Bruce Willis Considering Lawsuit Against Apple Over iTunes Store Music Transferability [Updated]

[Snowy_River]

If anything comes up under "purchased songs", that's because it contains your iTunes user ID. Interestingly, my iTunes user ID is also my email address, and some company that I purchase eBooks from also uses my email address to identify me - and all these eBooks turn up under "purchased" in my iTunes library automatically!

Yes, the user ID is there. A good programmer could easily write a program that goes through your iTunes library, wipes out all the user IDs, and it still works. Or could turn all your songs into "purchased songs". There were also stories, mostly out of paranoia, that Apple put some secret watermarks into iTunes songs. Fact is that the Quicktime standard says that every quicktime file contains the date when it is created, and that date is the date when you downloaded the music. Again, it could be easily wiped out (would be better to replace it with a fixed date, like Jan 1st 2000 or something like that).

Ah. Yes, what I thought people were talking about was the idea that the songs were watermarked, not that they had a metatag with the account name. Metatags are so trivial to change, I hardly see this as an issue. If you don't like having the metatag there, it's simple to remove it.

However, someone else did say, earlier in this thread, that they tried to transfer a non-DRMed song from iTunes to another computer and it asked for his iTunes password to be able to play it.

 

[GadgetDon]

I'm with you on this. One day I was getting ready for work I downloaded the new In This Moment, put it on my iPod and I had it on the way to work.

There are advantages and disadvantages to physical, there are advantages and disadvantages to digital. I will say that Apple has done a pretty good job of reducing the disadvantages to digital (free re-downloads of most movies and tv shows as well as music). And it would be in character if I read someday that Apple was providing a new service where you could transfer your iTunes purchases to a different account (tricky part will be twisting the arms of the content owners to make it happen). No, not because Apple is sweet and wonderful and loves us, but because they'd like us to keep buying iPods and iPhones and using iTunes. And also - they like elegant systems, and that would be elegant.

 

[Nebulance]

Criminals often try to justify their crimes, but they're still breaking the law. You're not Robin Hood.

I'm not claiming to be robin hood. That doesn't make sense here. In fact I've spent a massive amount of money on music in the past 10 years that would not have occurred without Napster. The amount of music I own on CD and vinyl has skyrocketed over time.

So you're a saint who's never downloaded a song illegally? I'm impressed. Even if I don't believe you.

 

[John.B]

What I also don`t understand is why you cite a copyright? Who said he wants his kids to be able to copy his music? The problem is transferability as stated in the title.
It seems that you are confusing "transfering" of music with "pirating" of music.

You said we have a judiciary system to challenge the status quo:

How can you not acknowledge that this is a good thing? We have judiciaty system to challenge the status quo, which in this case was mainly determined by the music industry. Now the court has to find out whether the people or the music industry are right. Again whats wrong about this?

The point I was making was that intellectual property law was enshrined in the core document in the US Constitution 225 years ago. The concept of licensed use of music, movies, etc. has pretty much been settled law for decades. What "challenge" do you think will take that down?

 

[Weaselboy]

Well... that was a wasted morning.

 

[sshhoott]

Now, the Macrumors "news", I read them backwards. I find it's less regretting.

 

[John.B]

You seem to happily ignore that CDs, DVDs etc with the same content are inherited by kids too. Just because the industry says it is illegal does not mean that this will stand up in court.

What I also don`t understand is why you cite a copyright? Who said he wants his kids to be able to copy his music? The problem is transferability as stated in the title.
It seems that you are confusing "transfering" of music with "pirating" of music.

You can inherit a CD or DVD because it's a physical object.

You can't inherit the license to someone's iTunes account content, because the license (which the RIAA wrote and the user agreed to) itself specifically draws the distinction that it isn't transferable.

Does that mean you can't inherit the AAC/MP3 files themselves? That seems to be the only outstanding question. I would guess (and it's just a guess) that the AAC/MP3 files from iTunes/Amazon could not be inherited because the licenses are void once the license holder is deceased, and AAC/MP3 files ripped from CDs would go with the owner of the physical media.

The pirating discussion was for 303aegiszx who let the world know in post #213 that he doesn't buy anything from iTunes (or anywhere else), in favor of torrenting content.

 

[gnasher729]

However, someone else did say, earlier in this thread, that they tried to transfer a non-DRMed song from iTunes to another computer and it asked for his iTunes password to be able to play it.

I think someone posted that they had six songs left with DRM, and one of those asked for the iTunes password.

Well, looks the the whole thing was untrue. Back to the usual iPhone rumors.

Very little in this discussion was really about Bruce Willis.

 

[m00min]

This is why I will only buy downloadable content that I can strip the DRM out of or de-tag. I don't buy music from Apple because the format isn't convenient for me but I do buy music and ebooks from Amazon. The first thing I do is strip the DRM and convert the file to something I can read on my current reader. Yes, I could go to the Sony book store and buy an ePub but that assumes I'll stick with that hardware. Next time I might buy a kindle, I don't want to be locked out of content I've payed for.

I'm sure the license prohibits what I'm doing but the thing is I DON'T CARE. I'm not redistributing the content, I will use the content that I've payed for on the device I want, I will not be dictated to.

Seriously, it's the equivalent of buying a fridge and then being told by the manufacturer that you can't use it to store milk.

 

[Shrink]

Tweet from Willis' wife:

"Update: According to a tweet from Willis' wife, the story is untrue."

Untrue!!??

But it was reported in The Sun and the Daily Mail, bastions of truth and accuracy.

I'm devastated!

And MR put it on the front page.

Oh, dear...what can I believe now. My trust is destroyed...

 

[i.mac]

I really want to become an Apple fundamentalist. Please let me know how to.
Should I start hating Bruce Willis now?

Nope. To hate any one that does not agree with you would make you a tea.party member. If you hate but lie about it, well, that would make you a GOP member.

 

[farmboy]

You're right. He should get a job, instead of protecting your rights to own music.

You don't own the music; you license it according to the terms and conditions (whether you read them or not).

 

[GadgetDon]

The point is, if someone has physical media that they have paid the same price for as you with your poorer quality (audio or visual) copy that's inly rental you are limited.

Why limit yourself with a product, when you can just wait say 2 days and have a physical version of a higher quality that is yours to do as you like with?

Is the quality in theory poorer quality? The audiophiles and the videophiles and the guys who look at things technically say yes - CD is better than m4p, blu-ray is better than video downloads.

On my definitely not audiophile or videophile equipment, enjoying it with my definitely not audiophile ears or videophile eyes, plenty good to me.

Higher price? Well, let's look at a movie just released, Hunger Games (not a bad movie, for those who care about my opinion. $22.96 Blu-ray cost on Amazon, $19.99 HD download from iTunes store. New album, Eyes On It from Toby Mac (no clue at all how good that is, my listening habits rarely go past 1980), Amazon CD is 11.88 regular 13.99 deluxe, 12.99 iTunes LP. For all practical purposes, it's a wash. Yes, there are bargain bins and special sales (and I do take advantage of them) but I'm talking "get the new thing"

And let me put my thumb on the scale a bit with some digital content that you may consider cheating: TV shows, you can get most episodes the day after, on DVD it's some time after the season ends. eBooks - hard to convert a physical book to an eBook. And Audiobooks - subscribe to audible.com and it usually blows away the price for audiobook CDs (plus they're one, sometimes two or three files you download, as opposed to lots of pieces.)

Do as I like - well, what I like to do is listen to the audio on my computer or my iPod or my iPad, and watch the videos on my TV. With my Apple TV, I can do that easily. With a couple TVs each with an AppleTV, each can be watching different video. Now yes, that limits me to Apple products - movies only on AppleTV, not on a Roku box. And in fact there is a minor annoyance I deal with - you can't play audible.com audiobooks on and AppleTV. That's a real disadvantage for some. It isn't for me, because I love my AppleTV, but if you have another box, you should look elsewhere.

Finally, rental. Well, I rent my Mountain Dew too, but I enjoy that. More seriously, while the definition of ownership is a little loose on this, I get most of the advantages of ownership - I can listen to things as often as I want, over whatever time period I want, without giving another dime to Apple. (I instead give many dimes to Apple for new stuff.) I've got a copy of The Incredibles that I bought in 2006 , watched it 9 times so far, and if I say two years from now "Hey, I'm in the mood for the Incredibles" I'll presumably be able to watch it (unless Apple goes bankrupt which right now I'm putting in the highly unlikely category). No, I can't say "I'll never watch the Incredibles, hey George, I'm giving it to you" - but I can't think of a time I ever gave away a DVD I bought to watch myself.

For my situation, my values, what I enjoy, the digital purchases are what fill my needs best. With things Apple has done in the past couple of years, allowing redownloads and such, it meets them even better. There are areas that Apple could do better and I'd like to see it happen (some way to transfer) but they don't change the final scoresheet for me.

For you, it may be completely different. You may have a more varied set of hardware than I do, that'll change things. You may have a far higher standard for audio or video, that'll change things. You may value the ability to transfer more than I do, that'll change things. I'm not saying that digital purchase are the right ones for you. I'm just saying that, rationally considering my life and what I like, digital purchases really are the better choice for me.

 

[linkgx1]

1 Billion Dolla for Bruce Willis please!

 

[farmboy]

Right. I "bought" music, but don't have rights to the music because of legalese that iTunes employs to prohibit my use of what I should own. That is more than a bunch of 0's and 1's, its BS.

You bought a limited license to the music, to be used according to the terms and conditions. It's not complicated.

 

[thasan]

You bought a limited license to the music, to be used according to the terms and conditions. It's not complicated.

Exactly, I second that.
But the story is a hoax anyway

 

[larrylaffer]

It's interesting to me that so many of you were unaware that iTunes Store music has been DRM-free for years now. It just goes to show that most of the whining about terms and conditions aren't quite as doom-and-gloom as people make them out to be.

Also, while Apple is partially to blame for the iTunes T&C, I think it's fair to assume that the record companies are responsible for driving the terms to say that you can't transfer ownership. Honestly, do you think Apple cares at all about this?

 

[faroZ06]

Update: According to a tweet from Willis' wife, the story is untrue.

Wow -_-

----------

It's interesting to me that so many of you were unaware that iTunes Store music has been DRM-free for years now. It just goes to show that most of the whining about terms and conditions aren't quite as doom-and-gloom as people make them out to be.

Also, while Apple is partially to blame for the iTunes T&C, I think it's fair to assume that the record companies are responsible for driving the terms to say that you can't transfer ownership. Honestly, do you think Apple cares at all about this?

Yes. Apple gets money from you buying music from their store.

 

[GadgetDon]

Yes. Apple gets money from you buying music from their store.

Yes, Apple makes a little money from you buying music from their store. Apple makes lots of money from selling hardware.

So yes, Apple would be perfectly happy with Bruce Willis's kids buying iPods and iPhones to listen to the music and then the kids' kids buying iPods and iPhones and then the kids' kids' kids buying iPods and iPhones all to listen to the music that great grandpa Willis bought.

 

[Glideslope]

I really want to become an Apple fundamentalist. Please let me know how to.
Should I start hating Bruce Willis now?

Too late. You should have started after Die Hard 13. If you've seen his current movie releases one can easily understand the need for alternative public attention.

 

[Rogifan]

320 comments on a story that's been denied.

 

[ericinboston]

I think he is DAMN right! If you can leave your CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, books to your family when you die, you should be able to leave digital contents too!

Although I am late to this thread, this is one of the BIGGEST reasons why many people (like me) fully doubt all this cloud/service offerings. Other reasons are if the company goes out of business or is purchased, or if all the "content" suddenly disappears due to whatever reason you want to state.

When folks die, they leave money and goods to their relatives. Quite often there are tons of books/music/recordings. I have thousands of cds and hundreds of dvds/blurarys...those can be left to whoever I wish. Same thing with my checking/savings/money accounts. But the whole realm of cloud/service-based media/movies/music doesn't state one way or another, in plain English, that the "ownership" can be "transferred" without any fee to next of kin.

When that day comes, I will start "purchasing" online/cloud content. I am proud and honored to allow my kids the ability to obtain all the media I've purchased and accumulated over my lifetime...especially as a music collector.

 

[gkarris]

At least it's not Chuck Norris....

 

[lostngone]

Stop whining!

Stop waiting for something to be done for you and do it yourself.

I hear a bunch of whining and complaining but I see no action.

If half the people complaining in this thread alone got together and actually did something(other then complain) you actually would have a pretty good chance of taking it to court and maybe force the labels to change the rules.

 

[Primejimbo]

The point is, if someone has physical media that they have paid the same price for as you with your poorer quality (audio or visual) copy that's inly rental you are limited.

Why limit yourself with a product, when you can just wait say 2 days and have a physical version of a higher quality that is yours to do as you like with?

I am willing to be you can't even tell the difference. I have tested this a lot of times too with people who say they can tell the difference. My favorite was playing a CD in my friends high end system (5000 plus) and he says "now isn't that a better sound than iTunes?" I ejected the CD, it was a CD-R and it was burned from songs from iTunes. He shut up.

Is the quality in theory poorer quality? The audiophiles and the videophiles and the guys who look at things technically say yes - CD is better than m4p, blu-ray is better than video downloads.

On my definitely not audiophile or videophile equipment, enjoying it with my definitely not audiophile ears or videophile eyes, plenty good to me.

Higher price? Well, let's look at a movie just released, Hunger Games (not a bad movie, for those who care about my opinion. $22.96 Blu-ray cost on Amazon, $19.99 HD download from iTunes store. New album, Eyes On It from Toby Mac (no clue at all how good that is, my listening habits rarely go past 1980), Amazon CD is 11.88 regular 13.99 deluxe, 12.99 iTunes LP. For all practical purposes, it's a wash. Yes, there are bargain bins and special sales (and I do take advantage of them) but I'm talking "get the new thing"

And let me put my thumb on the scale a bit with some digital content that you may consider cheating: TV shows, you can get most episodes the day after, on DVD it's some time after the season ends. eBooks - hard to convert a physical book to an eBook. And Audiobooks - subscribe to audible.com and it usually blows away the price for audiobook CDs (plus they're one, sometimes two or three files you download, as opposed to lots of pieces.)

Do as I like - well, what I like to do is listen to the audio on my computer or my iPod or my iPad, and watch the videos on my TV. With my Apple TV, I can do that easily. With a couple TVs each with an AppleTV, each can be watching different video. Now yes, that limits me to Apple products - movies only on AppleTV, not on a Roku box. And in fact there is a minor annoyance I deal with - you can't play audible.com audiobooks on and AppleTV. That's a real disadvantage for some. It isn't for me, because I love my AppleTV, but if you have another box, you should look elsewhere.

Finally, rental. Well, I rent my Mountain Dew too, but I enjoy that. More seriously, while the definition of ownership is a little loose on this, I get most of the advantages of ownership - I can listen to things as often as I want, over whatever time period I want, without giving another dime to Apple. (I instead give many dimes to Apple for new stuff.) I've got a copy of The Incredibles that I bought in 2006 , watched it 9 times so far, and if I say two years from now "Hey, I'm in the mood for the Incredibles" I'll presumably be able to watch it (unless Apple goes bankrupt which right now I'm putting in the highly unlikely category). No, I can't say "I'll never watch the Incredibles, hey George, I'm giving it to you" - but I can't think of a time I ever gave away a DVD I bought to watch myself.

For my situation, my values, what I enjoy, the digital purchases are what fill my needs best. With things Apple has done in the past couple of years, allowing redownloads and such, it meets them even better. There are areas that Apple could do better and I'd like to see it happen (some way to transfer) but they don't change the final scoresheet for me.

For you, it may be completely different. You may have a more varied set of hardware than I do, that'll change things. You may have a far higher standard for audio or video, that'll change things. You may value the ability to transfer more than I do, that'll change things. I'm not saying that digital purchase are the right ones for you. I'm just saying that, rationally considering my life and what I like, digital purchases really are the better choice for me.

Well put. I do agree the advantages to both digital download and physical media. I love the conveniences to the digital down load, as I have Apple TV's also and to me they outweigh the advantages to psychical media in my opinion. The debate on physical media Vs. Digital download is becoming like a debate about politics and religion....