Yeah, well buy the upgrade and suck it up as an early adaptor tax. The original 99 ct + upgrade price is not much more than what new songs cost now.
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
Thanks, I just tried it with my wifes account (Good to know her PW). Not sure how iTunes will react but the iphone accepted it. I don't know if it was a free app or a paid app though. I'll have to ask her which ones she paid for and try again tonight.
It is probably a good idea to authorise your computer running iTunes with her account as well.Thanks, I just tried it with my wife’s account (Good to know her PW). Not sure how iTunes will react but the iphone accepted it. I don't know if it was a free app or a paid app though. I'll have to ask her which ones she paid for and try again tonight.
Compact Disc
I still purchase most all music on CD's. Why?
Which is why I also purchase movies on BluRay, the evil file format that Apple still does not support. Apple claims that Sony is to blame, which is a half-truth. Apple wants us to purchase digital copies for their own reasons.
I remember once upon a time when Mac had technologies prior to PC's and normally by default. With "less expensive" PC's, one had to purchase an adapter for Ethernet, a graphics card, a sound card, a CD-ROM, etc making their computers actually more expensive, especially when you consider that you had to fight to get everything to work. This is in part why I switched over to using Mac's full-time back in 1995.
However, business models have got in the way of what's best for users. So, use a Mac and purchase products on disk if you want to pass them on, sell them, trade them, etc.
Apple will most likely win this battle, as they will claim that people are not forced to purchase music and movies from iTunes. When you purchase anything from iTunes, you are agreeing to their terms. However, users can win their own battle by purchasing media in non-digital form -- CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray.
I still purchase most all music on CD's. Why?
- Wave files are "lossless"
- Failsafe backup copy
- Can sell, trade, give to others
Which is why I also purchase movies on BluRay, the evil file format that Apple still does not support. Apple claims that Sony is to blame, which is a half-truth. Apple wants us to purchase digital copies for their own reasons.
I remember once upon a time when Mac had technologies prior to PC's and normally by default. With "less expensive" PC's, one had to purchase an adapter for Ethernet, a graphics card, a sound card, a CD-ROM, etc making their computers actually more expensive, especially when you consider that you had to fight to get everything to work. This is in part why I switched over to using Mac's full-time back in 1995.
However, business models have got in the way of what's best for users. So, use a Mac and purchase products on disk if you want to pass them on, sell them, trade them, etc.
Apple will most likely win this battle, as they will claim that people are not forced to purchase music and movies from iTunes. When you purchase anything from iTunes, you are agreeing to their terms. However, users can win their own battle by purchasing media in non-digital form -- CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray.
As memory serves, the issue with Blu-Ray was a lot of required copy protection at several levels of both hardware and software.
As for the battle - the battle I win with iTunes purchases is easy backup (backed up with the rest of the system), easy transport between devices, and the flexibility of being a file so I just scroll through the list of movies I want to watch as opposed to "where in the hell is the Stargate BluRay disk?"
Your mileage may vary. My choices and my preferences go the other way.
It's as easy as..
"Here honey, here's my username and password for iTunes. There. Now my entire iTunes collection is YOURS! "
----------
Lol. "Dick move bro. " But you're so right. The same goes with credit cards. You might not be happy that your APR went up 14%, but you did sign it without reading it. And it did clearly state on page seven, paragraph four, section twelve that it would happen.
"Here honey, here's my username and password for iTunes. There. Now my entire iTunes collection is YOURS! "
----------
Lol. "Dick move bro. " But you're so right. The same goes with credit cards. You might not be happy that your APR went up 14%, but you did sign it without reading it. And it did clearly state on page seven, paragraph four, section twelve that it would happen.
no. it is not hers.
if there ever are any issues with the account, legally she has no right to access it. If she loses the password, Apple can't reset it as she is not the owner of the account. I don't understand why people do not see the issue.
iTunes terms of service say nothing about transfer of the account. I don't see what's stopping her from changing the name and other information on the account once she has the username and password.
Go to AppleID.Apple.com and login with your AppleID to verify this information.
You can change: NAME on the account, AppleID + primary e-mail address, password/security questions, primary address and phone numbers.
lol... yep...
Guess people will go to any length to gain attention. I think it fooled all lof us, even me.... And that IS a surprise.
One of these - iOS or iTunes - is like 42 pages long now. No-one is going to read that except the lawyers that wrote it. There really needs to be a standard commercial shrink wrap license cast into the UCC, and limit modifications to one page of plain language. Otherwise they gotta negotiate a real license and both sides have to sign it.
How does Apple know who is the person behind an account and thus how would it know whether the person changed? Only via the credit card, change that to a gift card and Apple has no way of knowing whether your dog now 'owns' the account.
Apple only knows something about an account because you tell it them. The only way o reset an account is to provide them with information that you already have given them. How often do people get a password reset from Apple after they appeared with a photo ID in an Apple store?
----------
Yes, Apple does not care who you are. Internally you are just an account number. Sure, 'legally' they are not allowed to sell stuff to a dog or more relevant maybe to a non-resident, but the only way that is enforced is by requiring payment from a source that is 'resident' in the given country (eg, a credit card issued by a bank from that country or a gift card sold by the specific Apple subsidiary).
I can buy a gift card from anywhere in world, fill in a fictitious address and I am good to go.
Last edited:
Sssshhh. Quiet.
That whole karma thing can be a real bummer. Go get 'em Bruce!
i am now hurt
DRM what?
I agree absolutely!
Companies are trying to stamp out piracy and just when more and more of the post-Napster generations are growing a conscience and looking to better support the artists we get this kind of thing. I have a huge collection of CDs and you can bet your bottom dollar they will not be burned with me when I check out. This is precisely why I buy CDs and vinyl today. I don't want some twitchy CEO or lawyer to decide I've listened enough. The same goes for my hardcover book collection.
Dang, I think I just blew a lobe.
I agree absolutely!
Companies are trying to stamp out piracy and just when more and more of the post-Napster generations are growing a conscience and looking to better support the artists we get this kind of thing. I have a huge collection of CDs and you can bet your bottom dollar they will not be burned with me when I check out. This is precisely why I buy CDs and vinyl today. I don't want some twitchy CEO or lawyer to decide I've listened enough. The same goes for my hardcover book collection.
Dang, I think I just blew a lobe.
You are missing the point. He bought the music. He shouldn't have to mention his ID in his will and sneak around like that. Bruce has the muscle and money to not make a frivolous claim and quite frankly it comes as a surprise to me that there is an expectation that my collection die with me. It will not happen.
How can you be so obtuse. This affects everyone, not just rich guys. If you buy music through the iTunes library (a mistake now in my opinion) it is horrific to think that your collection must die with you.
Buy CDs people. Rip em as needed.
Buy CDs people. Rip em as needed.
Love those days when you could juat make a copy of music on to tapes and listen it on your Sony Walk Man. (for all you youngans, sony walkman was the ipod of the 80s and early 90s. You could still buy cds and burn copies of them like before, but digitall makes things so much easier. Even for movies and video games, there is an alarming amount of people who think that it's their right to get things for free because their is technology availible to alow them to do so.
Back then you could share music to a hand full of friends or record off raido. It was so popular almost every radio had a casset recorder. However this did not prevent people frm buying Records or CDs ore even cassets as only a handfull of people could share music at a time.
When people started burning CD music it alarmed the music industry a little but intime it was no difrent than the casset.
Then people started downloading mp3s music from http, ftp, irc (old school chat software that included a text based file share feature. Some people even setup bots to automate the sharing process.)
naptser gained all the infamy when metalica sought legal action against the once popular mp3 music sharing website. kaaza, limewire, and host of other centeralized "sharing of files" continues but have been ultimately replaced by bittorent a decentralized method of file sharing. What make these diffrent from sharing tapes or cds is that millions of people have the capability to get music for free, not just the 5 buddies of the tape and cd swapting era.
music industry has taken effort to shut down torrent sites but can't do so for the sites that are out side their jurisdiction such as China, Russia, and even 3rd world countries where piracy laws are nearly non exsistant.
when itunes changed the way people bought music, the music industry wanted to make sure that on person could not just share that music online with the millions of people waiting for a free download. DRM was that method of prevention. DRM did what it was intended to do, prevent users the opportunity to distribute the music freely to the many people who will never buy the music. Of course this restriction would cause fustration and distain from the many poor teens and young adults who are expecting to not have to pay for anything ever.
Back then you could share music to a hand full of friends or record off raido. It was so popular almost every radio had a casset recorder. However this did not prevent people frm buying Records or CDs ore even cassets as only a handfull of people could share music at a time.
When people started burning CD music it alarmed the music industry a little but intime it was no difrent than the casset.
Then people started downloading mp3s music from http, ftp, irc (old school chat software that included a text based file share feature. Some people even setup bots to automate the sharing process.)
naptser gained all the infamy when metalica sought legal action against the once popular mp3 music sharing website. kaaza, limewire, and host of other centeralized "sharing of files" continues but have been ultimately replaced by bittorent a decentralized method of file sharing. What make these diffrent from sharing tapes or cds is that millions of people have the capability to get music for free, not just the 5 buddies of the tape and cd swapting era.
music industry has taken effort to shut down torrent sites but can't do so for the sites that are out side their jurisdiction such as China, Russia, and even 3rd world countries where piracy laws are nearly non exsistant.
when itunes changed the way people bought music, the music industry wanted to make sure that on person could not just share that music online with the millions of people waiting for a free download. DRM was that method of prevention. DRM did what it was intended to do, prevent users the opportunity to distribute the music freely to the many people who will never buy the music. Of course this restriction would cause fustration and distain from the many poor teens and young adults who are expecting to not have to pay for anything ever.
I certainly agree, but the music industry obviously does NOT.
And they wonder why there's so much piracy out there when it comes to their industry.
I'm surprised they don't have CD's that become unreadable after you've played it 20 times.
Getting rid of these ridiculous restrictions would be a step in the right direction.
Why do you think this is "anti Apple"? Download music from Amazon, and you have exactly the same problem. The only thing anti-Apple is people complaining about non-existing DRM, and trying to find ways to make illegal copies, when making illegal copies is trivial and the whole point is that people should be allowed to make _legal_ copies.