the meantime, the licensees will always write every contract in their best interest.
His daughters can simply use the AAC/MP3 files, as is, from his computers. Assuming they'd have any interest in his music collection! :LOL:
If he's that concerned with this digital media rights, he should file a lawsuit over the DRM on downloadable movies and TV shows. Though I expect that would hit a little closer to home.
Either a very, very principled man or a very, very large collection.
It's only a rumor that he might sue or that he's upset etc. It's also just a rumor that Apple will freeze accounts. They CAN doesn't equal they have or will.
Willis is an actor, his life revolves around contracts, etc. if he didn't read the Terms and Conditions any of the dozens of times they were presented before he hit Agree then shame on him not Apple. And double shame since he's supposed to be is huge proponent for digital rights. How can you be speaking on something if you don't know the current standing in the game
Comments
"according to the Daily Mail."
Oh, move along now...
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.
The same thing is true of his movies. You do not buy the movie. You buy the physical media (DVD or BluRay) and a license to watch the movie for personal use only. In some ways, the movie license is more restrictive. If I buy a DVD in the US, I can not play it on non-US players. An iTunes track, OTOH, will work in any country where the music is licensed. Maybe we should all sue Bruce Willis because we can't watch his DVDs if we move to Brazil and buy a DVD player there.
so he is saying he was so stupid he never read the agreement he was agreeing to until after he had spent thousands of dollars over the years, and its Apple's fault he didn't read it and doesn't agree with it and kept spending money anyways?
1) Probably not, but it does bring up a fair point of being able to transfer ownership access of digital content you've legally purchased. It could take many years and Willis might be remembered for being the catalyst here or not remembered at all for this be will need laws on this as do move farther down this rabbit hole.
2) While that is what Apple will probably tell him it does mean that any DRMed content will need to be tied to a device (or at least a user account on a "PC") so the content can be accessed. This isn't user friendly. The content owners might not care but Apple will care about this. Something will have to come of all this.
3) You can put it in your will that the content is to be transferred but it's as legally binding as me donating all the world's water to Mars upon my death to be transfered via a Stargate that is to be placed on both the bottom of Marianas Trench and and in a low orbit above Mars. Apple doesn't own the content either. They are merely a distributor so just as Best Buy can't legally pull a CD out of your hand and give it to another person they can't simply make a transfer to another person, much less three.
To sue because "it's not fair" is not going to get him very far in a court.
Its not Apple... its the music industry. And I'm not certain you actually "own" the music if you buy a CD. You didn't buy the copyright for the song when you bought a CD, you can't play it and charge money to others. All you bought was the right to listen to it. Its not Apple's fault and its no different than any other online provider. Apple has had to drag the music industry into the 21st century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or he hasn't had a hit movie for a while and needs the publicity.
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.
Obviously it's the music labels. Apple couldn't care less.
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.
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).
$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.
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.
I think that it is implied that you are buying a license or right to use.
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.
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
Who reads those?
[VIDEO]
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.
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?
Go for it and good luck Bruce!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
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.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
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.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Maybe we should all sue Bruce Willis because we can't watch his DVDs if we move to Brazil and buy a DVD player there.
He is not suing the music artists, but the store for having unfair licenses. A comparable action is you suing the store that sold you your DVD. Feel free.
Do you really read every word in the terms and conditions you frequently have to accept to keep an Apple account? That is not an issue when you walk out of your store.
There is no doubt this is an issue that needs sorting. Either that or we need to go back to buying CDs where we have the government protected right to transfer ownership (at least in the USA). Trust me, if the companies had their way, you would have no transfer rights even for your DVD/CD.
There is a good chance if this was ever taken to the supreme court, they may find in favor of the people and apply the First-sale doctrine to all the people who are effectively being scammed - yes scammed - because most people think they own the music they buy online. In the meantime, the licensees will always write every contract in their best interest.
Apple pioneered the concept of a DRM-free downloadable music store with content from the major labels: http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
His daughters can simply use the AAC/MP3 files, as is, from his computers. Assuming they'd have any interest in his music collection! :LOL:
If he's that concerned with this digital media rights, he should file a lawsuit over the DRM on downloadable movies and TV shows. Though I expect that would hit a little closer to home.
It's only a rumor that he might sue or that he's upset etc. It's also just a rumor that Apple will freeze accounts. They CAN doesn't equal they have or will.
Willis is an actor, his life revolves around contracts, etc. if he didn't read the Terms and Conditions any of the dozens of times they were presented before he hit Agree then shame on him not Apple. And double shame since he's supposed to be is huge proponent for digital rights. How can you be speaking on something if you don't know the current standing in the game
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.
I HATE that too. Wouldn't it be a shame if one of them succeeded.