Hollywood actor Bruce Willis could reportedly take Apple to court over a massive digital music library that he wants to pass on to his kids when he dies. The Die Hard and Armageddon star wants his daughters Rumer, Scout and Tallulah to "own" the digital music he painstakingly downloaded from iTunes, but the current terms of …
No wonder piracy is killing music (ahem)
piracy killing music...
I saw a great t-shirt the other day.
It said "Piracy isn't killing music. Simon Cowell is."
Re: piracy killing music...
@Alexc I want one!
Thanks dad, but....
I think that, given the names their dear old dad has so generously passed down to them, Rumer, Scout and Tallulah may be better off without any further inheritaces.
(Over and above the stupendous amounts of cash they'll inherit, naturally)
Re: Thanks dad, but....
Plus, wouldn't they be the first children in history to actually WANT their Dad's iTunes library?
Re: Thanks dad, but....
Yes but most people's dad is not Bruce willis with 40,000 itunes music files. I would not prejudge Mr Willis's musical tastes, but with 40k tunes, there has got to be some good music in that Library....
What about purchased software and Amazon ebooks?
The iTunes thing doesn't bother me as I won't ever go near it, but I wonder how inheritance works with respect to software (which we keep getting told we're merely licensing) and Amazon ebooks (which are controlled to a certain extent).
You don't own music
It isn't yours, you are just allowed to listen to it. If it was yours then you could copy it and sell those copies to people.
Just because you can do something with a CD copy (like duplicate it) doesn't mean what you are doing is legal.
All that has happened is with systems like iTunes is you have been forced to comply with the licence.
If you don't like the licence then go shop elsewhere.
Re: You don't own music
Maybe, but you own the medium it comes on. So the CD that I bought is an asset that I am free to give or sell to whomever I choose. By the same logic, the digital file from iTunes should work in the same manner.
"Copying" didn't even come into the argument, so not sure why you've brought that up.
If iTunes content is truly just "licensed" then why on earth would anyone buy a "licensed" copy instead of buying a CD for the (pretty much) the same price?
Re: You don't own music
Quite. Valve let you do this on the Steam platform - you're entirely at liberty to gift games to other users. You can't play any more but your friend can. Of course if Steam goes bump then no one can play (unless they released patches to allow all software to run without calling home and authenticating), but they are at least addressing the matter of ownership, and the fact I can gift a physical disk to someone, so why not a license?
Re: You don't own music
You can't gift-wrap a game you've already played. If you buy for yourself, you can't gift it later, you have to buy it AS A GIFT. That said, some court precedents indicate that a license is itself a salable good and therefore subject to the exhaustion principle. Vernor v. Autodesk in 2008 showed a tantalizing hint but was derailed when it was discovered the copies in question were stolen (not pirated but REALLY physically stolen). Willis is probably the first prominent figure since then to stir up the license exhaustion debate.
Re: You don't own music
"Valve let you do this on the Steam platform"
No they don't.
You can buy a game as a gift, or in certain rare circumstances if you buy a bundle you can gift any duplicates you have.
But you cannot gift a game you have bought for yourself.
Re: You don't own music
Oh, I never said I owned the actual music, but I do own the copy of the recording I paid for. I'm not "stealing" anything by making copies to keep on my hard drive to listen to at home or in the car in order to preserve the original media as an archival "master" in good condition.
This is basically what I did many, many years ago, in the days of vinyl and cassettes... whenever I bought a new LP, I'd make a dub onto chrome oxide cassette to listen to around the house and in my car. No "stealing" involved there, either.
Godo for him
Our rights are slowly eroded on the basis that little people can't fight back, we need big names to stand up at times.
I play my media through XBMC so have ripped discs I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR but this 'Cinavia' thing will try to kill that off.
I can get around it but many people can't. How long until the film industry find a way to disable playback of discs themselves through some key revocation and use that to limit how long you can use a disc?
Re: Godo for him
"How long until the film industry find a way to disable playback of discs themselves through some key revocation...?"
That has already happened. It's a part of BluRay specifications.
Re: Godo for him
That involves the PLAYERS. Individual disc authentication was part of the original DivX disc specification. This allowed for buying a rental disc that then expired after the rental time. Neither this nor a competing spec (which had a clock-reaction dye that rendered the disc useless after about 48 hours) worked out (The only part of DivX that survives was the MPEG-4 codec line it used--still used but superseded by the Part 10 variant AVC). I think Sony TRIED the trick early in the PS3 days but backed down after some noisy protests.
@Charles 9 Re: Godo for him
Not only the players. Content as well.
AACS pre-recorded video book (which is a part of BluRay pre-recorded book) describes how it works:
See Chapter 2 for the relevant bits:
"This chapter describes a robust mechanism whereby content on individual media can be revoked to prevent playback of unauthorized content. This is accomplished by applying cryptographic signatures to authorized content and storing those signatures on the media with the content. The signature is validated before allowing playback. A Content Revocation List (CRL) is also embedded onto media and then stored in non-volatile memory by players and contains a list of content that contains a valid signature but has since been revoked."
Re: @Charles 9 Godo for him
That would probably involve invalidating titles rather than individual copies, as serializing would defeat the economy of scale pressing provides. Sure, you can serialize in the Burst Cutting Area or ROM-Mark, but how would you encrypt based on a serialized key and still be able to press?
Re: @Charles 9 Godo for him
Yes, I think it's not possible to revoke an individual disc, even with that. But they can, say, expire the whole batch of Star Wars, Episode I super director's cut and force people to buy Star Wars, Episode I platinum exclusive remastered key grip's cut with previously unseen footage of paint drying during the construction of the soundstage.
You just cant beat 'backing up your tracks' to an external hard drive.
That's what I would do if I had ever paid for any music, other than the RATM song that toppled X Fuctor.
I'm so glad
...that I grew up before the digital revolution, so I got to keep all of my mum's David Essex and Roy Orbison records
Maybe Bruce would have more luck
If he publicly lobbies government or the industry to implement digital property imbued with the same rights of fair use as physical property, i.e. the right to sell, loan or donate property from one person to another.
It's technically feasible to do this and it really needs to happen for healthy competition. Otherwise we'll continue to see the likes of Apple and Amazon choke the small businesses until they have an effective duopoly over what people may watch, read or hear.
Will iTunes still be around in thirty years time?
How many people bought their music on CD thirty years ago? None as they didn't hit the market until 1983.
Who knows what format audio and video will be in the future.
I wonder does Bruce have the same attitude to the copyright laws protecting his movies? Is it ok for me to pass it on to people once I have watched it?
Might get a different answer to that
Right, so, the news site that "Bites that hand that feeds IT" is now reprinting stuff it read in The Sun. Whatever next - Fortean Times? National Enquirer? The Watchtower? Honest John's Blog o' Ill-Informed Bile?
IIRC, the standing argument about music ownership is that the various retailers were forced to apply DRM by the music industry. Maybe, if Mr Willis wanted to give a true "yippee-ki-yay Mr Falco", he might want to take on the RIAA and their industry mates and ask about why they only let him rent music.
Meanwhile, all the major music retail sites are DRM-free, so you could happily leave your files to whosoever you wanted. Admittedly, if you bought old iTunes tracks, they still have the FairPlay DRM on them, but it's trivial to 'upgrade' and have that removed.
Apple iTunes "Sync" - I still don't get it...
If one has a 32 GB iPhone and one has about 147 GB of media files, then the iTunes "Sync" function becomes a royal PITA; it's basically unusable and somewhat unpredictable (because one forgot to uncheck a box on the 5th menu from the left). A plain and simple Drag-and-Drop GUI concept would be about a trillion times easier to use.
Not to mention about 500 times faster. iTunes Sync is the slowest possible way to load a file.
Anyone that defends the iTunes UI concept should cut back on the Apple flavoured Kool-Aid.
This case is going to be one to watch.
Particularly if your beneficiaries have to pay tax on an inheritance that ends up being worthless to them .....
obviously there is nothing stopping them copying the files - but clearly a man of great principle, our hero Bruce wants his wishes to be legally sound when declaring them on his last will and testament. Assuming he wins and is allowed to bequeath his digital music to his beloved daughters, they will then have to argue over who gets what. "Daddy would want me to have Angel by Robbie Williams" etc.
The more interesting point is with any children in the UK that have bought anything through iTunes - a child in the UK is not allowed to enter into a contract, without their parents consent, and even then there are various catches and trips.
They most certainly are *not* allowed to enter a contract to licence something (anything) - which means any child using a prepaid iTunes card on their own account, has been illegally sold items by Apple . . .
no, it just means that they have handed over their money for nothing in return! Be careful trying to get technical, it has a habit of shooting yourself in the foot.
With Rhythmbox or Banshee on Linux Mint with the ipod plugins installed (automatically of course)
Sync. Oh look now all you stuff is on your PC!
Connect Android or any other decent MP3 device.
Sync. Oh look all my music is on my new device!
The trick here is to not use itunes!
Yeah so there might be a problem syncing back to a recent iphone (4+) for now, until someone figures out the database checksum. But why the heck would you want to do that anyway after this experience?
P'wah hah, sucker!
That last crack about LPs may not be all sarcasm.
One more argument for buying CDs and/or vinyl -- or at least storing your mp3's on a local hard drive and backing them up to CDs or DVD-R's.
Don't get tied down to Apple/Organise your own music library... PROBLEM SOLVED! :)
Is it any different for vinyl and CDs?
It's not practical for record labels to go into the houses of dead people and confiscate physical media (plus it's a grey area due to the separate ownership of the media and the data on it), but one of the downsides of the virtual world is that your collections can be tied up in direct or indirect content management systems that only give the illusion of you being in control of your own content. In a way, this does allow the record label or film studio to come into the house of a dead person and restrict what is taken from their computer.
So, have things really ever been different, legally? Given that when you buy a vinyl record or CD, you're only 'buying' the plastic - the music contained on it is merely licensed to you, and is not transferable - it's probably always been unlawful for relatives to inherit records, it's just that there was no way to police it cheaply and effectively.
Now they can. It's a shame big companies aren't so quick to use the virtual world to make things cheaper and more effective for you. For example, when someone dies, you still have to go around all the banks to search for bank accounts and money you didn't know about. Why can't solicitors just enter a name into some kind of search and find all relevant data instantly? Because it would mean less work for the banks and lower charges for solicitors, that's why...
Re: Is it any different for vinyl and CDs?
"Given that when you buy a vinyl record or CD, you're only 'buying' the plastic - the music contained on it is merely licensed to you, and is not transferable"
This is not so. Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental is prohibited. Selling the disc or giving it away is not.
Re: Is it any different for vinyl and CDs?
I thought that in the UK licences have to be written and have to have the ability to be modified by both sides, anything else is illegal so the contract is null and void. Hence the still dubious nature of click through licences which I don't believe have been tested in court. If it is void do they give your money back?
Also recently a the European court said that licences can be sold regardless of the wishes of the vendor ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-03/oracle-can-t-stop-software-license-resales-eu-court-says-1-.html ) so if you have a licence to the Itunes software you can sell it / give it away. Of course you have to be European so Bruce may still have a problem.
My password for iTunes is "Password1"...
Thank you someone famous for finally making my point why Apple and the like are the epitome of evil.
My grandfather pays for albums on Vinyl - the sane humans of that generation realise that he paid for them so he owns them. He passed them on to us (and my father sold them, but thats by the by) and no one batted an eyelid. If you buy something you buy it - to buy is not the same as "to buy until we feel otherwise".
I buy music in electronic format from ReichTunes - but hey, paying more for effectively precisely the same thing, bar the fact its actually in a less resiliant format (bar physically smashing or mistreating Vinyl, tapes, CDs etc you are unlikely to lose it, unless you lose it). We all know how reliable electronic storage systems are (and how many people dont back up, dont back up properly, or find their backups have been cheesed by the law of sod). I lovingly maintain a collection for the next 70 years, pop my clogs, and the people I decide to pass things on to are told by my executors - "sorry you cant have that, she paid for it, but she doesnt *own* it, perish the thought luv. You'll be telling me you own your own organs next...". The really insidious part is that somewhere along the line it'll be, if we own the rights to this recording, then why not ALL the recordings of that song (because we're Apple) - and your CD's and the like will be ReichTunes fodder too.
I am sick and tired of saying this fanbois of the world. Apple arent making their overpriced tat for your benefit, if they were they would be functional devices on a par with the Symbian E7 (it does alot more than even the iP4S, you'd be amazed). They are buying your 'buy-in' to the 'apple owns the world, you are just borrowing it' routine. They are buying your shiny-crap-blinded acceptance of the rape of your rights on a monumental scale. The number of people, to put this in perspective by bums on chairs (figuratively), that will be affected by this makes the whole Holocaust circa 33-45 look like a coffee morning (and no I mean the whole thing, not just the howling minority, who incidentally know less about their own history in general than they do about the operation of the common or garden ADO15 (look it up, you'll actually learn something on the way too))
Do you want schools run by Apple?
The history of the Second World War by Apple (The Japanese? Suing for peace via the Russians BEFORE they got nuked by the US, TWICE. Sorry I think you have that wrong little heretic, you are the weakest link - goodbye). Although to be fair snuff-weakest link would make a really good gameshow for CEO's (and Jedward)...
Iranians/Muslims who cant own anything because Apple dont like them (theyre not allowed to like them because the government, that they effectively own, has told them they are bad little imps & sprites if they do).
LGBT who arent allowed the Apple love because being a queer means you arent a Christian and we cant afford to alienate the swathes of room temperature IQ armchair GodBotherers(TM) who make up our customer base! Ironic really since that particular religious mindset has been borrowed, nicked, massaged, had rounded corners added, taken away and condemned as heresy (unless Apple has them of course) for a fair majority of the last 4000 years...
Cr-Apple, let my people go!
If it isnt stopped now by the people who have the power to do so, then it will get worse...
Apple invent (the holy Apple copy-eth not, so says the almighty goatee in the sky) the Corvair and various people get wiped out in accidents, what do you think will happen?
Apple will blame its supplier, pay off the government, promise an update that doesnt come every time it happens again, and take the sodding wreck back to boot on the basis that they own it anyway, bodies of your loved ones included (as well as their MP3 collections).
And you used to tell me I was paranoid....
...sorry I have to end here, I need to find the user licence for my kidneys.... Heil Apple & goodnight Friends(TM)
Re: Brucey Bonus
So much stupid in one posting that it should be illegal.
You do realise itunes has been drm free for sometime. Print you tunes and stick 'em up your ass if you like.
Re: Brucey Bonus
Yes and what has that to do with Apple steaming in and suing your kids before they've even had the time to put you in the ground.
It doesnt matter whether there is DRM on there - anything bought through the iTunes store will be recorded on their servers - it wouldnt take a programming genius to interlace the government birth and death records with a process on iTunes - someone dies, and the next time that particular item is accessed - auto delete...
Not to mention the price and stress for actually going through the courts over it all (even if you win) means 99% of people couldnt do it. So whether or not they're in the right - they win by default. Dont you just love justice and democracy?
I never have problems using itunes when helping family but that's because I'm not making up porkies to troll nor am I some butt hurt help desk monkey that gets flustered when using software I hate.
Any music Bruce bought that is DRM free from itunes can be given to anyone but for the drm stuff he'll have to burn it to cd or suck it up. It's not like you can give anything you buy digitally to someone else unless it's drm free.
Can't wait to find out he has a steam account and watch him get butt hurt over that.
You seem to be missing the point
He 'BOUGHT' it.
As in the verb 'to buy' from the Latin emere if you are interested (which I doubt).
He did not 'rent' it
He did not 'lease' it
It was advertised as 'buy music from iTunes/Apple/whoever'
For Cr-Apple to then state that they actually meant 'lease' is as I understand it false advertising which makes Apple Lawyers very happy right now (they must be rubbing their Gold Cards with glee), and what Apple are trying to do in the UK at least, pretty much illegal.
A comparison. A car is priced at £25000 list so that is what you pay to take it out the door and own it for perpetuity if you so wish. A car is priced at £250PCM when you lease the identical model. The car company cannot however, if you buy the car outright for £25k as agreed in the ads, the brochure and sales agreement, then turn round and take that item from, or further charge, a person who inherits it (or for that matter buys) from you because that would be
1. breaking the contract in the bill of sale. Outright purchase
2. invalidates and makes false the advertising, prices and documentation associated. Illegal in the UK
On the other hand if you were leasing the car on a permanant basis and you sold it, kicked the bucket and left it to someone or gifted it to someone *depending on the wording of the contract* you/they might still be liable.
Similarly if Apple say to me, to *buy* this item you need to pay "xx" and I do then its mine and mine in perpetuity - for the simple reason that the representation that Apple made at the point of transaction was 'to buy' not 'to lease'. Theres a whole lot of legalese that floats around that but the upshot of all this is the iTunes store and others like it are a con trick - telling you that you are buying something outright and then having taken your money, quietly mentioning the bit buried at the bottom of the microscopic print that you dont own a thing, but this is the important part, AFTER THE FACT, which is the illegal bit (at least it is in the UK).
After all if they were honest about it, 95% of people would see its throwing good money after bad (or sweet sod all in most cases) - and the 5% who dont probably arent bright enough to breed so the inheritance thing doesnt come into it.
BBC put a limit on iPlayer as to how long a download will be playable for and how long it is up on the site... mainly so you'll forget that the thing you are watching is a re-run of a re-run... but the important thing is they dont charge for it because they know, under british consumer law, they'd be on such a sticky wicket they'd be at risk of being eaten alive by Winnie the Poo...
Re: You seem to be missing the point
"To Buy" is rooted in Old English, so Germanic, not latin at all. Won't be reading the rest of your comment based on that alone.
I am an Apple Products Fan...
But.... iHATE iTUNES
mp3 from drm
Tunebite efficiently converts drm music to mp3.
All I can say is
using Apple crap? Oh well....
But it may be Music On The Go
If he wants his music on the go, as it were, then he could have done something like I have.
1. Rip everything to .flac format
2. Install AudioGalaxy on home server
3. Have same on client device, be it phone or whatever
4. Drive along the beach at Black Rock Sands listening to your stuff
or, if you're at home
1. Find .flac file
2. Play via foobar
What could be so hard? And since I back up my stuff to external drives as well as other thing then Prodigal Son Of Mine can come out of the woodwork and be intreagued by his late father's fascination for things Rush.
Furthermore, unlike Mr Willis, I don't need to dick about with iTunes nor m'Learned Friends.
what's being missed here .. is that JUST because the media has changed .. there is no reason that copyright law should change .. meaning ..
if you BUY it. it is yours to copy for personal use and backup .. and that should include software as well
"licencing" when you are in any reasonable context "purchasing" is a scam designed by lawyers to get around first-sale doctrine
the practical benefits of digital media to the commercial side are enormous .. that ease of copying, and the low cost of doing so far outweigh the supposed "loss" of personal copying
go after commercial counterfeiting and distribution like industry goes after all counterfeit products
otherwise .. if I pay for something that's not a rental agreement .. it's a purchase .. the form of the media should not make a difference in the principles of copyright and the exceptions to it, such as fair use and first-sale doctrine
If everyone lobbied Parliament to rein in totalitarian (cough RIAA/MusicMafia/PRS/etc /cough) DRM companies then this wouldn't be an issue.
AC, because even Hell hath lawyers.