And if you read the terms you are buying a license for YOUR use. When you die, the deal is over.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bruce Willis Considering Lawsuit Against Apple Over iTunes Store Music Transferability [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And if you read the terms you are buying a license for YOUR use. When you die, the deal is over.
Well this is why I still buy CDs. Better sound quality & packaging, I can load them on any computer I want and I can give my psychical and digital collection to my son when I kick. Also the prices are not far different between the two formats and frequently the same these days.
1. Because we all don't have enough pass codes to worry about. Now when the kids have kids, those kids get more pass codes and so on down the road. He wants to make it easy and legal.
2. again he wants to make it easy and legal
3. yea because I have time to do that with my library for my daughter.
4. I'm no where rich, why should I have to re-buy everything again for my kids, or anyone has to do the same? (Now the record companies would LOVE this idea for sure)
If people only want a couple of songs, or would rather have the convenience to download music on-the-fly vs. a physical CD that has to be bought/delivered/ripped/loaded to an iPod/iPhone/iPad/etc. then why not? The world is full of people who could care less about 256kbps vs. lossless...
Or were you advocating piracy?
I think is not worth. When you buy it it says none-tranferreble. So is not. Is not like a physicial things like a house or so. This is virtual, and that's why costs 99cnt. a song.
Feel free to purchase a CD then and transmit it to the children.
Now I am guessing how many people has bought a cassette and afterwards bought the same in CD or digital. MANY. Because a cassette can be lost, broken or whatever.
Feel free to purchase a CD then and transmit it to the children.
Now I am guessing how many people has bought a cassette and afterwards bought the same in CD or digital. MANY. Because a cassette can be lost, broken or whatever.
Personally, I don't want to physically own my music, it sucks having to lug it around everywhere, store it, etc. I gladly accept the offer where I can access my music anywhere (re-download) in exchange of not "owning it". As long as they guarantee that I can re-download the music after I purchase it - for my lifetime, I'm good. As for people related to me that live after I'm dead, hey, buy your own music (they probably wouldn't like mine anyway 
.
.
$25 makes anyone's iTunes music collection your own. So for less than a lawyer's fee, you can will someone your music collection.
That's not what people expect, and trying to fight against people's common sense is a very hard proposition. People expect to own what they buy, and to them buying a song through iTunes it means that they have... bought it. Even Steve Jobs stated clearly that "People want to own their music" when he discarded the subscription model.
You could say "tough luck for you all not understanding the ToS", well you will get a "f. you, I'll get my music back from piracy" as answer. So the music labels might win some sales from people simply buying again stuff, but will lose much more from people suddenly finding piracy perfectly acceptable.
Like they don't have already huge issues in trying to convince people otherwise...
Populist drivel. What artist or label is going to make music available to you if there is no money to made in the process? Take it up with the rights holders (musicians, labels, etc.), not Apple.
Notice that he doesn't standup for your "rights" to transfer movie rights. Isn't it always easier when we're talking about someone else's money?
There are three possible answers about transferability.
(1) No transferability at all. This would suck. I hope there's a better answer.
(2) You can transfer the library to one other person. For music (assuming it's all been upgraded to DRM free) they just have to say that's OK, for stuff with DRM (movies and eBooks) you'd need the ability to merge the transferred stuff into your account. This is probably the fairest solution, Apple would have to support the merging (something they should do now for other problems that have popped up with account IDs) but I think it would be a user friendly solution.
(3) You can split up your library to multiple accounts, give these items to one person, these items to another person. There's nothing unfair about this, it would match the physical equivalent of "splitting up the CDs" but would be non-trivial to add a system for "split my account".
(4) You can give your library in full to multiple accounts. The content owners would not be cool with that, because it's creating multiple copies of the content to give to others. Now, for DRM free content like music, you probably can get away with it and nobody will know or even care all that much (so long as you're sharing it with a couple family members as opposed to a few million of your closest friends over bittorent), but no way it'll ever be legal or approved by the content owners.
I'd love to ask Bruce Willis which he thinks he's asking for, 3 or 4. Again, letting the kids go through his music collection, split it up would be one thing. But I suspect his thought is "I want to give them all my music library".
(1) No transferability at all. This would suck. I hope there's a better answer.
(2) You can transfer the library to one other person. For music (assuming it's all been upgraded to DRM free) they just have to say that's OK, for stuff with DRM (movies and eBooks) you'd need the ability to merge the transferred stuff into your account. This is probably the fairest solution, Apple would have to support the merging (something they should do now for other problems that have popped up with account IDs) but I think it would be a user friendly solution.
(3) You can split up your library to multiple accounts, give these items to one person, these items to another person. There's nothing unfair about this, it would match the physical equivalent of "splitting up the CDs" but would be non-trivial to add a system for "split my account".
(4) You can give your library in full to multiple accounts. The content owners would not be cool with that, because it's creating multiple copies of the content to give to others. Now, for DRM free content like music, you probably can get away with it and nobody will know or even care all that much (so long as you're sharing it with a couple family members as opposed to a few million of your closest friends over bittorent), but no way it'll ever be legal or approved by the content owners.
I'd love to ask Bruce Willis which he thinks he's asking for, 3 or 4. Again, letting the kids go through his music collection, split it up would be one thing. But I suspect his thought is "I want to give them all my music library".
Well, when I buy music, I want all of the songs on the album, especially if it's Pink Floyd
Also, the iTunes Store sells lossy-compressed music. C'mon, give us ALAC!
Naturally, on some indie albums, and most older stuff, the entire album is great, but most new music is crap, and most albums are a single with five filler tracks on either side. It's a reverse poop sandwich. I actually have all my old pink floyd, jethro tull, etc on vinyl!
There is only one word that defines this behavior of the music industry: theft. Besides this one:
The Mickey Mouse law ("The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") is not fair:
Copyright Term Extension Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
The copyright should be void no longer than 20 years, at most, after publication, like patents (not never, like now).
The Mickey Mouse law ("The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") is not fair:
Copyright Term Extension Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
The copyright should be void no longer than 20 years, at most, after publication, like patents (not never, like now).
When I buy music on iTunes, I just see this big "Buy" button. Look up "First Sale Doctrine". I don't see any way how you can prevent anyone who _bought_ something to sell it on. (Of course the seller may not keep any copies, the buyer is bound by the same license terms etc. ).
To all the shortsighted on this web blog, when you purchase a song on iTunes, you are choosing to purchase out of convenience and Apple and the record labels have a VERY low distribution cost. We should still own the songs we purchase!
I have over 300 physical movies that I can leave to my family when I die. I have over 15,000 songs, many from CDs I have purchased that I want to leave to my family when I die. I want my children to know what I liked..
I think Bruce Willis should sue and hope he does as he will completely destroy the record labels in this regard. Apple doesn't care if we transfer the music because you will give up your right to the music posthumously. So please, sue Apple...
Sue them!
"Musiclaundering" songs you don't have a license for doesn't make one less a pirate, it simply offers an easy and quick way to get away with it. Once you introduce piracy into the equation basically there is no discussion, you can simply download what you want.
Absolutely. I continue to buy CDS as well. Built-in back-up. Although I think leaving your children your music is a little bit silly. I mean' c'mon, how much of your parents music did you listen to when you were a kid?
The underlying problem is more complex than just iTunes music. It also app,ie many other platforms like steam.
You are not any longer able to sell your used products. Companies generate more profit because they eliminate the used-software used-CDs etc. market.
IMO this is wrong and I'm waiting for a law that forces steam apple etc. to enable customers to sell or gift their apps.
Bye darky
You are not any longer able to sell your used products. Companies generate more profit because they eliminate the used-software used-CDs etc. market.
IMO this is wrong and I'm waiting for a law that forces steam apple etc. to enable customers to sell or gift their apps.
Bye darky