Actor Bruce Willis won't sue Apple over iTunes music ownership [u]

1567810

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    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.



    OK then, same as with the other person.  When I'm dead or my account with Walmart or whomever is closed, who's going to come buy and pick up that CD I bought?  Like any thing else, I can't publicize it myself or profit from it, but when I made that purchase for myself then it's mine.  I can play it anywhere, I can make a copy to cassette for myself on a tape player, or I can melt the thing on a fire.  It's MINE.  That copy of those songs I bought are mine.  The hard drive I put DRM free music on is MINE.  My iPod is MINE.  And my beatles albums are MINE.  And when I'm dead they will belong to my children.  And they will be THEIRS.

  • Reply 182 of 213
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member


    I love people who's outrage is so out of proportion to their investment...


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post


    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.



     


    It says "buy" because you buy a license to use the music.  FWIW, The Amazon MP3 Store's ToS is almost identical to the iTunes license (and it should be, since the RIAA wrote huge chunks of it).  OBTW, their 1-click buttons also say "Buy".  But clearly, we understand your level of frustration, having obviously spent a whole couple of dollars on the "few tracks" you've actually "payed for on iTunes".


     


    BTW, the Sears/Maytag analogy is a false dichotomy.  Unless maybe you hadn't paid off your Sears card when you kicked the bucket...  :-P

  • Reply 183 of 213
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realwarder View Post


    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.



     


    Has the first-sale doctrine been established for digital products like music downloads or movie downloads that don't have a physical element to transfer?  Isn't the foundation of first-sale that the original owner can no longer own the object being sold?

  • Reply 184 of 213


    Relax folks. It's really as simple as you first thought.


     


    When you buy a copy of a song from iTunes--you own it. You are not licensing it. You own that particular copy and it is your property. You can do anything you like with it. You can give it away. You can let your aunt Shirley borrow it. You can pass on that one copy in your will to anyone you choose. You can even sell it for a billion dollars if you find the right buyer. The main thing you can't do is make more copies of your particular copy and distribute them. There are some other exceptions, but for people who just want to buy a copy of a song and listen to it, that's all there is to know.


     


    There. Was that so hard? 

  • Reply 185 of 213
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


     


    But. 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 a blank CD and burn it using iTunes. End of story, I don't need to negotiate anything with anybody, I just need to go to the store, the old-fashioned way, then fire up iTunes and burn, burn, burn.


     


    Like I said above, I am reverting to CD burning using iTunes to make physical back ups of my digital purchases, covered by "fair use", as usual Apple has left a back door open.



     


    There fixed it for you.


     


    Since day one iTunes (the software) has had the ability to burn music CD's, so you can make physical back ups of your collection.


     


    Then when you die your grandchildren can keep "Granpa's box of borin' old music" in the garage, attic or somewhere and one day sell it in a garage sale or throw it out.

  • Reply 186 of 213
    nceencee Posts: 857member


    So I purchase a CD. I pass it on at sometime, then when that person is done with it, he or she is suppose to trash


    it so no one else can use, listen or enjoy it … yeah right!


     


    So then, music stores that BUY back cd's are breaking the law or only after selling it are they breaking the law?


     


    When they paid ME for the used cd, I'm the only one who benefited from the sale, and when they resell it, there


    is no way in hell any money goes to the artist!


     


     


    Skip

  • Reply 187 of 213
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    charlituna wrote: »
    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

    When do they freeze accounts? Do you kow? For going music o your children? No. In fact, that is easily done even if you have old DRM music. They might freeze an account if the music you buy keeps showing up on Pirate Bay. What does the freeze mean? It means ou can't redownload the music and you can't buy more.

    So unless you believe Apple should allow free downloads for all of your ancestors, there is no issue here. None. Not even a little.
  • Reply 188 of 213
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    djkikrome wrote: »
    OK then, same as with the other person.  When I'm dead or my account with Walmart or whomever is closed, who's going to come buy and pick up that CD I bought?  Like any thing else, I can't publicize it myself or profit from it, but when I made that purchase for myself then it's mine.  I can play it anywhere, I can make a copy to cassette for myself on a tape player, or I can melt the thing on a fire.  It's MINE.  That copy of those songs I bought are mine.  The hard drive I put DRM free music on is MINE.  My iPod is MINE.  And my beatles albums are MINE.  And when I'm dead they will belong to my children.  And they will be THEIRS.

    So who is coming by to delete the music off your computer? Or the backups you made?
  • Reply 189 of 213
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post


     ...I made that purchase for myself then it's mine.  I can play it anywhere,.. 



     


    No you can't, say you owned a shop, cafe or restaurant, you can't play it there without the relevant license for playing it in a public place for commercial purposes.

  • Reply 190 of 213
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    I agree with Bruce; a license, your kidding. iTunes might not be the number one seller of music surpassing Wal-Mart if everyone had known up front they were not purchasing the music. They were only being licensed to listen/view it; a tad misleading I would say, shame on you iTunes. Billy R Ramsey

    A CD is a limited license as well. The main difference is that the license is transferable when the original physical medium changes hands, the download license probably isn't transferable, though I don't think the music cartel is going to prosecute you if it's inherited. It didn't give you rights of public broadcast (extra fee license) or the rights to distribute copies (lots of extra fees).

    Apple has been all DRM-free for three years now, partially DRM free for a year before that.

    The case is hypothetical since the original story has been refuted.
  • Reply 191 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realwarder View Post


    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.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    That is incorrect.  


     


    My post was specifically intended to lay out facts (USA only) so that further discussion could be fact-based.  


     


    It is a fact that the first-sale doctrine, in the USA, does not cover music as digital content.  This is already declared by the Copyright Office and already has a court precedent.  That's a non-starter for the mythical Bruce Willis lawsuit.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 192 of 213
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    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.




    What's interesting is the way this stuff is perceived when comparing a hard copy to a data only item. The topic of older Macs without OSX reinstall dvds has come up before. People say to get one off ebay often quoting it as the right thing to do. I'm not sure if Apple offers any support there, but their policies clearly state these disks are not for resale. They are granting you a license, not a physical commodity, yet people treat it as something else. It's just that in the case of sales that involve a boxed item, these things are perceived differently. In some states sales tax even follows different rules on non-tangible items.

  • Reply 193 of 213
    cilgcilg Posts: 18member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    That is incorrect.  


     


    My post was specifically intended to lay out facts (USA only) so that further discussion could be fact-based.  


     


    It is a fact that the first-sale doctrine, in the USA, does not cover music as digital content.  This is already declared by the Copyright Office and already has a court precedent.  That's a non-starter for the mythical Bruce Willis lawsuit.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



     


    Show us links to both of your points (what the Copyright office said and the opinion), please.

  • Reply 194 of 213


    Thank you Bruce. The world is safe again.

  • Reply 195 of 213
    Is this really a problem? Passing music on to your children? My kids wouldn't be caught dead listening to my music! Passing my music on to them would be just as welcome as leaving them my well-worn boxers.
  • Reply 196 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CILG View Post


     


    Show us links to both of your points (what the Copyright office said and the opinion), please.



    I'm happy to learn that something I considered factual to be incorrect, but I'd appreciate it if you'd do more than just challenge me to show links.  If you want to challenge me, do some research to show something to the contrary.  


     


    That said, I will do the following to get you started:


     


    Copyright office:


     


    From Wikipedia:  (for the gory detail click the copyright link)



    The question is whether the first sale doctrine should be retooled to reflect the realities of the digital age. Physical copies degrade over time, whereas digital information does not. Works in digital format can be reproduced without any flaws and can be disseminated worldwide without much difficulty. Thus, applying the first sale doctrine to digital copies affect the market for the original to a greater degree than transfers of physical copies. 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]


     


    Court precedent:


     


    What I should have said to be completely clear is that there is no court precedent for first sale doctrine of digital music in the USA, which would be required to essentially overturn the Copyright Office's interpretation of the copyright law.  The current ReDigi lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in October, and addresses this issue directly.  At that point we may have a definitive legal precedent, we'll see.  Until then, absent a court ruling to the contrary, the Copyright Law as interpreted by the Copyright Office stands.  


     


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 197 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CILG View Post


    Relax folks. It's really as simple as you first thought.


     


    When you buy a copy of a song from iTunes--you own it. You are not licensing it. You own that particular copy and it is your property. You can do anything you like with it. You can give it away. You can let your aunt Shirley borrow it. You can pass on that one copy in your will to anyone you choose. You can even sell it for a billion dollars if you find the right buyer. The main thing you can't do is make more copies of your particular copy and distribute them. There are some other exceptions, but for people who just want to buy a copy of a song and listen to it, that's all there is to know.


     


    There. Was that so hard? 



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    This is totally incorrect, at least in the USA.  See my previous postings.  You do not "own" it in any operative sense of the word.  You are limited in your rights to what is in the license.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 198 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    So I purchase a CD. I pass it on at sometime, then when that person is done with it, he or she is suppose to trash


    it so no one else can use, listen or enjoy it … yeah right!


     


    So then, music stores that BUY back cd's are breaking the law or only after selling it are they breaking the law?


     


    When they paid ME for the used cd, I'm the only one who benefited from the sale, and when they resell it, there


    is no way in hell any money goes to the artist!


     


     


    Skip



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    No, the first sale doctrine for physical media says that you can legally sell/rent/give away CDs that you purchased.  I speak for the USA only here, I'm not conversant on copyright law in other countries.


     


    Regarding your point about no money going to the artist on CD resales, yes... and that is why recording contracts generally give the artist a bigger cut of CD sales as compared to digital downloads.  


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 199 of 213



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
    "Like I said above, I am reverting to CD burning using iTunes to make physical back ups of my digital purchases, covered by "fair use", as usual Apple has left a back door open."


     


    The Fair Use rule has nothing to do with making backups, at least for music.  You are only legally allowed to make backups if your license for the digital download allows you to.  


     


    To be very precise about this, Fair Use is an affirmative defense against an accusation of copyright infringement, and it has a set of requirements that must be met.  None of these includes anything close to making a backup copy of your digital music download.  


     


     


     
  • Reply 200 of 213
    cilgcilg Posts: 18member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post


    I'm happy to learn that something I considered factual to be incorrect, but I'd appreciate it if you'd do more than just challenge me to show links.  If you want to challenge me, do some research to show something to the contrary.  


     


    That said, I will do the following to get you started:


     


    Copyright office:


     


    From Wikipedia:  (for the gory detail click the copyright link)




    The question is whether the first sale doctrine should be retooled to reflect the realities of the digital age. Physical copies degrade over time, whereas digital information does not. Works in digital format can be reproduced without any flaws and can be disseminated worldwide without much difficulty. Thus, applying the first sale doctrine to digital copies affect the market for the original to a greater degree than transfers of physical copies. 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]


     


    Court precedent:


     


    What I should have said to be completely clear is that there is no court precedent for first sale doctrine of digital music in the USA, which would be required to essentially overturn the Copyright Office's interpretation of the copyright law.  The current ReDigi lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in October, and addresses this issue directly.  At that point we may have a definitive legal precedent, we'll see.  Until then, absent a court ruling to the contrary, the Copyright Law as interpreted by the Copyright Office stands.  


     


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



     


    Thank you for taking the time to post this. But still, I have to disagree. 


     


    First, when you purchase a song from iTunes, you are not licensing it, you really are purchasing it. This is based on the iTunes Terms and Conditions under the heading "USE OF PURCHASED OR RENTED CONTENT." You have only two choices for how you get content from iTunes; you can purchase it or you can rent it. And we know you can't rent music from iTunes.


     


    Second, in the entire iTunes Terms and Conditions, there is exactly one sentence that says what you can do with a purchased iTunes Plus song (and they're all iTunes plus now.) It says:  "You may copy, store, and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use." That's not license language; that's a restatement, or paraphrase, of copyright law. This means you own your particular copy of the song subject to ordinary copyright law.


     


    Third, I do see your point about the Copyright Office's position on First Sale under section 109. The Copyright office confirms that First Sale applies to digital files on physical media. But they are not recommending extending First Sale to electronic transmission of digital files. They have concerns about the ease with which we can make digital copies, how transmitting a file automatically creates another copy of a file, and the unlikelihood that anyone will delete their original copy. They want Congress, or "the market" to address the issue.


     


    I would say that until a court or the Congress says differently, First Sale applies to lawfully purchased digital files electronically transmitted, based on traditional copyright law. Which means you can do whatever you want with your particular copy, that's not business related, as long as you don't make more copies for distribution.

Sign In or Register to comment.