• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bruce Willis to fight Apple over rights to music collection after his death

Bruce Willis to fight Apple over music rights after his death | The Sun |Showbiz



When it rain's it pours for Apple.. more bad PR and this one will hit everyone on the pocketbook when they realise they actually dont own their music they "bought" through iTunes.... they are in fact only renting it. Might actually be a bigger problem in Europe since here we have truth in advertising laws... which means when Apple says you can buy XXXXX on iTunes, then they are lying.

The world is going to hell and Bruce Willis is worried about passing down his iTunes account to his children "Tweedle, Jazzbo and Dazzle" or whatever their names are. Bruce Willis always seems limited to me. In fact the worst movie ever produced was Hudson Hawk, a movie he wrote and directed. After seeing that I became convinced that Bruce pretty much functions on his brain stem. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he is concerned about his iTunes after he is dead.
 
It is The Sun too. Can't expect much of European news, Just not nearly up to the standard of US news sources. Sensationalist crap and tabloid journalism.

While I agree on the Sun.. it is only the Sun because that is where I first saw it. It is however all over the web and is being reported on even CNN, Sky News and the BBC.

At best you can claim the Sun did its usual "hatchet job" with the truth, and I would agree... Willis is not sueing, but there is a rumour that he is thinking about it.

But in the end it is in many ways irrelevant, since it does bring up the problem.. you dont really own your digital downloaded content... and that is a problem.
 
One of the advantages of being famous and wealthy is that you are in a much stronger position to resist things about society you dislike.

...and in a brighter spotlight than most. Willis with such a vast collect cannot simply fade into the dark when he passes on. His death will be news, quite possibly those who manage his music account would become aware and shut his account down. He really did not have much of a choice other than to be involved in this issue.
 
Bruce Willis could have just quietly died and left his music to his kids. Nobody would have said anything or so much as suspected. However, publicity whores will be publicity whores. Setting up a "trust" for music? Good grief. Are we really that bored?

Judging from his last few movies I'm fairly certain he died years ago.
 
The world is going to hell and Bruce Willis is worried about passing down his iTunes account to his children "Tweedle, Jazzbo and Dazzle" or whatever their names are. Bruce Willis always seems limited to me. In fact the worst movie ever produced was Hudson Hawk, a movie he wrote and directed. After seeing that I became convinced that Bruce pretty much functions on his brain stem. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he is concerned about his iTunes after he is dead.

Again if Bruce is doing this or not.. still a rumour... it is not the point of the article in many ways.. :)
 
And you would be breaking the terms of the license.

How would Apple know I broke the term of the license agreement? I could have got the songs from other sources.
 
According to his wife Willis is not suing iTunes. However, this bring an important issue to light regarding music, ownership rights and iTunes.

Emma-Heming-Willis-EmmaHeming-on-Tw.jpg


Says Who? Emma Heming-Willis Denies Bruce Is Suing Apple Over Right To Bequeath His iTunes - Forbes
 
Leave it to PeteEU to raise a stink over not only a non-issue but a false story.
 
You dont get it.. the music you buy on iTunes is not yours. You dont own it.. you just borrow it from Apple. Once you die or give it to another (which you would be able too if you owned it), then Apple can and does seize the music... since you do not own it, and they do. Point is, you are in reality being scammed by Apple. Just think.. you buy a house, pay off the loan, and yet when you die, your house does not go to your kids, but to the building company that built the house, because you only were "borrowing" it.

This is precisely why I hate Apple soooooo freegin' much. They make innovative hardware, then they know damn well that their services and software are so ****ty and can't compete that they use the court system to sue away competition as they are doing to Samsung. It's exactly why Google bought Motorola. Not to own motorola, but to own motorola's patent rights so that apple can't sue them into oblivion. **** that company and their entire business model.
 
Leave it to PeteEU to raise a stink over not only a non-issue but a false story.

Anything to trash Apple, worthy or not. Again, any contention with these matters belongs to the RIAA and related outfits that place these restrictions of legality upon its users.
 
^^^^
I agree Fiddy

This is from a 2003 interview with Steve Jobs where he admits that Apple makes no money from the music sold:

At an Apple financial analyst conference on Wednesday CEO Steve Jobs admitted that Apple makes no revenue from the online download service, the iTunes Music Store, that he launched in April. As iTMS is the leading download service, with 80 per cent market share (or so Jobs claimed), where's your 99 cents per song going?

"Most of the money goes to the music companies," admitted Jobs.

"We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker," he said, candidly.

So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories...

Your 99c belong to the RIAA Steve Jobs The Register
 
They had started to make cashflow from the Store years ago now, actually. It was indeed a drive to sell the hardware components, but after a while, the Storefront itself was note worthy.
 
Last edited:
They had started to make cashflow from the Store years ago now, actually.

Notwithstanding, their basic premise was not to be in the music industry, but, to sell there own product using the music industry as a vehicle.
 
Notwithstanding, their basic premise was not to be in the music industry, but, to sell there own product using the music industry as a vehicle.

More or less correct, but not as record label, instead as storefront which was to then propel the iPod forward. This is why Apple Records started up the suit, and Apple had to settle with them, because this marked an actual entrance into the music market, more or less violating the agreement reached in the 1980s.

Nevertheless, the intellectual property standards, minus the DRM scheme involved at the time (FairPlay), revolve around the RIAA's concept for intellectual property protections and use.
 
More or less correct, but not as record label, instead as storefront which was to then propel the iPod forward. This is why Apple Records started up the suit, and Apple had to settle with them, because this marked an actual entrance into the music market, more or less violating the agreement reached in the 1980s.

Nevertheless, the intellectual property standards, minus the DRM scheme involved at the time (FairPlay), revolve around the RIAA's concept for intellectual property protections and use.

I agree ................
 
Anything to trash Apple, worthy or not. Again, any contention with these matters belongs to the RIAA and related outfits that place these restrictions of legality upon its users.

That is not entirely correct. The RIAA may be the driver of the policy, but nobody is forcing Amazon or Apple to deceive their customers. They have made a deliberate choice to fool people in thinking they are buying music when they are not and they should be held accountable for it. Furthermore, since apple has the direct relationship with customer that makes them the entity to file legal action against.

Pete may have a somewhat irrational hatred of Apple, but in this case he isn't wrong, especially since this sort of behavior applies to not just Apple but nearly all popular digital music services.
 
That is not entirely correct. The RIAA may be the driver of the policy, but nobody is forcing Amazon or Apple to deceive their customers. They have made a deliberate choice to fool people in thinking they are buying music when they are not and they should be held accountable for it. Furthermore, since apple has the direct relationship with customer that makes them the entity to file legal action against.

Pete may have a somewhat irrational hatred of Apple, but in this case he isn't wrong, especially since this sort of behavior applies to not just Apple but nearly all popular digital music services.

Please, this has been the policy of the Recording Industry since the physical medium. The products themselves, if I recall correctly, still state that you are essentially only purchasing a limit license that permits playback and lending. Does Target or Walmart tell their customers this when they become a storefront? With the digital medium, they argued further restrictions upon the idea of what it is exactly you "own."
 
How would Apple know I broke the term of the license agreement? I could have got the songs from other sources.

I just stated you broke the terms of the license. Now everyone with a bit of know how does it, but that does not change the fact that you technically cant convert the songs to MP3 and it is borderline if you can copy it to a non-Apple device.
 
Leave it to PeteEU to raise a stink over not only a non-issue but a false story.

It is not a false story and the issue is hardly a non-issue.
 
Bruce Willis to fight Apple over music rights after his death | The Sun |Showbiz



When it rain's it pours for Apple.. more bad PR and this one will hit everyone on the pocketbook when they realise they actually dont own their music they "bought" through iTunes.... they are in fact only renting it. Might actually be a bigger problem in Europe since here we have truth in advertising laws... which means when Apple says you can buy XXXXX on iTunes, then they are lying.


I'm glad someone is finally taking on Apple over this issue. If you buy a CD you own the CD. It should be no different for ITunes.
 
The legal system is WAY behind our technology. Our laws are simply not equipped to deal with this sort of discussion. I agree that people SHOULD be allowed to "own" the songs that they buy on iTunes (as much as you actually "own" any piece of intellectual property). Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like it should be very easy technologically for Apple and other such entities to allow people to transfer their collection to another person, such that the original person will no longer own it. The real barriers are the laws in place: if I transfer my music collection to someone else, that's arguably illegal file-sharing under current law.
 
Please, this has been the policy of the Recording Industry since the physical medium. The products themselves, if I recall correctly, still state that you are essentially only purchasing a limit license that permits playback and lending. Does Target or Walmart tell their customers this when they become a storefront? With the digital medium, they argued further restrictions upon the idea of what it is exactly you "own."

The fact that pulling bait and switch scams on consumers has a long and storied history does not make it any less wrong. Digital products also have much worse restrictions, as at least physical mediums can at least be transferred between owners. Apple and Co abuse consumer rights beyond the requirements demanded of them by the RIAA.
 
Back
Top Bottom