Bruce Willis might sue Apple: his girls can't inherit his iTunes collection
0. phoneArena posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:08
Hollywood superstar Bruce Willis, the one you’ve seen in Die Hard and Pulp Fiction, might just launch his own legal war against Apple and its iTunes store…
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Non_Sequitur posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:12 41 1
Lol. Yep, that's Apple. xP
You don't wanna mess with Bruce Willis. Yippie-ki-yay.
15. Droid_X_Doug posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:41 16 0
If Bruce files suit, it will be an interesting case. On another, related matter, what if Bruce were to transfer his Apple ID to the trust? The trust would go forward and purchase iDevices (and iTunes downloads) and so on for each of the trust beneficiaries. Is Apple saying that scenario can't occur?
17. JeffdaBeat posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:00 2 8
I'm a bit confused. I have no problem sharing my music with anyone I want. I thought that was the point of them getting rid of the DRM. Or is this in the case that he dies and they want to re-download the songs under their Apple ID?
If it's the second case, I'm more on Apple's side of this. How do they verify that someone has indeed passed away and that this second person is now able to download all iTunes content? I'm not saying it isn't wrong...but I feel like unless there is some way to verify death, A LOT of people would take advantage of something like this.
19. doubleD posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:19 2 0
Yeah, I'm also confused. When you purchase a song from iTunes, does it not d/l the song to your computer in which you could then just transfer that file and use on any device?
31. Droid_X_Doug posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:50 6 0
Not sure which scenario is in play. If it is the proof-of-death issue, a simple solution is for the heir(s) to provide a death certificate and a probate ruling to support their assertion. If there is a clause in the iTunes contract that prohibits the transfer, that is where it gets interesting. In the U.S., there is a general principle (especially in California) that you can't circumvent laws and court rulings through contract terms. There is a whole body of trust law and court rulings establishing the validity of the trust law, so if Apple wants to go Mano-e-Mano with Bruce, it will be on the losing side of that issue.
32. Victor.H posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:51 12 0
Right, but figuring a way for this to work should be Apple's problem, and one solved before the service launched, not the user's problem, don't you think?
33. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:57 4 1
I think its more of passing it all to another account.
And how do they verify? The same way reps have to verify death in store.. with a death certificate.
Also, if you have had your account for a while, its going to be filled with DRM. Dont you have to pay extra per song to be DRM free? A lot of people probably dont realize that and go for the cheaper DRM filled version. Either way DRM is BS. If I buy a song digitally, I should have the same access to it as if i bought the CD. I'm doing the world by making one less piece of trash (the CD), so I shouldnt be punished for it. All music and media should be DRM free. Just like those moronic "digital copies" of movies you buy.. that work on so few devices that its pointless.
I hope Willis uses his fame, muscle, and money to take Apple to task. Maybe he will help push for the end of DRM. What a dream that would be. I'd totally watch every movie he put out no matter how bad as a thank you.
Expendables 3: Taking down the mega-fruit!
41. Droid_X_Doug posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:16 2 0
It ultimately is Apple's issue to sort out. I suspect there will be a revised iTunes agreement plus some in-store procedure established (at least in the U.S.).
64. downphoenix posted on 03 Sep 2012, 12:40 2 0
Why are you an Apple fanboy? You seem to be a smart and articulate person, but your logic here is very flawed.
Willis paid for his music, it should be his to keep and divvy out to someone else if he passes away or decides to go crazy and give his stuff away.
Hopefully he will no longer utilize Itunes for his music purchases and will go with a true DRM free solution like Google Music instead.
89. Forsaken77 posted on 04 Sep 2012, 02:30 0 0
You would have to present them with a death certificate, much the same way any inheritance works.
23. phitch posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:29 3 0
If you purchased tracks prior to them becoming DRM free you need to repay, otherwise they are still DRM. The other thing is while you purchase the music and it contains no DRM legally speaking you can't simply give a copy of those songs away. You can only use them on devices you own. Under this agreement Bruce can't just give his mp3 collection to his daughters like he could if he had just purchased a physical copy. The lesson here: always buy a physical copy.
68. juanyunis posted on 03 Sep 2012, 14:31 1 2
i don't agree with buying physical copies because if you just like or love 1 song of an album, that maybe cost you about $0.99 instead of the whole set for $10 or more, why paid for the others songs? and besides in this age everything is moving digitally.
70. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 15:30 5 0
if you have already bought the copy, why should you have to buy it again to be DRM free from the same service you bought it from the first time. Thats stupid.
Also, if you can put it on anything you own, then he only needs to will him the hard drive/ ipod/whatever that has the music on, and your legal issue is solved. However, with DRM its still coded to just his account, which is the part he has an issue with.
If I willed you a CD, you would not need to know my account and password to play it. Digital music needs to be the same.
78. jroc74 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 18:20 0 0
This I agree with.
2. prototype posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:14 18 4
Yes Bruse Yippie-Ki-Yay M F Apple ! Sue this Evil company
27. Mxyzptlk posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:34 1 21
Bullcrap. It's the written rules. He agreed to them when he signed for an account. Sounds like Willis is just trying to get attention.
39. iami67 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:13 14 1
ya cause bruce willis is having a hard time getting attention lol
42. phoenix225 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:17 2 0
Your serious? He agreed to them when he signed? He's just looking for attention? Are you dumb? Bruce Willis doesn't look for attention nor does he have any reason to. Take whatever vendetta you have against the man and post it someplace else. I'll bet a lot of people didn't read the terms of agreement when they started their account. But I bet you did. So you mean to tell me the songs are basicly rented the songs til your dead? Thats another bunch of crap and way for Apple to try and make money. This is why I tell a lot of people that android and google is much better. Apple cost you so much money. Its sad really. Apple is horrible for this economy right now. The applecare+ is crap. I have to pay for the full version of apps if I want them. I can't customize it the way i want. You have to by everything for it. And the supposed iPhone 5 thats coming out is gonna have a new charging port? So now if I want that I have to get new chargers and cases. No. Apple became as bad as Xbox with that. Their as bad as the government with gas prices.
57. 305Bucko posted on 03 Sep 2012, 11:05 6 0
Im sure everyone reads the Terms and Conditions window before clicking "I agree" button.
3. frydaexiii posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:15 23 1
Sigh, Apple, where everything you pay for don't really belong to you.
8. jove39 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:25 11 2
Wonder...if all of Apple gear is actually evil Decepticons!!!
13. mariosraptor posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:39 7 1
yeah. and they eat the brains of their users.
that is why you can't say Apple is brain-washing people.
they have none anymore.
43. shandesilva posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:22 1 0
yeah..the tiny skinny type with large eyes, orange or purple coloured hair and multiple instruments...:)
28. Mxyzptlk posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:36 2 6
It's not Apple's fault. It's DMCA copyright. The music industry is at fault here.
36. frydaexiii posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:03 4 0
Yes, when Apple sues everyone for generic stuff, it's the patents office fault, not the fact that Apple is abusing it.
When Apple is not giving their customers what they pay for it's the music industry's fault, not Apple's for abusing it again.
61. jroc74 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 12:01 1 2
This is one of the few times I will agree with you....lol.
And folks talking about Amazon and Google...they both have the similar terms....maybe the same terms...
69. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 15:26 1 0
you obviously have not ever used google music to speak such nonsense.
When you buy a song off of google music, not only is it in a MUCH MUCH higher quality bit rate, its also 100% DRM free with no limits on usage. You OWN it free and clear.
76. jroc74 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 18:08 0 0
Here are the ToS for Google Play and Amazon:
Read under 6. Rights and Restrictions
Read 2. Music Content, down to 2.2
Isnt that the same thing Bruce Willis wants to do?
DRM free and being able to whatever you want with it is 2 different things. DRM free means you can do whatever you want with it...for yourself. Passing on to others....unless you burn a physical disc.....I dont think its that clear cut with Google and Amazon.
I really dont think the music industry woulda gave their blessing to Google and Amazon for music downloads if we could just do what Bruce wants to do.
79. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 18:25 0 0
your misunderstanding some things
rule 6 is a general Google Play statement, meant for apps and such. Google music, books, and movies all have their own section. There is nothing under the google music section that says they retain rights on music purchased at all.
DRM free MEANS Digital Rights Management free.. aka, no restrictions on use. Their generic warnings are the same ones you will find in a CD cover. Not a big deal, and not what Apple's DRM enhanced itunes library says.
What Bruce is arguing is that he should be able to will his DRM locked music to his kids when he dies. Apparently there is no stipulations for transfering from one account to another upon death.
With google music, I can easily just email you an MP3 from my list at any time without issue.. its DRM free.
81. jroc74 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 18:53 0 0
"Sale, Distribution or Assignment to Third Parties.
You may not sell, rent, lease, redistribute, broadcast, transmit, communicate, modify, sublicense or transfer or assign your rights to Products to any third party without authorization, including with regard to any downloads of Products that you may obtain through Google Play. Use of any tool or feature provided as an authorized part of Google Play (for example, “Social Recommendations”) shall not violate this provision so long as you use the tool as specifically permitted and only in the exact manner specified and enabled by Google."
That to me says Bruce cant just legally give his download to his daughters....without permission.
Under Music...it has nothing about this..none of ther other section really do..and IMO it doesnt need it with what is stated above.
87. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 22:16 0 0
Ok, now.. without DRM to tell you who paid what to who's account, how would you EVER go about enforcing that? hmm? No DRM = no account ties. You gonna sue everyone who says they didnt keep a receipt for a CD purchase but has the same song?
Thats my point. There is no DRM. That means there is no control DL from Google music has all the same non-protections as simply burning the CD yourself. There is no account tracking/tying software embedded in it like there is in DRM. Its JUST the MP3 file.
Google Play DOES have DRM in other sections such as apps and movie rentals. THAT is what they are talking about. You can not transfer DRM protected content. There is zero way to stop the transfer of non DRM content like google music because there is no way to prove it was ever transferred to begin with.
94. jroc74 posted on 04 Sep 2012, 18:43 0 0
Imma try this again: I will separate what I wanna emphasize.
"You may not sell, rent, lease, redistribute, broadcast, transmit, communicate, modify, sublicense or transfer or assign your rights to Products to any third party without authorization,
including with regard to ......any downloads of Products that you may obtain through Google Play."
Any downloads includes everything. Thats why its not specific in the other sections.
Read the Google Play ToS link again...about music files having meta data in em. DRM free and just giving your stuff to someone is not the same thing. DRM free makes it easy for you to view stuff you bought.
Here is another good read...from gasp Macworld...lol:
Read this section: Does the lack of DRM mean that it’s okay to give copies of the songs I buy to my friends?
Some key points:
(And it’s fair to note that iTunes does embed your iTunes ID in every iTunes plus file you download, so it’s easy to see who bought the file originally.)
Google Play does the same thing....but it says it may contain embedded data. Under 7. Music on Google Play.
Best bet in these cases is make a disc and let the daughters go from there.
83. downphoenix posted on 03 Sep 2012, 20:06 1 0
True, although I do suspect that Google doesnt like me accessing Google Music from my Blackberry playbook. Its perfectly capable of Flash and HTML5, but I cant play my Google Music tune from my playbook. I can play my Amazon music though from the browser.
Anyway, I guess the point Im getting at is, Google is one of the companies backing HTML5, and I had an idea that HTML5 means being able to run websites and web software without platform limitations, something that Google appears to be forcing on me. That in itself can be considered a DRM. Sure, I can access my google music from my phone through an app or my PC through the browser just fine, why cant I on my tablet with a fully functioning browser?
86. jroc74 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 20:35 0 0
This is what I'm getting at.
88. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 22:18 0 0
your getting at nothing. You can play google music through a frikkin iphone browser, that's old news. And Safari is a very limited browser. The dude just obviously does not know how to use the tablet, or its missing something.
I have never had a single issue ever with playing music from google music on any browser that supports the features.
74. TheRetroReplay posted on 03 Sep 2012, 17:30 1 0
That's the smartest thing I've ever seen you say
90. luxzy801 posted on 04 Sep 2012, 02:57 1 0
Copyright laws do not say anything about willingly transfering ownership of a song (as long as you dont make any profit on it and it is not a reproduction of the original product)
This is what DMCA is about:
imposes rules prohibiting the circumvention of technological protection measures
sets limitations on copyright infringement liability for online service providers (OSPs)
expands an existing exemption for making copies of computer programs
provides a significant updating of the rules and procedures regarding archival preservation
mandates a study of distance education activities in networked environments
mandates a study of the effects of anti-circumvention protection rules on the "first sale" doctrine
Before you bring your fanboyism into the game, make sure you got your facts straight.
Under the term "Fair Use", I can transfer my music to anybody as long as I do not infringe on the copyrights of stated music (ie, reproduction, resale for personal gain, transfer of ownership for personal gain and so forth)
This is what we call communism people.
You pay for it but we still own it, welcome to the new world!!!!!
4. mariosraptor posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:20 10 3
the sky is blue, water is wet and apple is Evil.
glad that people start to notice.
boycott all of the products they make if they Will(is) change their policies.
6. jove39 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:23 7 2
Apple - You didn't bought music, you borrowed it for a while.
Bruce - Borrowed...huh...Kiss my @$$ Apple!
Me - wondering how Bruce Willies plan to destroy Apple, drill cupertino...Armageddon style?
84. downphoenix posted on 03 Sep 2012, 20:09 0 0
Chuck Norris is able to get his content transferred to another account. I think Bruce Willis just wants to do the same.
9. whysoserious posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:26 6 2
Lol! Apple is so damn stupid for giving out that lame reason to a very powerful man on the Hollywood industry. They could've made a quiet exemption, but instead, they made a fool out of Bruce like he was just one ordinary i-she3p that they can treat like idiot like everybody else.
Nobody messes up with John McClane.
21. joey_sfb posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:19 2 1
'Borrow' what an interested way to put it. I think i will just stick to my CD and ripped them for my portable player. Its a 2 minutes task.
10. e.wvu (unregistered) posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:29 9 1
How does Apple even know if other iTunes users who have passed away haven't already inherited the passers account? Does Apple have a team that searches every newspaper's obituaries?
Apple needs to change the terms of iTunes. They're so freaking greedy!
40. iami67 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:14 1 0
Im sure if bruce willis died apple would knwo its not liek me or you dyin.
11. Hafiz posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:33 5 1
Ah....now u r in trouble apple.
Just do what he says if you dont wanna die hard! =D
30. IamYourFather6657 posted on 03 Sep 2012, 08:38 2 2
In my opinion , he can sue if he want to but i dont think it will be sucessful . Here's the reason why , before you use iTunes you must agree with the terms and condition before he can continue and he did so this lawsuit is pointless from the beggining
34. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:00 3 0
T&C can not ignore written law though. If there is a law on the books that says any property must be allowed to be transferrable to whomever you wish apon death, then Apple cant actually stop that, no matter what they put in their T&C.. not even the Human CentiPad
14. GoBears posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:40 8 1
All jokes aside, this is one of the big reasons people illegally download their content. Once you have it, you can do whatever you want with it.
16. Sniggly posted on 03 Sep 2012, 07:47 6 1
The general Internet going public has recognized DRM on iTunes and other services as an issue for years. If you're paying about the same price for music on iTunes that you would for a CD there is absolutely no f**king reason in the world why it can't be treated as your permanent property.
I really suspect the record companies are the culprit behind this one, though I'm sure that Apple, with its infinite desire for control, had no problem including these terms for users.
35. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:02 0 0
its both. media companies dont want to give up their draconian controls. DRM was a way for them to feel "safe" about digital downloads in an era where Napster and its clones were still a big thing.
However, I completely agree. If I purchase it legally, then I should be able to do whatever the heck I feel like with it. Just like a CD. Its mine, dont tell me how I can use it. That goes double for "digital copies" that come with movies I buy. Piece of junk those things are.
45. GoBears posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:37 1 0
Not only are you paying about the same price per song BUT you are getting a compressed version of the real material. I don't care how good Apple says their codec is, it's still not near as good as vinyl or cd.
46. remixfa posted on 03 Sep 2012, 09:40 1 0
That's one thing Google music has over iTunes in spades. A much much higher bitrate and no DRM.