Bruce Willis Considering Legal Action Against Apple Over iTunes Collection

First time accepted submitter oobayly writes "It appears that Bruce 'Die Hard' Willis isn't too impressed that he can't include his iTunes collection in his estate when he dies. According to the article: 'Bruce Willis, the Hollywood actor, is said to be considering legal action against Apple so he can leave his iTunes music collection to his three daughters.' Such a high profile individual complaining about the ability to own your digital music can only be a good thing, right?"

Comments

It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[harryfeet]

I'm quite sure Steve Jobs would have given everyone as much access to their own content as they wanted, but that it is actually the record labels and/or RIAA demanding these rules.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

lol yea sure he would have, the same douche that would flip bits in an os installer so you had to buy a new computer if you wanted to run the newest SUB VERSION of the same os you already had would have let you keep your i-tunes collection and forgo all those extra sales.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[roc97007]

I'm quite sure that the thought didn't even enter Steve's head. It was never his problem. He was in the business of selling appliances. Content was the hook to sell hardware. It's not that complicated.

That his customers were short-sighted enough not to consider that DRM-protected content is non-transferable, was a bonus.

Contrary to customer reports, Steve was not a saint. He was a businessman.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah he was such a douche he even made the music DRM free. Idiot.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[siride]

I don't see how taking advantage of other people's stupidity doesn't still make you an asshole.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[cpu6502]

Interesting.
I just had a debate with another slashdotter (bws111) about authors' rights. I said when an author like JRR Tolkien dies, his heirs should no longer get paid, because the kids are not the ones who did the work. Only the original laborer should receive money.

The other slashdotter said the Author's kids should be paid. I wonder how he feels about iTunes songs? I suspect he wold be opposed to the idea that songs can be passed generation-to-generation because it would cut into his earnings. And also:

Because I've found authors/artists often expect their work should continue receiving money for 110 years (almost six generations), but they want to terminate the customer's use of the work as soon as possible. Like ten if they could get away with it. It's an unfair and double standard.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[roc97007]

What, really? Seriously, there are people who look at the latest ipods and go

"I just gotta have me one a those"

"What for, Mel?"

"Dunno. It's so sleek and purty"

...and then go out and look for the latest Justin Bieber track to put on it?

...ok now that I think about it, maybe it does happen on that. I weep for us.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[roc97007]

I don't see how taking advantage of other people's stupidity doesn't still make you an asshole.

It's one of the primary definitions of "asshole".

But what's really unique and forward-thinking is doing it in such a way that people build shrines to you.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Read it again. It is DRM free, but it's not license free and the license says you can't transfer ownership.

They can copy the files, but it's illegal.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Charliemopps]

Last time I tried to go into an iPod and copy music off of it, it was even less accessible than music that had DRM on it. So... thanks Steve Jobs... for "freeing" my music.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Another example of Steve Jobs & Apple copying someone else, yet having the "idiots" think he was the leading force.

-Anyone who tried to break the DRM was sued or threatened by Apple.

-eMusic was DRM free before Steve Jobs had his "open letter".

-Bill Gates said DRM should be ditched and urged consumers to buy non-DRM music before Steve Jobs' letter: source: http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/14/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-xxi-gates-tells-consumers-to-ditch-dr/

-Amazon MP3 was the first to have DRM-free music from most major labels, and they started years after Apple (Amazon also didn't charge a premium, which Apple did).

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Kjella]

Personally I've never understood why life should enter into at all, as a matter of principle. I mean, if an author wrote a book and owns the rights to it, why should those rights change in value just because he's hit by a car? Why does the cancer patient writing a book on his deathbed deserve less protection than the teenager with a hundred years left to live? Why should it matter if you form a corporation and let the corporation produce it instead of the person? You should just get a fixed number of years and that's it.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Apple selling DRM free music was a business decision because Amazon was selling DRM free music and had cut into iTunes' sales, right? He didn't make that change to be nice or for the customer. See comment below -- even DRM free, it is very time consuming and unfriendly to move MY OWN PURCHASED MUSIC from iTunes to a non-Apple device.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[tgibbs]

I'm quite sure that the thought didn't even enter Steve's head. It was never his problem.

No, and Steve doubtless realized that it was not actually a problem for his customers, either. If Bruce Willis wants to leave his music collection to his daughters, all he actually has to do is copy it onto a hard disk and hand it to them. Apple is not going to go after them, and even if they were unwise enough to brag about it in public, there's not a whole lot that the RIAA could do to them either. This is not a matter of putting songs on Bittorrent, where the music industry's lawyers could argue that they are liable for lost sales if everybody who bittorrented those songs were to buy the album instead. At most, Bruce Willis's estate would be liable for the actual cost of the songs--hardly even worth the trouble and expense of a lawsuit, not to mention the bad publicity. For that matter, if Willis's daughters had chosen to maintain his Apple ID after his death, it's unlikely that Apple would have objected.

Bruce Willis has decided to fight for the right to will his music collection to his kids openly and legally, rather than doing it under the table. This is a principled stand, and it might ultimately lead to a more rational status of electronic property. Good for him! But in practice, it doesn't really affect your ability to pass your music onto your kids after you die--or before, for that matter.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[jedidiah]

Only "files" are under license.

Music on physical media is personal property and can be disposed of as such.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you put it like that, because I think that neatly summarizes exactly how absurd the situation is.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to discover a file that doesn't reside on physical media...

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[datavirtue]

I bought an iPod Nano years ago and found it very difficult to work with. It was difficult because I expected to be able to transfer music onto it through the file system. No go. I sold it immediately. When someone purchases a license/copy of music they should be able to put it on as many devices as they wish. I don't agree with giving it to other people, but the act has no barriers when the music is stored in a file that it ultimately proliferates in this way (illegally). Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem is lacking in intellect. Nonetheless, as a person who is not trying to distribute music, and just make it available on all of my devices, this is a real slap in the face. I don't see an answer to the problem other than DRM. But how do you maintain DRM without punishing the legal users? Computers were designed for the ultimate in information freedom, and while they excel at playing, editing, and transferring musics and other media there is a domain mismatch when it comes to maintaining rights. No one has a right to music unless they pay for it.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Drgnkght]

I don't see an answer to the problem other than DRM. But how do you maintain DRM without punishing the legal users? Computers were designed for the ultimate in information freedom, and while they excel at playing, editing, and transferring musics and other media there is a domain mismatch when it comes to maintaining rights. No one has a right to music unless they pay for it.

Human history disagrees with you.

For a more humorous counterpoint I refer you to an artist who also disagrees with you. Dan Bull

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[LandDolphin]

Furthermore, Apple isn't abusing it's power since it's their store and they can do whatever they want.

That's a pretty poor argument. Doing whatever you want is what entities that abuse power do. See Microsoft and the Explorer situation. It was their Operating System, they could do what ever they wanted. What they wanted to do and did was abusing their power.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[tftp]

Then the entire globe is one giant collective group of assholes.

Not at all. For example, I sell you some of my software. You give me some money, and it works fine. I give you some software, and it also works fine. None of us are taking advantage of the stupidity of a business partner. We simply exchange goods of an approximately equal value. But you value my software a little bit above the money, and I value your money a little bit above my software.

Even Apple does not specifically depend on other people's stupidity. After all, Apple sells functional computers. They may be overpriced for what they do, but in the eyes of the customer the price is fair. You may say that the customer is stupid to buy Apple. I don't use fruity boxes, personally. But that's just as correct as to say that girls who like fancy dresses are stupid because a single set of a North Korean uniform ought to be enough for everyone. Is a musician stupid because he buys an expensive guitar? Is a writer stupid because he wants to travel the world? Is a geek stupid because he wants yet another computer? They are all stupid, of course, in the eyes of a person who does not appreciate their goals. But that observer has no say because he is not competent to judge.

I think it's pretty hard to find such an abuse in the industry - the problem is self-correcting. But you can find examples in finances (like the Madoff's pyramid) or in politics; any mainstream politician today depends on stupidity of his voters; honest men finish last.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[psiclops]

sound's perfectly straight forward. so straight forward that i bet they dind't even feel the need to document it in the manual you get with your device.

i just really wish the makesrs of every other media device could have had the user in mind and allow that instead of forcing you to go through some random hacking about with your PC doing stuff like dragging and dropping.

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[Altrag]

More likely the fact that everything under the sun comes with a EULA or ToS specifying that its non-transferable.

The technical side of breaking DRM hasn't historically been a big problem (even if you can't figure it out yourself, the torrent is only a few clicks away.)

Its the legal side of things that can be tricky, assuming you're in the group of people who care about keeping legitimate (and anyone high-profile pretty much has to be or they'd be plastered all over the news in short order.)

And come on, its Bruce Willis. I don't know how big his iTunes collection is, but I somehow think he could afford to just buy his daughters a copy if that's all he cared about.

He's taking a stand on principle. I give him a giant thumbs up for that! The whole mentality of locking in and locking down needs to be fought wherever it can!

Re:It's not iTunes or Apple, it's RIAA

[msauve]

Don't know how to interpret logical constructs, eh?

Really, it's so simple even the idiot you're responding to might be able to learn how.

Start with the full text:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Now, remove the parts we're not interested in (logically separated with "or," we're just choosing which option):

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright ... based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such ... medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Now, look up the definitions:

A "digital musical recording" is a material object (i) in which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only sounds, and material, statements, or instructions incidental to those fixed sounds,

That would be the CD-R you make.

A "digital audio recording medium" is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

Now, this is the key - this refers to audio CD-Rs (sometimes called "all purpose"), not the more common data ones. They're a bit harder to find, and a bit more expensive (not much), because the manufacturers pay a tax on them, which ends up going to copyright holders (read the rest of the cited law). This was a law the RIAA pushed for when audio CD recorders first came to market, and the consumer is paying for the ability to make copies while avoiding any problems with copyright.

It isn't about the music...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about sending a message.

Good for him.

"purchased music is only borrowed"

[John Hasler]

Bullshit. He owns the copies on his 'pod and can transfer it to whoever the hell he wants. What he does not own is the right to create more copies. That is what he needs a license for and that is what copyright is about.

This is why you buy the CD instead

[roc97007]

Pragmatically, Bruce could afford to set a fund aside to re-purchase his library in one of his daughter's names, but I'm sure it's the principle of the thing, and in that respect he's right.

The moral of the story, something I discovered years ago, is that generally it's the terminally lazy and shortsighted who buy their music from itunes. Buy the real CD, import it into itunes, and it's yours forever. You even have a handy backup in the Tupperware bin in the closet. And your kids can get your entire music collection on a DRM-free hard drive that itunes will play, or a collection of cds that they can rip if they feel like it.

I understand, buying directly from itunes is often cheaper than buying a recent commercial CD. (With older music, of course, you can often buy the entire CD for the cost of a couple of tracks, but that's besides the point.) But one of the prices you pay for that discount is that the music is not yours. Oh, it might seem like it's yours, but try to give it away, and you find that it doesn't belong to you.

Re:Before the FUD and anti Apple rants gets posted

[MightyMartian]

Because a contract should supersede very ancient expectations that a library or catalog can be bequeathed to one's heirs. This is indeed a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. Yes, Apple certainly is on firm legal ground, but if you consider its actions, and the actions of all the other 99.99% of companies, well, I'd say we're dealing a with a pack of society-destroying sociopaths, all protected by concepts meant to protect an individual's liberty, and not apply liberty based on the size of the bank account.

It's Apple Enforcing Their Agreement with the RIAA

[eldavojohn]

I'm quite sure Steve Jobs would have given everyone as much access to their own content

I think Apple does give people access to their "own content" as much as they want. If you write a song and record it in garage band, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want with it. The problem here is that Willis has purchased songs digitally (probably a lot of them) and now in his mind this is equivalent to him buying vinyl records and compact discs. The problem now is that this license for listening to music was sold to him and the enforcement of this license is quite unfavorable to the consumer -- there is no second sale, there is no inheritance, there is no transferability period.

as they wanted, but that it is actually the record labels and/or RIAA demanding these rules.

You are more than correct but what you fail to understand is that the RIAA did not do business with Willis. The RIAA did business with Apple and Apple did business with Willis. Willis is going after the correct party here because something was sold to him and he had misunderstood the agreement that he signed -- the same one everyone has to "sign" every time the iTunes software is even updated. I've bitched about this so many times on Slashdot but I think that Willis is going to lose when it comes to down to the ToS. Although, I do not remove the blame entirely from Apple because their sales technique and the public understanding of their 'product' is largely misguided if not lying. The public thinks they are purchasing the same thing they did when they bought a CD but now it's digital, it's smaller, compact, more elegant, etc. But that's not true, you're missing a whole bunch of rights that came with buying a CD including the ability to pass a single copy of the CD on to your daughter or liquidate it in the estate sale. At anytime Apple can revoke your right to listen to this CD and I still buy physical copies of music for many reasons -- this being one of them.

I'm the sure the RIAA would have loved to dispatch a gestapo to your estate sale and destroy your vinyl and cassettes when someone died but they didn't. And that meant that these things retained value. Now that they're on the "iCloud" or whatever, they can do that without looking like Nazis so they definitely will and Apple won't have any say in the matter. Don't give Apple a free pass though, they're laughing all the way to the bank as you sign a ToS explaining how your rights are diminutive compared to physical media yet you spend like you're buying a physical entity.

Buy physical media, extract it to your computer and then shelve it. Otherwise you need to understand that what you're "buying" from Apple or Amazon or whomever is non-transferable and at the very least temporary in that you are mortal.

Re:DRM free

[beelsebob]

The files being DRM free, and the license being fully transferrable to anyone to do as they will with are entirely separate concepts. Linux is DRM free, that doesn't mean I can distribute a binary copy of it and refuse to give out the source.

Re:It's Apple Enforcing Their Agreement with the R

[Anonymous Coward]

is non-transferable and at the very least temporary in that you are mortal.

Can a corporation purchase these licenses, and can the corporation be transfered to other relatives?

The DMCA allows non-mortal 'beings' to hold copyright and transfer it indefinately, why should corporeal beings be at a disadvantage when it comes to the same thing.

Why not leave the ipods with the music?

[ccguy]

Can't Bruce just leave the actual ipods with all the music on them?

It's not like once Apple hears about his death the ipods will self destroy...

simple answer

[OrangeTide]

because corporeal beings don't run the government.

Re:It's Apple Enforcing Their Agreement with the R

[sjames]

Pirate Bay it is then. You can re-download as many times as you need to and you can pass it on without a problem.

Its not only Apple.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Content producers have almost always fought this war, and they have fought it in a way that makes their customer the enemy. They fought tooth and nail against fair use (and still do, the fair usage battles rage on across the globe, and there are no defined standards in the area, with each country going through the legal battles at various miserable stages.)

Apple is not alone. Depending on where you live, You may or may not be allowed to backup the content you 'lease'. I say lease because if you are not allowed to backup content, or rather, if you are not allowed to do what you wish with something you paid for, its not ownership - its more a lease or rental. If you live in the UK, you are not even legally allowed to buy CD's from Hong Kong - because its deemed that although you may have suffered from globalism, you are not allowed to benefit from it. Not so far as the media and content producer mafia is concerned.

Again, depending on where you live, and on how successful these mafia have been in their defense of their ownership - You may not be allowed to copy the CD or DVD or Blue Ray of music or film, or computer game- that you paid for. In such cases, I know of some computer game vendors who do in fact offer to replace the 'defective' disk - and I suppose this is a limited offer. I don't suppose they will still offer that in 20 years time, at least for old games. Music and Film I am less aware of. Do they offer a lifetime replacement offering - or do they sell the goods knowing CD/ DVD will be a fading medium in due course. Buy a new copy might be their way out of the hole. Convenient for them, expensive for you. Compared to this, Apple's digital offering might have legs. Until you die, and then your lease is over.

So, I'll cut to the chase. Bruce (and anyone else in the same boat) should digitise what they have paid for and forceably take their ownership of the item and end the problem. When you die, your digital collection goes to whoever you wish. Yes, this collection won't be cloud based and won't reside in the Apple garden, and you'll have to take responsibility for its maintainance - just as anything in life.

*Please note. I'm not advocating piracy. I'm advocating you bequeth the one paid for copy to one person. Or similar. This may not be in line with Apple terms, or even legal terms in your territory. But if the terms or legalities are so stupid, then they deserve to be broken in any case.

*Legal note* - Most UK MPs MP3 their music. These people are responsible for the law still stating in the UK that this is illegal.
*Second legal note* - Nobody I am aware of in the UK has been arrested for converting one or multiple tracks they own into MP3 and illegally loading it onto an MP3 player.
*3rd legal note* No record company has ever tried to enforce this in legal case, and they would be epically stupid to ever try.

Re:It's Apple Enforcing Their Agreement with the R

[AK Marc]

I agree, but only because non-physical media is not yet for sale, or only rarely.

So buying a license isn't a non-physical media? The electrons that deliver the purchase aren't physical media. I think you are trying so hard to make a point you didn't actually state that you ended up making incorrect statements trying to support your silly premise/conclusion.

If they don't sell songs, but instead sell licenses, I should still be able to sell/transfer the non-transferable licenses. Why? Because a contract may not violate law. And the law allows me to resell my items without getting Ford's permission, and the person who buys it may still drive it without re-licensing it from Ford. The problem isn't that it's a license. It's that it's digital. The digital confuses the judges and law makers. That's why one-click stood up for 10 years. "Put it on my tab" added "on a computer" at the end, and suddenly was novel and non-obvious? Most computer patents are for something that has been used for 1000 years or longer, but with "on a computer" at the end, making it confusing to the patent office, just like telling someone they didn't buy a song when they gave money and got a song in return is ok when it's on a computer, though for the past 100 years, you "owned" the song you bought.

Re:It's Apple Enforcing Their Agreement with the R

[girlintraining]

I think Apple does give people access to their "own content" as much as they want.

Dude, are you smoking crack? OS X is based on an open source operating system that they then carved up and bolted on their own stuff, patented it, and threatened anyone who even looked at it sideways with a lawsuit. Then they built a walled garden around that so it's difficult to get applications anywhere but through them. Then they walled in those apps by making sure Apple had to approve each one individually, and double-walled it by making sure Apple got a cut of any content distributed by those applications.

Apple doesn't want you to own anything, even your own personal data. OS X is the only operating system I've used where there's no way to cancel or abort registration: You have to enter a name, address, and phone number to get to the login. It tries to phone home that information right away, even while lying to you on the interface by saying you don't have to register and leaving an icon on the screen for you to do it later... as if it didn't know it already phoned home.

No, Apple doesn't want to give you anything. They want to control all of it; like an amusement park. You're not allowed to bring in any outside food or beverage, and the only thing you can leave with is a few trinkets and a lot less of your money. If you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.

Re:Couple of questions

[Sesostris III]

I'm sure if I bought a DVD of "Die Hard", made copies of it, and started handing them out he'd be OK with that too, right Bruce?

No, but if you wanted to hand out that one DVD to someone - you know, the physical one you bought - he'd be OK with that.

Re:It's Apple Enforcing Their Agreement with the R

[gl4ss]

Your post is completely spot on. You simply need to sum it up by saying something like, licensing != buying .

and that's what the beef is.

Apple calls it consistently PURCHASING! NOT LIFETIME RENTING or some bullshit like that. it's a consumer rights thing to call things what they are..