Sidebar Sidebar
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]

What the heck is wrong with some people here? Why would you defend a company that limits YOUR rights against someone who stands up for you? I love Apple but this fanboy-thing results sometimes in some irrational reasoning for some people.
Bruce Willis is awesome for doing this. Instead of using his ridiculous amount of networth to let his daughters buy as many songs as they want, he stands up for people who would not be able to do it themselves because he has the resources. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with this behavior????
 
If what he claims is true, something has to change. You should be able to give your collection to someone else like you'd hand them a vinyl record. But really, can you sue because you don't agree with their terms of service???
 
How is this Apple's fault?
1. iTunes is DRM free. All he needs to do is copy the files and give it to his daughter. Done.
2. The rights on iTunes are dictated by the entertainment industry. So why not sue them instead? Oh wait, they're his employer.

Really Bruce, if I buy your movie via iTunes, I cannot give it to my family member, and movies in iTunes are DRMed. So maybe I should sue you.
 
Funny all these uniformed comments on here because people want to rant on Apple because of some preconceived idea or just false info they read before.
(It's on the Internet, it must be fact.)

I'm curious if Bruce is going to sue Amazon also since their terms of service look to be the same.
Amazon MP3 Store ToS said:
2.1 Rights Granted. Upon payment for Music Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Music Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to the Agreement.

2.2 Restrictions. You must comply with all applicable copyright and other laws in your use of the Music Content. Except as set forth in Section 2.1 above, you may not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Music Content. We do not grant you any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Music Content. As required by our Music Content providers, Music Content is available only to customers located in the United States.

2.5 Unique Identifiers. Some record companies require us to insert identifiers in the metadata that accompanies Music Content from these companies that uniquely identify it as Music Content you have purchased from us ("Unique Identifiers"). These Unique Identifiers may include a random number we assign to your order or copy, the Amazon store name, codes that identify the album and song (the UPC and ISRC), Amazon's digital signature, and an identifier that can be used to determine whether the audio has been modified. Music Content supplied by Universal Music Group will also include in the Unique Identifier the purchase date and time, and the first part of the email address associated with your Amazon.com account so that you know these files are unique to you. Music Content sold in the Store that includes Unique Identifiers is marked on its product detail page. These Unique Identifiers do not affect the playback experience in any way.
Click to expand...

But that can't be right, it's just Apple that is evil.
 
bretm said:
If it says you can't transfer ownership, then you can't transfer it. Sorry. Read the contract. Could've paid more for a CD that might break or scratch.

Can't they just take over his iCloud acct when he passes and nobody would be the wiser anyway?
Click to expand...

They are in the public eye, so someone would be the wiser. Especially now, you can be sure that some reporter will try to find out.

But you said "you can't transfer ownership". In case of inheritance, _you_ can't transfer ownership of anything, because _you_ are dead. But still, ownership of physical things and of contracts is transferred. If you bought a car, with a contract to pay $200 a month to the car dealer for the next 5 years, then your wife / children will inherit both the car and the obligation from the contract. So it's not at all obvious how Apple's T&Cs would prevent that.
 
pika2000 said:
How is this Apple's fault?
1. iTunes is DRM free. All he needs to do is copy the files and give it to his daughter. Done.
Click to expand...

This is not about DRM. Supposedly, that is still illegal.

I can't believe Apple even got rid of the DRM on music, but I am so glad it happened because I was sick of getting screwed over by glitchy DRMs. Of course, the first movie I ever bought from iTunes decided to die and say "You do not have the rights to view this." right after I bought it. @#$%ing DRM. That's what turned me off from the Apple TV for years. I think they fixed it now.
 
Well, this sounds like unauthorized file sharing. Bruce Wllis may me counter sued by ASCAP.

Joel Tenenbaum owes ASCAP $675,000 for sharing 30 songs and it was recently upheld by a US federal court. I can't imagine what Bruce Willis would end up owing for his entire music collection.
 
daftpunker909 said:
What the heck is wrong with some people here? Why would you defend a company that limits YOUR rights against someone who stands up for you? I love Apple but this fanboy-thing results sometimes in some irrational reasoning for some people.
Bruce Willis is awesome for doing this. Instead of using his ridiculous amount of networth to let his daughters buy as many songs as they want, he stands up for people who would not be able to do it themselves because he has the resources. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with this behavior????
Click to expand...
I agree. The people have never been a part of defining digital rights. The record and movie companies were slow to deliver on internet distribution, saw napster and other P2P networks emerge and now the current state of digital rights is an over reaction in the opposite direction of liberties. Just because they reacted in this way doesn't mean there aren't still legitimate expectations from the consumer in terms of ownership where precedence was set long ago.

If the record companies don't allow collections to be transferred then they should replace the "BUY" buttons with "RENT" or "BORROW" buttons and see what the result is. Otherwise it's just false advertising.
 
daftpunker909 said:
What the heck is wrong with some people here? Why would you defend a company that limits YOUR rights against someone who stands up for you? I love Apple but this fanboy-thing results sometimes in some irrational reasoning for some people.
Bruce Willis is awesome for doing this. Instead of using his ridiculous amount of networth to let his daughters buy as many songs as they want, he stands up for people who would not be able to do it themselves because he has the resources. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with this behavior????
Click to expand...


I completely agree with you. Some of these fanboys are annoying. It's always one sided with them.
 
daftpunker909 said:
What the heck is wrong with some people here? Why would you defend a company that limits YOUR rights against someone who stands up for you? I love Apple but this fanboy-thing results sometimes in some irrational reasoning for some people.
Bruce Willis is awesome for doing this. Instead of using his ridiculous amount of networth to let his daughters buy as many songs as they want, he stands up for people who would not be able to do it themselves because he has the resources. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with this behavior????
Click to expand...

In fact, this has nothing to with Apple dictating terms - it's the dirty job of the "Labels", which otherwise would not let the iTMS work the way it does now.

The problem is that most of the comments in this thread come from people who have little to no legal knowledge of the issues involved; in this regard, people talking about "rent" instead of a "sale" have no idea how copyright licensing works.

The fact of the matter is: Bruce Willis's request makes perfect sense from a succession point of view - however, there are virtually NO statutory succession protections in his common law country - it's almost everything left to contract law and the deceased's will as opposed to a basic set of principles that apply to ANY succession event (normally in Roman Law/Continental Law countries such as most of Europe, Brazil, most of Latin America etc.).

Having said the above, I believe he has a strong and legitimate case to be argued in courts - not that songs are "owned" (this won't change, especially not in RIAA-lobbied US), but that, as "licensed works", they should be reasonably deemed as transferrable to his heirs. I am sure Apple would be more than glad to change its terms of service once the US legal framework is clearer (improbable in my view, in the absence of an unambiguous statute on fair use of copyrighted works and/or revamped succession statute).

p.s.: And for the last time: STOP pretending this website is only used by US citizens subject to US law, or assuming that downloading of copyrighted media content is automatically deemed as "theft" (especially since copyright is NOT the same as traditional property). Indeed, downloading of copyrighted works strictly for personal use is PERFECTLY legal in many liberal democracies around the world such as Switzerland, Germany, Brazil and many, many others.
 
gfahey said:
When I visit the iTunes store there is a clearly marked "$12.99 BUY ALBUM" button under any album I wish to "purchase".

It doesn't say "rent" or "borrow". Apple, for all the lawyering up they do, has it clear that you "BUY ALBUM".

Willis is right. I'm betting this little ploy was part of the deal Apple made with record companies. It's the little secret they don;t want anyone to notice or make noise about. Glad to see Willis, who can make this a very visible case, is bringing this up. It's akin to an estate tax.
Click to expand...

Can the conspiracy theories already. The button on Amazon says essentially the same thing: "Buy this album". But the software you need to download that album (from either store) makes clear you are buying a license to that music, with restrictions attached.
 
Last edited:
Why is this even an issue? If one of my family members passed away and I wanted their music, I could easily come up with a way to get it onto my computer for listening without starting World War III. I don't see the need for legal action here.
 
charleswhalley said:
Did he not read the T&C's - shame on him.

LOL
Click to expand...

And apparently none of the read the source article. It's a bigger pile of poop than Tim Cook* dropped this morning. No quotes from Willis, no 'sources'. Just baseless rumor ans speculation to get hits and reports.


*and by Tim Cook I mean the elephant at the local zoo
 
wonderbread57 said:
I agree. The people have never been a part of defining digital rights. The record and movie companies were slow to deliver on internet distribution, saw napster and other P2P networks emerge and now the current state of digital rights is an over reaction in the opposite direction of liberties. Just because they reacted in this way doesn't mean there aren't still legitimate expectations from the consumer in terms of ownership where precedence was set long ago.

If the record companies don't allow collections to be transferred then they should replace the "BUY" buttons with "RENT" or "BORROW" buttons and see what the result is. Otherwise it's just false advertising.
Click to expand...

I never really thought of this, what happens to my digital music when I go? Now my daughter has some of my music on her computer using Home Sharing and I authorize her computer, but she still would need my iTunes info after something happens to me and she gets a new computer.
Yes, I can leave her my info, but who knew a Will would include iTunes passcode info now? haha
They do need to do something, if it's not Apples doing, then whoever it is needs to address this. It can't be that big deal transferring to family members.
 
12dylan34 said:
Why is this even an issue? If one of my family members passed away and I wanted their music, I could easily come up with a way to get it onto my computer for listening without starting World War III. I don't see the need for legal action here.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of legal PRINCIPLE, not of convenience. He is absolutely right in trying to clarify this possibility.
 
What's really the worst case scenario here, anyway? Somebody dies, his or her kids keep on using his or her music anyway. It's against the TOS, but the kids didn't agree to the TOS. Is Apple or the music labels going to sue a dead man?

Or are TOSs more transferrable than the music they protect?

Also, you know, let's face it. Who actually ever wants their parents' music?
 
IIRC, it's a similar case with CD's. When you open the plastic wrapper, your agreeing to the labels ToC, which is probably hidden deep in some website somewhere. In those ToC documents, there are usually restrictions on what you can and cannot do. If I buy a CD, if me and my brother both put it on a mobile device, or one person uses the CD while the other has it on their phone, it's copyright infringement just as much as Bruce Willis's heirs using his account would be. Legally, both siblings need to buy their own copy, of course, I can't see anyone actually doing that and no one thinks twice about brothers sharing their CD's.

My point is that technically, it's very hard to not breach copyright on a regular basis. Ever use an image off google without express permission from the copyright holder? Ever rip a DVD you own to your iPhone or laptop? Making a big deal over these hardly enforceable iTunes terms is a little excessive. He could just back the music up on an external harddrive and pretend the ToC doesn't exist. This legal fight isn't about iTunes, or Apple, or the actual ToC. It's about out of control copyright laws. When pirating a few songs yields exponentially larger fines then murdering someone, something is horribly, horribly wrong with the system. If nothing else, I would say this is a publicity move to bring attention to the state of media copyright, and for that, I applaud Bruce Willis.
 
Primejimbo said:
so everyone should be dishonest and go get their music on torrents?
Click to expand...

I don't think the music industry is hurting. Look, if they really wanted their music protected from these kinds of piracy, they'd implement ways to eliminate it. Not fight it or TRY to block it, but eliminate it altogether. It's 2012, and it's very possible to do that.

It's kind of how you can buy working copies of Office and Windows in every corner of every market place in India and China. You really think Microsoft couldn't prevent that? How do you think they got the gigantic marketshare and two plus decades of dominance of the desktop OS market?
 
There should be a legitimate and easy way to simply transfer your entire library over to someone.

That being said, he could:

- simply give her his user name and password
- just copy all of his music over to her library (there's no more DRM)
- burn every track to CD and give those to her to rip
- with his wealth, simply go through and re-purchase each track as a gift to her in iTunes so she has her own copies.

There are ways of doing it. He just wants a legitimate and easy way where he does not have to take any time or repurchase.
 
I think there should be a transfer facility within iTunes for music, media, apps etc. that way when you're done watching a movie that you BUY instead of rent, you can xfer it to someone else. That is, it's not longer associated to your iTunes acct, but to the person you transfer it to.

It's for this reason I don't buy movies anymore, just rent or use a streaming service. How many times are you gonna watch it anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back