Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
... we have finally found a socially beneficial use for a cheesy action movie star. Now let's find one for bankers ...
iTunes music is DRM free. He doesn't need to sue to leave it to his daughters.
iTunes TV shows and movies, however, are locked up with DRM and can't be transferred.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I refuse to believe even he would want to inflict 'The Return of Bruno' on someone anymore...
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
My work here is dung.
Not having DRM and being licensed for you to do anything you want with it are entirely separate concepts.
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.
The only reason Bruce Willis and not Chuck Norris is sueing is that Chuck Norris CAN keep his iTunes collection in the family heirloom.....
bickerdyke
Copyright isn't the issue per se here. The restriction on copying here is a legal hack used to induce customers into buying a package of rights, which constitute a lot of the convenience of digital formats (no more carrying boxes of tapes car). What is at stake is passing on that package of rights, not the copy.
True, he could buy an iPod for each of his daughters, put his entire music collection on each iPod and leave it to them that way. He could even burn audio CDs and do it that way. But they wouldn't have the *rights* package he paid for. They could not legally transfer those copies to their own iPhones, a right *he* enjoys. They're back to carrying, not a box of tapes but a box of devices.
This really is a fascinating question, because no matter what is decided, one side comes out with more and the other less, than what they'd have got under the traditional analog scenarios. When music was on vinyl, giving that record to another person in effect transferred the rights to listen to the music, but the utility of that right degraded with the physical copy.every time the record was played. Thus you might well have inherited a copy of the Beatles *White Album* from your parents, but if you want to listen to the music regularly there's a good chance you've bought a digital copy. The physical album probably stays on the shelf and comes down only for special occasions.
If iTunes rights cannot be inherited, Mr Willis can't leave his offspring something he has paid for and enjoys. If they *can* he leaves them perpetual utility and the next generation sale won't be made. Of course maybe that's a good thing, given perpetual copyright extension.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
because corporeal beings don't run the government.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Sssh! On the off-chance that he manages to win the case over the licensing of digital music, then there would be a clear legal precedent for digitally distributed TV shows and movies too. While the movie business might lag behind the music industry in terms of digital distribution, it is slowly getting there and some of us would like to actually own, as opposed to "rent" or "license", our digital media. Unless Bruce has the world's largest music collection by a considerable margin, he must know that legal fees are going to cost him more than the collection is worth, meaning this is about the principle of the thing, and he's got the money to take it quite some way. I'm getting some popcorn in; this could be the best thing to come out of Hollywood for years.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
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?
Apple had asked the industry to sell DRM free music before Amazon started offering it.
The labels allowed Amazon to sell DRM free first, hoping to break the market dominance that Apple had.
When that failed, they gave up and allowed Apple to sell DRM free music like they wanted to do all along.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nope, actually the message is this story is made up.
#DeleteChrome
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-itunes-music-library/
"Update: Like many of our peers, we also fell for this good old British tabloid rumor at first. We have updated the story now that Willis’ wife has denied that this story was true."
Slashdot may want to retract, or update the story.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"