Where did I say this was the first time Apple created an incompatibility or frustration for their existing user based? For that matter, where did I say it wasn't? Are you implying the solution for .Mac users was adequate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Could you please actually try to understand what I'm telling you, or is that too much to ask? Don't bother answering; we already know.
I'm saying Apple sometimes has poor follow-through. Yes, they are capable of great things, but sometimes at the expense of fixing problems with existing products or services. Perhaps they can merge existing Apple IDs with iCloud IDs. But that's nothing more than semantics when history has shown (and is currently showing) they won't bother to fix the problem.
I'll tell you what. Check back with me in three months or six months or whatever interval you choose, and we'll see if they've made any progress.
All music is licensed this way. Even your CDs. Same with your movies and TV shows. The only ones who own the music are the record companies. We just license the music (games, CDs, DVDs, etc.).
Willis will lose and frankly I'm shocked that a Republican like him would want to challenge the powers of the music corporations. Isn't he a corporate champion himself as a supporter of so many Republicans?
All music is licensed this way. Even your CDs. Same with your movies and TV shows. The only ones who own the music are the record companies. We just license the music (games, CDs, DVDs, etc.).
Willis will lose and frankly I'm shocked that a Republican like him would want to challenge the powers of the music corporations. Isn't he a corporate champion himself as a supporter of so many Republicans?
I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet. And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple. For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE. It's ALWAYS said BUY. And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances. My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.
I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet. And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple. For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE. It's ALWAYS said BUY. And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances. My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.
Everything you wrote is bullocks. You really think that when you buy The Beatles Abbey Road album that you own the rights to the song? Good one¡
Good point. I agree. Of course the hard copies of the Mark Twain books belong to you. It is your to keep. (I don't agree with Bruce Willis)
However, the digital world is "very" different. One copy of a digital product can mean 100s, 1000s & even millions of unpaid copies out there. Often a digital copy can spread like wildfire. Authors are struggling as it is and need those digital sales counted. That "is" how they get paid. Income is already abysmally poor in this digital download environment for most authors even the very accomplished ones. Re: We cannot have full ownership of a digital copy. We are not the owners of the product, ownership is the author &/or publisher.
The class action law suit should be for the authors, musicians, photographers to get better deals from the publishers especially the very large corporations.
However, the digital world is "very" different. One copy of a digital product can mean 100s, 1000s & even millions of unpaid copies out there. Often a digital copy can spread like wildfire. ...
It sounds like you are saying that those of us who don't pirate need to pay multiple times what we used to pay a single time in order to compensate for all the freeloaders out there.
I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet. And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple. For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE. It's ALWAYS said BUY. And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances. My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.
Actually, no. When you buy a CD, you are LICENSING the music for personal use. The music isn't YOURS to do with as you please. No rights were transferred to you. You can't, for example, broadcast it or put the songs on another CD and sell that. iTunes just made it easy to license your music without having to obtain a physical CD first. On the whole, I like that better because I can buy individual songs, not be forced to buy the whole album.
OK time for some legal facts (USA) just so that we all have a common basis of understanding.
1. When you purchase a CD you get the physical media plus a license to play the music for personal use. Because of court decisions, you may also legally sell, rent, or give away the CD. You may also (and this is a more recent development) rip the CD to your personal devices and play it from there, again for personal use. If you transfer the CD to someone else you are not allowed to keep your ripped copy. You may not play the music commercially (e.g. DJ at a party, music in a bar/restaurant, etc.) without acquiring a different (and much more expensive) license. You may not share your ripped or copied version with others even for free.
2. When you purchase a digital download of music you have only the rights granted to you by the license you agree to. If these do not include transfer rights, well you don't have any transfer rights.
The latter is why this (apparently fictitious) lawsuit would not last 10 minutes in court.
Apple can freeze an iTunes account meaning redownloads aren't possible just like you don't get another CD if you lose the disc but you can have backups.
The main concern here would be DRM content, which doesn't apply to music any more but if you think about movies and books, how much would it really cost to replace your library? 100 movies x $10 + 100 books x $5 + 1000 apps x $0.99 = ~$2500.
Leave behind $2500 and your kids can decide if they have the same taste in movies, books and apps. Not likely.
Phew, when I die, I was hoping to leave my music collection to everyone in the world. Everybody like Bananarama?
[VIDEO]
Yeah, of course you do. That's the main thing with digital ownership is that there can never be one unique copy. Although leaving my collection to everyone in the world seems absurd, it's no different from leaving it to 10 children who each have 10 children, who each have 10 children and all their cousins.
Some else accessing the account is fine. I've setup accounts for other people, Apple is none the wiser, how are they going to know when someone dies?
Actually, no. When you buy a CD, you are LICENSING the music for personal use. The music isn't YOURS to do with as you please. No rights were transferred to you. You can't, for example, broadcast it or put the songs on another CD and sell that. iTunes just made it easy to license your music without having to obtain a physical CD first. On the whole, I like that better because I can buy individual songs, not be forced to buy the whole album.
Edit: SoplipismX beat me to it.
You and jragosta do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever. There are actually several rights you have for example backing up or creating a copy of a file for personal use is one of them. First sale doctrine is also one of them. The issue here is what happens to someone's legally owned purchased digital files when they die. What record labels and apple are saying is that the music you purchased can't be transferred to someone after your death. No one is talking about making copies and giving them away for free or selling them, why you guys act like as soon as someone dies that the files are going to be mass copied and then sold or given away for free is unknown to me. The argument that is being made here is that when he or she dies, the digital file(s) he or she has on his or her computer should be allowed to cut and then paste on his or her heir's computer or whatever device they are using, now lets say Bruce has multiple copies one on his iphone, mac, ipod, ipad well than the copies would all have to be transferred to the heir, it can't be given out to multiple heirs, that is not in dispute. Again the argument is that Bruce buys a song off of iTunes and that song is on his mac, when he dies that song file should be allowed to be moved off of that computer, unless the heir gets computer, and onto the heir's computer, no one is saying make a copy and all other copies on the other apple devices either have to be transferred to the heir's devices or have to be deleted..
Originally Posted by jragosta
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 called common knowledge that people understand it that way. I'm one of those that understand it that way and the other forum posters that support Bruce means they also understand it that way. Because if they don't change the agreement they will find that people will stop buying from the store.
2. When you purchase a digital download of music you have only the rights granted to you by the license you agree to. If these do not include transfer rights, well you don't have any transfer rights.
The latter is why this (apparently fictitious) lawsuit would not last 10 minutes in court.
Actually, the latter is why it would spend a lot more than 10 minutes in court.
The First-sale doctrine overrides (exempts you from) any attempted contracts to block your ability to re-sell/transfer (distribute) something you have purchased. It is there to protect the consumer and prevent copyright owners from blocking a resale.
And when websites have links using terms such as 'buy', you really are creating an inferred sale, no matter what small print you tag on.
This would spend a long time in court... and I'm sure will one day.
[SIZE=14px]You and <span style="vertical-align:middle;line-height:22px;background-color:rgb(198,204,208);">jragosta</span> do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever.
Sure it can. There is nothing preventing you from giving your username and password to another person.
You and jragosta do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever.
No one is talking about making copies and giving them away for free or selling them, why you guys act like as soon as someone dies that the files are going to be mass copied and then sold or given away for free is unknown to me.
Yes, I understand. However, I didn't read what jrag wrote so don't lump me into whatever he wrote. I was responding to another post which confused ownership of CDs with ownership of music, and pointing out that you don't own the music. Making copies and giving them away was just an example of one of the rights you don't possess. But, yes, I am aware of fair and personal use licensing for music CDs. I never said Bruce Willis wanted to give away copies of his music library when he died. Stop twisting my post into something it is not.
Thanks for the head's up. If you (anyone) sees an error like that again, just PM me with the thread URL itself and I'll fix it probably faster than seeing comments in a thread.
Done and done. I also tried out a new piece of formatting for that; I think updates should be offset with a visual cue. Let me know what you (anyone) think.
Comments
Whoops, I was late on that one....
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Never heard of .Mac or iTools, huh?
Where did I say this was the first time Apple created an incompatibility or frustration for their existing user based? For that matter, where did I say it wasn't? Are you implying the solution for .Mac users was adequate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Could you please actually try to understand what I'm telling you, or is that too much to ask? Don't bother answering; we already know.
I'm saying Apple sometimes has poor follow-through. Yes, they are capable of great things, but sometimes at the expense of fixing problems with existing products or services. Perhaps they can merge existing Apple IDs with iCloud IDs. But that's nothing more than semantics when history has shown (and is currently showing) they won't bother to fix the problem.
I'll tell you what. Check back with me in three months or six months or whatever interval you choose, and we'll see if they've made any progress.
Willis will lose and frankly I'm shocked that a Republican like him would want to challenge the powers of the music corporations. Isn't he a corporate champion himself as a supporter of so many Republicans?
Dude, it's been debunked, it's a fake story...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonimo
Itunes s**ks... buy CDs instead.
I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet. And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple. For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE. It's ALWAYS said BUY. And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances. My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.
Everything you wrote is bullocks. You really think that when you buy The Beatles Abbey Road album that you own the rights to the song? Good one¡
Good point. I agree. Of course the hard copies of the Mark Twain books belong to you. It is your to keep. (I don't agree with Bruce Willis)
However, the digital world is "very" different. One copy of a digital product can mean 100s, 1000s & even millions of unpaid copies out there. Often a digital copy can spread like wildfire. Authors are struggling as it is and need those digital sales counted. That "is" how they get paid. Income is already abysmally poor in this digital download environment for most authors even the very accomplished ones. Re: We cannot have full ownership of a digital copy. We are not the owners of the product, ownership is the author &/or publisher.
The class action law suit should be for the authors, musicians, photographers to get better deals from the publishers especially the very large corporations.
Best regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Tofani
...
However, the digital world is "very" different. One copy of a digital product can mean 100s, 1000s & even millions of unpaid copies out there. Often a digital copy can spread like wildfire. ...
It sounds like you are saying that those of us who don't pirate need to pay multiple times what we used to pay a single time in order to compensate for all the freeloaders out there.
No thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkikrome
I actually still buy CDs because of deceptive tactics by companies on the internet. And this would be a HUGE deception if this is true for apple. For the few tracks I've payed for on iTunes, I've never ONCE noticed the button saying RENT or LICENSE. It's ALWAYS said BUY. And when I'm dead, I don't expect to see Sears coming to my house and picking up the washer and dryer from my kids because I LICENSED the Maytag appliances. My iTunes purchases are MINE and they had better be because this is one class action lawsuit away from DESTROYING Apple considering how much money has been spent through the iTunes store since inception.
Actually, no. When you buy a CD, you are LICENSING the music for personal use. The music isn't YOURS to do with as you please. No rights were transferred to you. You can't, for example, broadcast it or put the songs on another CD and sell that. iTunes just made it easy to license your music without having to obtain a physical CD first. On the whole, I like that better because I can buy individual songs, not be forced to buy the whole album.
Edit: SoplipismX beat me to it.
1. When you purchase a CD you get the physical media plus a license to play the music for personal use. Because of court decisions, you may also legally sell, rent, or give away the CD. You may also (and this is a more recent development) rip the CD to your personal devices and play it from there, again for personal use. If you transfer the CD to someone else you are not allowed to keep your ripped copy. You may not play the music commercially (e.g. DJ at a party, music in a bar/restaurant, etc.) without acquiring a different (and much more expensive) license. You may not share your ripped or copied version with others even for free.
2. When you purchase a digital download of music you have only the rights granted to you by the license you agree to. If these do not include transfer rights, well you don't have any transfer rights.
The latter is why this (apparently fictitious) lawsuit would not last 10 minutes in court.
but, isn't all iTunes music DRM free now?
bring back demonoid
Publicity hound.
The music is all DRM-free, so what is he actually asking Apple to do here?
Apple says you can share music with other people on the same computer:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1203
Apple can freeze an iTunes account meaning redownloads aren't possible just like you don't get another CD if you lose the disc but you can have backups.
The main concern here would be DRM content, which doesn't apply to music any more but if you think about movies and books, how much would it really cost to replace your library? 100 movies x $10 + 100 books x $5 + 1000 apps x $0.99 = ~$2500.
Leave behind $2500 and your kids can decide if they have the same taste in movies, books and apps. Not likely.
Phew, when I die, I was hoping to leave my music collection to everyone in the world. Everybody like Bananarama?
[VIDEO]
Yeah, of course you do. That's the main thing with digital ownership is that there can never be one unique copy. Although leaving my collection to everyone in the world seems absurd, it's no different from leaving it to 10 children who each have 10 children, who each have 10 children and all their cousins.
Some else accessing the account is fine. I've setup accounts for other people, Apple is none the wiser, how are they going to know when someone dies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Actually, no. When you buy a CD, you are LICENSING the music for personal use. The music isn't YOURS to do with as you please. No rights were transferred to you. You can't, for example, broadcast it or put the songs on another CD and sell that. iTunes just made it easy to license your music without having to obtain a physical CD first. On the whole, I like that better because I can buy individual songs, not be forced to buy the whole album.
Edit: SoplipismX beat me to it.
You and jragosta do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever. There are actually several rights you have for example backing up or creating a copy of a file for personal use is one of them. First sale doctrine is also one of them. The issue here is what happens to someone's legally owned purchased digital files when they die. What record labels and apple are saying is that the music you purchased can't be transferred to someone after your death. No one is talking about making copies and giving them away for free or selling them, why you guys act like as soon as someone dies that the files are going to be mass copied and then sold or given away for free is unknown to me. The argument that is being made here is that when he or she dies, the digital file(s) he or she has on his or her computer should be allowed to cut and then paste on his or her heir's computer or whatever device they are using, now lets say Bruce has multiple copies one on his iphone, mac, ipod, ipad well than the copies would all have to be transferred to the heir, it can't be given out to multiple heirs, that is not in dispute. Again the argument is that Bruce buys a song off of iTunes and that song is on his mac, when he dies that song file should be allowed to be moved off of that computer, unless the heir gets computer, and onto the heir's computer, no one is saying make a copy and all other copies on the other apple devices either have to be transferred to the heir's devices or have to be deleted..
Originally Posted by jragosta
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 called common knowledge that people understand it that way. I'm one of those that understand it that way and the other forum posters that support Bruce means they also understand it that way. Because if they don't change the agreement they will find that people will stop buying from the store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas
2. When you purchase a digital download of music you have only the rights granted to you by the license you agree to. If these do not include transfer rights, well you don't have any transfer rights.
The latter is why this (apparently fictitious) lawsuit would not last 10 minutes in court.
Actually, the latter is why it would spend a lot more than 10 minutes in court.
The First-sale doctrine overrides (exempts you from) any attempted contracts to block your ability to re-sell/transfer (distribute) something you have purchased. It is there to protect the consumer and prevent copyright owners from blocking a resale.
And when websites have links using terms such as 'buy', you really are creating an inferred sale, no matter what small print you tag on.
This would spend a long time in court... and I'm sure will one day.
Sure it can. There is nothing preventing you from giving your username and password to another person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noliving
You and jragosta do realize that issue that is being discussed here is inheritance, not mass copies and giving them away for free or for money or whatever.
No one is talking about making copies and giving them away for free or selling them, why you guys act like as soon as someone dies that the files are going to be mass copied and then sold or given away for free is unknown to me.
Yes, I understand. However, I didn't read what jrag wrote so don't lump me into whatever he wrote. I was responding to another post which confused ownership of CDs with ownership of music, and pointing out that you don't own the music. Making copies and giving them away was just an example of one of the rights you don't possess. But, yes, I am aware of fair and personal use licensing for music CDs. I never said Bruce Willis wanted to give away copies of his music library when he died. Stop twisting my post into something it is not.
erm, thats his Wife BTW
Tallest, you might want to edit the post.
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Tallest, you might want to edit the post.
Thanks for the head's up. If you (anyone) sees an error like that again, just PM me with the thread URL itself and I'll fix it probably faster than seeing comments in a thread.
Done and done. I also tried out a new piece of formatting for that; I think updates should be offset with a visual cue. Let me know what you (anyone) think.