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

15678911»

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 213
    axualaxual Posts: 244member


    Sort of like all those movies you act in Bruce ... we all pay, but we don't own them.

  • Reply 202 of 213
    Wasn't really looking for agreement or disagreement, what I said is fact-based.

    If it floats your boat to use the word "own" have at it. but you won't be able to have an interchange with someone who understands copyright law and how it relates to digital media. I will repeat: you do not "own" your iTunes digital media in any operative sense of the word. If you owned it, you could sell it. But you don't so you can't.

    The keywords to look for are copyright (year) (owner ) All Rights Reserved on the content or click through to get it. That is all that's needed to invoke the entire copyright law.
  • Reply 203 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post



    Wasn't really looking for agreement or disagreement, what I said is fact-based.

    If it floats your boat to use the word "own" have at it. but you won't be able to have an interchange with someone who understands copyright law and how it relates to digital media. I will repeat: you do not "own" your iTunes digital media in any operative sense of the word. If you owned it, you could sell it. But you don't so you can't.

    The keywords to look for are copyright (year) (owner ) All Rights Reserved on the content or click through to get it. That is all that's needed to invoke the entire copyright law.


     


    Interesting. So in your opinion if I was to take a look at a song in my iTunes collection (get info), and I saw the following in the summary, what would the significance be?


     


    ? 2004 Motown Records, A Division of UMG Recordings, Inc.


     


    Now can I sell it?

  • Reply 204 of 213
    Not opinion but basic copyright law and practice. This is copyrighted content, that is what the copyright symbol and words mean.

    Correction/amplification: one no longer needs to say "All Rights Reserved", and also the absence of a copyright notice does not mean the work is not copyrighted.

    Why would you say "Now can I can sell it"? I have said several times already, no you can't. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to copy, distribute, retransmit, and publicly perform and display the work. Distribute meaning sale, rental, etc.

    There does not need to be a separate terms and conditions document spelling this out. The simple presence of the copyright notice is sufficient,

    There are exceptions such as the first sale doctrine but we've already discussed that.

    This is all very basic description of the copyright laws, not an opinion. And it's been this way for a long time.

    I admit that many people are surprised when they hear this, but many people are surprised about many things in the law. I can't help that.
  • Reply 205 of 213
    cilgcilg Posts: 18member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MyDogHasFleas View Post



    Not opinion but basic copyright law and practice. This is copyrighted content, that is what the copyright symbol and words mean.

    Correction/amplification: one no longer needs to say "All Rights Reserved", and also the absence of a copyright notice does not mean the work is not copyrighted.

    Why would you say "Now can I can sell it"? I have said several times already, no you can't. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to copy, distribute, retransmit, and publicly perform and display the work. Distribute meaning sale, rental, etc.

    There does not need to be a separate terms and conditions document spelling this out. The simple presence of the copyright notice is sufficient,

    There are exceptions such as the first sale doctrine but we've already discussed that.

    This is all very basic description of the copyright laws, not an opinion. And it's been this way for a long time.

    I admit that many people are surprised when they hear this, but many people are surprised about many things in the law. I can't help that.


     


    Thanks.

  • Reply 206 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonimo View Post



    Itunes s**ks... buy CDs instead.


    Burn a cd(s) of the songs and there you go.  The cds are mp3 and no DRM.  PERIOD.


     


    NOT AN ISSUE.

  • Reply 207 of 213


    Originally Posted by eldernorm View Post

    Burn a cd(s) of the songs and there you go.  The cds are mp3 and no DRM.  PERIOD.


     


    Well, CDs are digital lossless. 

  • Reply 208 of 213

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Well, CDs are digital lossless. 



     

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

    Yep.  This is why I tend to buy CDs myself instead of digital downloads, even if they are DRM free.  (a) you get full fidelity audio on the CD.  (b) you get the right to sell/give away the CD.  


     


    This is probably an obvious point:  just because a digital download is DRM free does not mean it's legal to copy/distribute it.  The technical means used (or not used) to limit copying/distribution, and the copyright law, are two different things.  In fact, the copyright law makes no reference to technical means of copy protection.  DRM vs. non-DRM is a whole different thing from the copyright law.  


     


    I hate analogies but here you go:  just because your door doesn't have a lock on it, doesn't mean it's legal for someone to enter your house without your permission.  


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

     
  • Reply 209 of 213


    Copyright law has always allowed people to resell used books and records. There is no authority that copyright law prohibits you from treating your digital media in the same way that you treat non-digital media. So sell your digital copy, then delete the copy left over. This wasn't an issue with previous technology but now it is because it's so easy to make copies. The problem is with technology that threatens some people's business models. This is not a reason to deny people the basic right to dispose of personal property as they see fit, and to resell digital copies they bought. 

  • Reply 210 of 213



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
    I have no problem with your having your opinion about things, but the facts are that the copyright law specifically reserves the right to resell or otherwise transfer copyrighted materials for the copyright owners.  I listed the basic copyright law rights that are reserved for the copyright holder in a previous post, and this was one of them.


     


    In the USA, there are exceptions carved out of this overall rights reservation, but you have to understand, those are specific exceptions with specific conditions attached to them.  The copyright law does not have to "prohibit you from treating your digital media in the same way you treat non-digital media".  The overall copyright law prohibits you from ANY resale, transfer, rental, etc. of copyrighted material.  Then, the First Sale doctrine comes along and says that the physical object you purchased may be resold -- a book, a CD, a painting.  But that's all.  Digital media is not included in that exception.  And that exception does not cover anything but transfer of the physical object, for example, making a copy of a physical object's contents (e.g. reprinting the painting, ripping the CD, making a photocopy of the book) is not an exception.  (That said, ripping CDs for personal use has actually been declared legal by some recent cases, which is why a product like iTunes allows you to do it.)


     


    BTW Fair Use is another exception that's widely misunderstood, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.


     


    That said, there is an active court case scheduled to go to trial next month (I referred to it in an earlier post) to see if resale of digital media passes a court test, if done under controlled conditions by a third party.  That decision will be interesting.  But for now, it's the way I said it is.  


     


     


     
  • Reply 211 of 213
    Media_EqualityMedia_Equality Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    It depends.
  • Reply 212 of 213
    It's actually simple. - Music, digital or other forms of recording[s], are actually a "service" and not a "product". - There is also an ongoing debate trying to figure this all out. - I compare it to a library book! ...The library owns it - you rent it, but you can't allow a friend to read it? ....Of course you can - the same with loaning out a CD. - but it's the "Cash-4-Profit", as I call it, people that these terms have been created for. ,,,,Many will jump up up and say I am wrong (( and Todd Rundgren )), but think about it. ...When you go to a concert, do you 'witness and hear' a 'product or a service'?¿ .....Recording a concert ((Video & Audio)) is a 'no go' unless you're like me and simply go ask the performer or their manager, and they will'll allow you 3 or 4 songs but 'not' the entire concert. .....I have worked with CBS, ABC, NBC, ESPN 1&2, TNT etc., so I know a tad about how to go about it, i.e. Wearing your lanyard around your neck with your I.D. helps, so they know you are not a 'bootlegger'. ....Even without one, just go about it truthfully and go to the compound area where the talent - roadies - event manger, etc. all park their rigs, and just ask for directions to the head-honcho. ....They simply do not want their concert being uploaded on YouTube 3 hours after the concert - and of course don't want too see the entire concert selling on eBay!

    Just photography? ...No problem, especially when you tell them you yourself will use some to promo their great concert AND you will send them some of your best shots so they may use them if they wish - they love a free photographer and exposure. ....It's not rocket surgery. 


    edited September 2017
  • Reply 213 of 213
    ^^^  :(

    This is a 2012 thread! Threads 4 years or older should be locked.
    edited September 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.