Why? I live in an apartment and would in no way have enough space to keep the rather large (legally purchased) amount of music I own. Most people can't tell the difference between AAC and FLAC. Anyway I do have a physical backup-my external drive.
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
Why? I live in an apartment and would in no way have enough space to keep the rather large (legally purchased) amount of music I own. Most people can't tell the difference between AAC and FLAC. Anyway I do have a physical backup-my external drive.
For King, Queenand even serf
Bruce Willis raises an interesting point, even if he never actually did: why indeed should someone not own that paid good money for?
Apple and varied copyright holders surely have their own view on this, perhaps feeling in such situations one has done nothing more than in effect sign a lease on an autoone they hope to upgrade you from soon. Maybe no more than a rental car, in which case they will want it back in proper condition, all the more if one neglected their offer of an add on warranty.
Yet in their fantasy of turning every customer into a revolving credit line of "consumer" revenue, they disregard a key point. Not that long ago it was customary to buy an LP, even CD, and expect to do with it as one might please. Of course that worked better in a less technologically advanced age when people more usually bought and carefully cared for their vehiclesand uploading something onto the internet not easy or routine. But that might be the very thing these media outfits are overlooking: those more often content to lawfully buy their media may become discontent if jacked around enough, possibly gaining new unsavory notions.
Why should Mr. Willis not be able to bequeath his iTunes library to his heirs, even if perhaps having yet to think of this himself? It would be no different than other tangible items such as real estate, jewelry, bank accounts, or maybe even an old treasured VHS tape deck and its associated library.
Apple and its partners need have no reason for complaint. Nor one even wait to die to make such a gift, as long as the property and the right to it transfers from one person to another. It still ends up in only the hands of one person. No different than a prized record one loaned or gave another, to find they've scratched or run off with itthen the original owner will have to buy another.
Or perhaps instead turn to piracy, as England and France are clearly only interested in their own contested wars of conquest, with gold to be had by the enterprising buccaneer. The common citizen in such a scenario those put upon in paying exorbitant taxes to fund all this, as whatever rights they ever had were only leased.
Bruce Willis raises an interesting point, even if he never actually did: why indeed should someone not own that paid good money for?Apple and varied copyright holders surely have their own view on this, perhaps feeling in such situations one has done nothing more than in effect sign a lease on an autoone they hope to upgrade you from soon. Maybe no more than a rental car, in which case they will want it back in proper condition, all the more if one neglected their offer of an add on warranty.
Yet in their fantasy of turning every customer into a revolving credit line of "consumer" revenue, they disregard a key point. Not that long ago it was customary to buy an LP, even CD, and expect to do with it as one might please. Of course that worked better in a less technologically advanced age when people more usually bought and carefully cared for their vehiclesand uploading something onto the internet not easy or routine. But that might be the very thing these media outfits are overlooking: those more often content to lawfully buy their media may become discontent if jacked around enough, possibly gaining new unsavory notions.
Why should Mr. Willis not be able to bequeath his iTunes library to his heirs, even if perhaps having yet to think of this himself? It would be no different than other tangible items such as real estate, jewelry, bank accounts, or maybe even an old treasured VHS tape deck and its associated library.
Apple and its partners need have no reason for complaint. Nor one even wait to die to make such a gift, as long as the property and the right to it transfers from one person to another. It still ends up in only the hands of one person. No different than a prized record one loaned or gave another, to find they've scratched or run off with itthen the original owner will have to buy another.
Or perhaps instead turn to piracy, as England and France are clearly only interested in their own contested wars of conquest, with gold to be had by the enterprising buccaneer. The common citizen in such a scenario those put upon in paying exorbitant taxes to fund all this, as whatever rights they ever had were only leased.
Because Apple is a distributor, and they themselves don't have the rights to allow you to transfer your license to someone else?
What if you buy a life-time membership in a club, should that be transferable? What if you buy the rights to perform live a cover version of a famous song life for your life time?
----------
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.
Anything that is password-protected needs the password to be passed on to remain. What if you write a novel and password-protect the file? How do your children get to it? How about putting things in safe and not passing on the keys to your children? Yes, I know, you would like things to be like a safe-deposit box in a bank where if your children don't get the key they can ask the bank to force-fully open it. Well, sometimes these neat solutions don't exist and you have to take care to pass the key or password onto to your children.
Just to reiterate a point that seems to continue to be ignored. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the iTunes terms of service that prevents you from transferring your account to another person. Is anyone aware of any legal reason this could not be done?
good thing
Good for Bruce Willis. Private corporations are unfairly wielding their great economic power and highly financed legal prowess in controlling customers. This needs to stop. Although I'm an Avid Apple Technology including hardware and software supporter, I am disillusioned with Apple >Services< customer treatment. They apply their philosophy of 'in with the new and out with the old' to the customers themselves. They have been in such a growth mode, they do not need to care about the money current customers have spent as those customers have followed the company from conversions from CISC, RISC, Intel, MacOS, Unix, dotMac, MobileMe, now iCloud. They continually drop customer support. All well and good. Until it comes to paid content. We do not expect to lose access to content after a purchase (Apple receipts even call them purchases, not time limited rentals). Especially on inane administrative issues like account ids. If you lose your MasterCard or close the account, do you have to toss out all the purchases you made using it over the years? No. Why should digital be any different than the bricks and mortar world. It shouldn't.
Good for Bruce Willis. Private corporations are unfairly wielding their great economic power and highly financed legal prowess in controlling customers. This needs to stop. Although I'm an Avid Apple Technology including hardware and software supporter, I am disillusioned with Apple >Services< customer treatment. They apply their philosophy of 'in with the new and out with the old' to the customers themselves. They have been in such a growth mode, they do not need to care about the money current customers have spent as those customers have followed the company from conversions from CISC, RISC, Intel, MacOS, Unix, dotMac, MobileMe, now iCloud. They continually drop customer support. All well and good. Until it comes to paid content. We do not expect to lose access to content after a purchase (Apple receipts even call them purchases, not time limited rentals). Especially on inane administrative issues like account ids. If you lose your MasterCard or close the account, do you have to toss out all the purchases you made using it over the years? No. Why should digital be any different than the bricks and mortar world. It shouldn't.
Again, the report was false. And Apple doesn't prevent you from transferring your account to another person. And you don't lose access to your music if you close your account.
A blanket license is never short. A large company like Apple needs to cover all of its bases and you cannot do that with a single paragraph. The golden rule is, always read what you sign. Always.
Why doesnt he just back up his itunes songs to DVDs like itunes tells you to do? then he can pass them along what way?
To play or not to play them is all up to me. That is my choice but I am their child and unless they leave it to someone else, whatever they leave behind is mine.
Even their software?
Sure. Why can't you leave the software too? I am so sick of these software/game/music/video guys to protect their stuff. Maybe next; car makers should start the same thing, so you cannot have your dad's car who passes away. Then maybe IKEA will ask you to trash your dad's coffee table because it does not belong to you, it was your dad's. Geeez!
The false report doesn't change my overall assessment of Apple Services and their practices. They've yet to fix their AppleID debacle. It's apparent they just want it to fade into the past, not interested in fixing it. But it will continue to snowball as they roll out new OS, iOS, and devices.