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.
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?
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.
$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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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".
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80025
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.
First, where's your evidence that people 'understand' it that way?
Second, even if they do, why should their misinformation override a license agreement?
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
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.
Absolutely. Music and electronic books, as if they were still physical copies.
please delete
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Bonanza
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?
/
/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
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.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }You do not possess any more ownership of music if you buy it on a CD vs Digitally legally speaking.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
!. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida
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:
Originally Posted by John.B
Apple can't even merge non-iCloud (@yahoo.com, @gmail.com) Apple IDs with the new iCloud (@me.com) Apple IDs. :LOL:
Proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You do not possess any more ownership of music if you buy it on a CD vs Digitally legally speaking.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
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.
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 1976, 17 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.)