I agree, they are SO helpless and ..... 'like...... OH MY GOD!! Whateverrrrr............ hehehe. They will have zero $$$, poor thing. Get them to BUY THE FREAKING songs and quit this baby crap, Mr. Action Hero.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bruce Willis Considering Lawsuit Against Apple Over iTunes Store Music Transferability [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, they are SO helpless and ..... 'like...... OH MY GOD!! Whateverrrrr............ hehehe. They will have zero $$$, poor thing. Get them to BUY THE FREAKING songs and quit this baby crap, Mr. Action Hero.Yep this is true.
Makes me remember about dance lessons I used to do.
The instructor would play songs (from his iPod hooked into an amp / speakers)... Hmmm, did he have a licence for that...?
There were usually around 30 of us during those lessons.
In all honesty I don't have that much ire against Apple.
I simply LOVE their products right down to the professional packaging.
I own 2 MacBook Airs, an iPad and an iPhone so yes, I do love their products.
It's their somewhat crazy (nonsensical) attitude towards certain things like apps and licensing that bewilders me.
But back to those music publishers, do they realise that pretty much every song out there is actually on YouTube??
Simply grab a YouTube downloader AND armed with downloader converter software you can save the file as MP4 or MP3 or anything you like, then just shove it on your iDevice, easy as.
I do a lot of texting on my iPhone and BiteSMS has the ability to hide the touch keypad by simply touching the display. The standard iPhone message app requires you to navigate out of the message then back in again in order to have the keypad disappear. I love this feature (along with a few others) of BiteSMS. Why this app is not in the Apple Appstore I have no idea.
So what I'm trying to say here is, there are some decent Cydia apps that force iDevice users to JB their iDevice simply because we are all individuals and have our own taste on things. If Apple are worried about the JB community then they seriously need to look at those most popular Cydia apps and see if they can implement them into the iOS. I for one would probably not JB if they had BiteSMS on their Appstore.
Err... the story is false. You'd know that if you actually read the full article.
Clearly you don't understand how online marketing agreements work. The rights owners (for the sake of argument, the music labels) agree for Apple (or whatever other online reseller) to market their products under a certain set of conditions. The reseller is required to pass those conditions on to the buyers. Do you not think that it would be more profitable for Apple to sell music to buyers with no strings attached? After all, conditions restrict what a buyer can do with a song they "purchase", so it reduces the value of the purchase to them. The restrictions are imposed, at least in the United States, by the music labels (in some other countries, such as Canada, it is even more complicated, as different aspects of a recorded song have different rights holders).
BTW, even if you purchase a physical CD, you still cannot do what you want with it. You can make a digital copy for your own use, but you cannot legally sell or give that copy to someone else, nor can you legally give the original to someone else unless you erase all copies you have made. And as tron2005 said, you cannot use the recorded music for any activity intended to generate a profit without obtaining a license from the rights holders.
I'm afraid your ire, while possibly justified, is certainly misdirected.
Even if this story was true (it is not), who exactly are you defending here? Poor Apple corporation? Well, they are much more wealthy than Mr. Willis. They would definitely be just fine even if Mr. Willis' daughters did not re-purchase all the songs that their farther already bought.
Most licensing is licensing other people's stuff. I am certain Apple would be happier if there was no DRM and really open licensing, they did push for DRM-free music early, but the movie makers and eBook publishers still insist.
Apps are different, they could have imposed other instructions. But back in the Newton days, there was one rule above all other rules: Thou shall not crash the device or make it lock up. For better or worse, computer users have come to accept that sometimes stuff happens and the computer locks up (less so now but still not uncommon). The Newton was an Appliance, different expectations. From all I've seen the iOS team has adopted the same standard.
Apple has done their best to make the licensing loose, install media on multiple computers and devices, buy app once use on all, redownload at will. That does cause a problem with transferral, incidentally.
Yes, you can transfer a CD by just giving them the disk. But you can only play that CD in one player. More importantly, if you accidentally step on the CD and break it, that's it, it's done with. With easy downloading and such, the process of transferring a digital product requires involving Apple (or Amazon or Google or MS) so the new user can redownload (and you can't). Not an overwhelming burden, but does highlight a difference.
I think it would be right and appropriate to have a way to transfer one accounts assets to another, merging them. I hope it happens. Transferring part of the library would be nice, but I am not going to say that's something Apple or the others should be required to implement. I'd also say that the lack of that transferability is a legitimate issue to consider when choosing between physical or digital purposes. It's not something I particularly care about so don't put much weight on it, others may make another call.
They do know and care, they're trying to get those apps banned like other forms of piracy. And yes, it is piracy, no cleaner or more legal than launching a BitTorrent program to download it.
I don't have an iPhone, do have an iPad, no idea why that one is banned. I don't think Apple is all that concerned about Jailbreaking except (a) the same holes used to jailbreak could be used by malware and (b) Jailbreaking for piracy hurts their developer community.
Apple's app system is a juggling act, trying to meet the needs of users (let us do cool stuff without causing results I don't want like my phone locking up), the carriers (the software goes over their networks and they have certain demands) and the law. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they get it right but people think they got it wrong. Jailbreaking your phone lets Apple wipe their hands of it all.
Bruce Willis is right, if I buy a CD it's a product that I can give away freely to whomever I choose. There is no difference with 'buying' tracks online. You should be able to give it away. If that's not possible then a CD has way more value and is even cheaper then buying iTunes songs online.
If a parent dies and his children inherit his digital music collection, will they fight over the individual tracks? Obviously, if you give the same track to more than one heir, the CD analogy breaks down, and copying the track is clearly illegal.
It would be a case worthy of Solomon:
Perhaps in case of a conflict, if it's a 128-bit track, the track can be resampled at a lower quality, and each heir can receive one of the the lower-quality copies. If four heirs want the track, each receives one-quarter of the bits in the form of a 32-bit track. One of them might later pass on 16-bit copies of his inheritance to his two children.
It would be a case worthy of Solomon:
Perhaps in case of a conflict, if it's a 128-bit track, the track can be resampled at a lower quality, and each heir can receive one of the the lower-quality copies. If four heirs want the track, each receives one-quarter of the bits in the form of a 32-bit track. One of them might later pass on 16-bit copies of his inheritance to his two children.
We get the software principle of "ownership" because the vendors, by and large, when they upgrade their product ask that we pay a smaller price to get the revised version, not the full price all over again (save for the major rewrites).
The music and film companies however expect us to pay the full damn price each and every time for their Special, Limited, Remastered and Director's-Cut editions (even though anything up to 95 percent of the content is identical) but they still point to the software model when it suits them. If they could make their minds up on what kind of model they wish to pursue, we might be able to see it their way too. I've spent more on Bladerunner versions than the film cost to make!
The music and film companies however expect us to pay the full damn price each and every time for their Special, Limited, Remastered and Director's-Cut editions (even though anything up to 95 percent of the content is identical) but they still point to the software model when it suits them. If they could make their minds up on what kind of model they wish to pursue, we might be able to see it their way too. I've spent more on Bladerunner versions than the film cost to make!
You'd have to make sure they get different bits. You can't just downsample to half bit range and give them that version twice. You'd still be infringing the copyright only half much but still. You'd have split say left track/right track. Only surrounds track could be split further for more siblings, they might need to fight over the sub woofer.
Ah, I see what happened here. My point was that any recent purchase can be transferred, contrary to what a lot of people had been saying. I used the older, protected song as a comparison to the way it used to be. However, I can see that the way that I worded that post it might not have come across that way.
Of course, the other alternative, incidentally, to authorizing her computer is to upgrade the remaining protected songs on my computer to the newer, unprotected versions ($0.30 each, if I recall). Then I can transfer them to her computer willy-nilly without needing to have her computer as one of my five.
You can upgrade to non-DRM itunes+ by subscribing to iTunes Match for one year. Much cheaper if you have over 100 tracks.
Shame it wasn't Chuck Norris, they would have handed the company over if he was threatening to sue.
If you look at the trolls, they are overtaken by a company that is a proven copycat, price fixer (three convictions in 2012 already), with a track record of abusing workers in China (but unlike Apple, who finds underage employees before the press does, Samsung finds "no evidence"), that happens to be big in ship building, construction, and weapon manufacturing as well.
so, it seems to be untrue....
I feel sooooooooo silly now I was supporting Bruce in this, stating that when you've bought a product you should be able to pass it on like you can do when buying a CD.....
Now it seems al to be fake.... yes, I'm blond....
I feel sooooooooo silly now
I was supporting Bruce in this, stating that when you've bought a product you should be able to pass it on like you can do when buying a CD.....Now it seems al to be fake.... yes, I'm blond....
Sounds like an awesome new feature. "Gift a Song".
Where you purchase a track or album and gift it to your friend our family
I'd love not to give a voucher but an actual album to someone for his birthday!
Additionally in your privacy settings of icloud (matched to your purchased library) you could setup what happens the day you die. With legal proof, your pictures could be released or concieled, your mail address auto- forwarded or memorialized, and your purchased items could be transfered to a relative you setup.
Where you purchase a track or album and gift it to your friend our family
I'd love not to give a voucher but an actual album to someone for his birthday!
Additionally in your privacy settings of icloud (matched to your purchased library) you could setup what happens the day you die. With legal proof, your pictures could be released or concieled, your mail address auto- forwarded or memorialized, and your purchased items could be transfered to a relative you setup.
I think you're being argumentative for the sake of argument.
It's simple. If you pay for something, you own it.
No - I cant play it (a CD) in a pub, but I can play it on any any device I have in my own privacy. I can play in in my lounge room, in my bedroom, in the bath, out in the shed. In the garage. I can even have a party and play it at loud volume. next you're going to tell me that people over next door better not listen because they'll (or I'll) be in violation of copyright.
Furthermore (with my CD) I can sell it on ebay. I can give it to my kid. I can give it to charity. I can leave it in my will. I can give to to Bruce Willis.
This is the point that I and many others are making here. Something went insane when things went digital.
Let's end this.
.
Ok I agree with what Bruce is doing, and understand now most of you know there is no technical reason to prevent just copying DRM-free itunes music anywhere (there are tags that indicate who bought the song and when but that is easily removed). However, as others have pointed out-the real baddies are the music industry-and Amazon have similar TOS for their MP3 store as well. We have to force the entire industry to change or it's a useless effort. I'm not defending Apple I'm jsut saying broaden your attack, just like with the whole Foxconn thing.
Ok I misunderstood, but there were a lot of posts, and even an (old) xkcd cartoon implying iTunes music was DRM protected and you know this is true review some of the posts! I agree with you on the larger issu but fell pretty pissed now-shame on Macrumours for posting this rubbish story from crap sources. Still at least issue is out there.
Nobody's talking about uploading the song anywhere. I'm talking about being able to give away or sell a CD for example if I wanted to.
If you purchased it, you should be able to - as the article originally said - leave it to your next of kin. I'm talking about using the CD in any way I want for private purposes.
Have a look on ebay - many people are legally selling DVDs and CDs.
Are you saying that they are breaking the law??
I'm sure the record industry would have loved to have the technology to make a vinyl album or a CD only play on one turntable or CD player. To suggest that's reasonable is insanity. So why should that be OK for digital media?
Pfft! If you own windows and your old computer is trashed, of course you can re-install Windows, Word, whatever.
Can you install it on 1000 computers? Only if you are licensed to do so.
You know this and you're just making silly argument.
