• 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

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
38,986
Reaction score
14,325
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bruce Willis to fight Apple over music rights after his death | The Sun |Showbiz

The Die Hard actor, 57, wants to leave the haul to his daughters Rumer, Scout and Tallulah.

But under iTunes' current terms and conditions, customers essentially only 'borrow' tracks rather than owning them outright.

So any music library amassed like that would be worthless when the owner dies.

Willis has asked advisers to set up a trust that holds his downloads, which reportedly include classics from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin, to get around this rule.


The action star is also backing legal moves to increase the rights of downloaders.


Apple can freeze users’ accounts if they suspect them of sharing tunes with others.

Chris Walton, an estate specialist at Irwin Mitchell, told a newspaper: “Lots of people will be surprised on learning all those tracks and books they have bought over the years don’t actually belong to them.

“It’s only natural you would want to pass them on to a loved one.”


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.
 
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?
 
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?

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 does bring up an interesting issue, which may take a case such as Willis is bringing to settle.

When you buy a stone-aged book, you are not just buying the physical object; you are buying the permanent right to use the intellectual property contained in that object. You can sell the book to someone else, or leave it as part of your estate when you die. As long as the book physically remains, whomever has possession of it has possession of the right to use the intellectual property therein. Possession of the book does not, however, give anyone the right to copy material out of it and give that material to someone else. That is the point at which a violation occurs of the intellectual property rights of the holder of the copyright on that book.

The same would be true of a phonograph record, a CD, a DVD, a BluRay disk, or any other physical object, that one would legally acquire, containing intellectual property.

The right to use the intellectual property is tied to a physical object, which may be sold, traded, or in any other way passed from one person to another.



Digitally-stored media, not tied to a physical object, might be a completely different matter.

Do current systems, such as iTunes, allow someone who has bought a digital medium to transfer his ownership thereof to someone else? To be completely analogous to books, CDs, and so on, there would have to be a way if, having bought a piece of music on iTunes; I decided I no longer wanted it, I could transfer it to someone else, such that that person now has it, and I do not.

Perhaps it's not quite analogous. Perhaps the “right” that one buys through a service like iTunes is nontransferable; permanently tied to the person who bought it, and expiring when that person dies. I guess it'll take court cases like this to sort it out.

This wouldn't be specific to iTunes and Apple. Google has a similar system through its Google Play store, and Amazon also has a similar system as well. I expect that once the principles are established for any one of these, they will be equally applicable to all of them.
 
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?

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.
 
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.


Will the Obama administration want to apply the inheritance tax to the value of his music collection?

If Willis is really suing for this, what is the present value of his music collection? Sounds like it belongs in small claims court.
 
Will the Obama administration want to apply the inheritance tax to the value of his music collection?

If Willis is really suing for this, what is the present value of his music collection? Sounds like it belongs in small claims court.

The worth is around 41k. And he is not the only one suing Apple over this.. just the most well known person.

Google and Amazon has similar (but not totally similar) rules.

In the end, this fight will be about .. when you buy something online.. movie, book, music.. that is not physical.. do you really buy it or just rent it? Right now it is a rental and yet the marketing says it is a buy. You dont own your music, movies or digital books.

Basically it is copywrite legislation hitting the Internet wall yet again.
 
LOL - what a piece of work . . . all that money and he has all of his **** on electronic media only? Goddamn - whatever happened to a genuine music library? :roll: So much for being wealthy and classy, eh? LOL

And who cares - why do you need to leave your 'music' - does he think his kids are going to listen to half of it or something? It's not like he has lone access to originals and 'never heard by anyone else i the world' recordings. :roll:

Honestly - I love him as an actor - but this seems so childish. I'm disappointment. I'll keep my Willis fantasies to his characters, then.
 
LOL - what a piece of work . . . all that money and he has all of his **** on electronic media only? Goddamn - whatever happened to a genuine music library? :roll: So much for being wealthy and classy, eh? LOL

And who cares - why do you need to leave your 'music' - does he think his kids are going to listen to half of it or something? It's not like he has lone access to originals and 'never heard by anyone else i the world' recordings. :roll:

Honestly - I love him as an actor - but this seems so childish. I'm disappointment. I'll keep my Willis fantasies to his characters, then.

So you dont have a problem with the fact that you dont own your iTunes music, books and films.. that you paid for?
 
So you dont have a problem with the fact that you dont own your iTunes music, books and films.. that you paid for?

No - you cannot 100% with all rights *own* anyone else's *stuff* like that - you are purchasing the rights to have a *copy* and *listen* to that copy - you are not purchasing ownership rights to do with as you please. Just like computer software: you're obtaining the right ot use your copy - but you cannot *do* whatever you want with it.

You're entering an agreement which is in writing - if you don't want to uphold the agreement then don't buy into it - don't sign - don't give them money.

And I don't do online-music at all: it's crappy, inferior, tentative, and unreliable . . . I like CD's - I buy them religiously. I have more CD's than a music store. For all eternity.
 
No - you cannot 100% with all rights *own* anyone else's *stuff* like that - you are purchasing the rights to have a *copy* and *listen* to that copy - you are not purchasing ownership rights to do with as you please. Just like computer software: you're obtaining the right ot use your copy - but you cannot *do* whatever you want with it.

You're entering an agreement which is in writing - if you don't want to uphold the agreement then don't buy into it - don't sign - don't give them money.

You and I might know that.. but 99% of people who buy on iTunes do not. They actually think they own the music, books or movies.

And I don't do online-music at all: it's crappy, inferior, tentative, and unreliable . . . I like CD's - I buy them religiously. I have more CD's than a music store. For all eternity.

Actually.... in the start, in many countries, selling or giving a CD (or Tape) to someone was actually illegal according to the legislation at the time.

Also viewing movies at home.. rented or owned. You actually only have the copywrite to show it to close family. No friends or extended family. So if you hold a movie night with 10 of your friends, then you are technically breaking the law.
 
You and I might know that.. but 99% of people who buy on iTunes do not. They actually think they own the music, books or movies.

Oh wow - so people signed a contract and didn't read it? (no surprise) but we're suppose to want to change everything because people have these stupid assumptions? Gee - I so care. At least Bruce knows where the law stands since he's trying to change it. . . which I don't support.

Actually.... in the start, in many countries, selling or giving a CD (or Tape) to someone was actually illegal according to the legislation at the time.

Also viewing movies at home.. rented or owned. You actually only have the copywrite to show it to close family. No friends or extended family. So if you hold a movie night with 10 of your friends, then you are technically breaking the law.

*giggle* Oh heavens!
 
Bruce Willis has an estate big enough that his kids could trivially afford to re-buy the music, this about taking a stand against the abuse of the American consumer. Apple, Google and many of digital media companies are involved in illegal bait and switch advertising. Itunes claims to be a store in which you can purchase music including a little "BUY" button listing the price. Every single step gives the impression that you are actually exchanging money for legal ownership right until you hit the small print legalese written in the TOS agreement. If Apple wants to only rent music to people, they need to make it clear they are a rental service and cannot mislead people into thinking they are actually purchasing a product.

In defense of Apple, this requirement was probably forced on them by the RIAA. Hopefully the Bruce can win the case and more importantly, set a precedent against violating the rights of the consumer.
 
Legally - a 'rental' agreement has an end. . .you 'buy' your download(s) - you make your copy(ies) and you pay for those. . . If you lose it, it gets ****ed = that's your issue. Not theirs.

Just like when you 'buy' a cd at a store - if it gets ****ed that's your issue, not theirs. You're still regulated - but because it's on a CD it's harder for them to implement those legal restraints.

You don't have to use their programming, software or hardware - that is a consumer choice.
 
Bruce Willis has an estate big enough that his kids could trivially afford to re-buy the music, this about taking a stand against the abuse of the American consumer. Apple, Google and many of digital media companies are involved in illegal bait and switch advertising. Itunes claims to be a store in which you can purchase music including a little "BUY" button listing the price. Every single step gives the impression that you are actually exchanging money for legal ownership right until you hit the small print legalese written in the TOS agreement. If Apple wants to only rent music to people, they need to make it clear they are a rental service and cannot mislead people into thinking they are actually purchasing a product.

Exactly, and in Europe we have laws against false advertisement like that.

In defense of Apple, this requirement was probably forced on them by the RIAA. Hopefully the Bruce can win the case and more importantly, set a precedent against violating the rights of the consumer.

Most likely, but considering they get 30% of all sales... then I doubt they protested much.
 
I never took an interest in an ipod player for the exact reason that Bruce is bitching. If I can't copy my crappy, lossy, mp3s to various computers that I own, I know where I stand with Apple.

He seems like a smarter man than his new suit would indicate.
 
I would blame the RIAA for this, but I understand the thread's maker, so Apple will receive the full brunt of the force, rather than the organizations that push those clauses forward in the first place.
 
Legally - a 'rental' agreement has an end. . .you 'buy' your download(s) - you make your copy(ies) and you pay for those. . . If you lose it, it gets ****ed = that's your issue. Not theirs.

Just like when you 'buy' a cd at a store - if it gets ****ed that's your issue, not theirs. You're still regulated - but because it's on a CD it's harder for them to implement those legal restraints.

You don't have to use their programming, software or hardware - that is a consumer choice.

Its not consumer choice if that consumer is being deliberately misled. It is fraudulent to have a button saying "buy this music" but then have fine print claiming "we lied, its actually a rental". If apple wants to rent music, they need to clearly identify that is the service they are providing.

Imagine you went to target and bought a toaster. When you get home, you open the package you realize its just a box with rock inside. When you get pissed and complain, target shows you a tiny bit of text on the bottom of the box saying "this is actually a box with a picture of a toaster on it, not an actual toaster. Intent matters, and claiming you "notified the consumer" when your every action was intentionally deceptive is not acceptable.
 
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.

If I was Bruce Willis I wouldn't have said anything.If I was worried about Apple trying to install some snitch-ware in the form of a update in the future on the ipod or what ever I would copy the songs and convert them to MP3.
 
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.

lol what a throw away comment
 
If I was Bruce Willis I wouldn't have said anything.If I was worried about Apple trying to install some snitch-ware in the form of a update in the future on the ipod or what ever I would copy the songs and convert them to MP3.

Bruce Willis (probably) has tens of millions of dollars. He most likely just personally dislikes the practice of advertising rentals as purchases and is using his star power to get up traction for a lawsuit to alter the situation.

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.
 
Thing is, I can leave, say, a record collection to someone, in my will. As mentioned before, IP rights seem to revolved around physical property. But that is kinda bunk, because, records are worthless. If there was no INFO stored on them, what are they? Just disks of vinyl. It is the information stored on them that you want, that you have purchases a right to, not the vinyl itself.

I would argue that the same holds true for mp3s. If I buy a backup drive, and store all of my music on it, the content on the drive should not dictate to me what I do with that drive, the physical piece itself. I own that. And if I want to give it away to someone, that's my business.



This is why I don't buy my music from Itunes. This is why I will continue to "cheat" record companies out of money. They need to resolve this crap, and quick. They've been dealing with it for well over a decade now, and are still just "staying the course".


I say tough **** for them.
 
If I was Bruce Willis I wouldn't have said anything.If I was worried about Apple trying to install some snitch-ware in the form of a update in the future on the ipod or what ever I would copy the songs and convert them to MP3.

And you would be breaking the terms of the license.
 
Back
Top Bottom