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

[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;37514995]If I remember correctly, some artists sell FLAC files.[/QUOTE] Most artists on bandcamp, for example, sell their stuff in FLAC format, alongside lots of other formats.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37514371]I think that it's at least pretty much not legal here in Europe - it might be in the TOS, but I'm pretty sure that it's overruled over here.[/QUOTE] I wish it was like that in the US too.

[QUOTE=leontodd;37514227]This is why I only use Amazon MP3 for songs I buy. You get one DRM-free digital download at CD quality of the song and that's that. No bullshit.[/QUOTE] Seriously? I think I'll try this out.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37514907]Why would I download anything less quality than FLAC, I didn't buy the golden coaxials for nothing. :downs:[/QUOTE] To look at it more seriously, I don't have $900 desktop speakers for nothing. 320kb/s does the job, but I definitely prefer uncompressed when I can get it. Anyways, this is cool of Bruce Willis. I don't like the idea that I'm only "renting" or "borrowing" the products I download.

I find FLAC too much for me, I mean I don't have expensive [insert audio listenning equipment here] so I don't really care. 320k is good through.

i still buy CDs

[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;37516045]i still buy CDs[/QUOTE]My parents' CD collection extends into the tens of thousands, and it works out nicely because I mostly hate music made after 2000. I pop the CD into the drive, rip it into FLAC using Exact Audio Copy, stick it on my Sansa Clip+, and rock the hell out. Terabytes of free music, yes!

[QUOTE=AK'z;37513788]I still have no clue why people pay money to apple for music that can be bought at a higher quality and lesser price elsewhere.[/QUOTE] lol maybe because 256 AAC is transparent to lossless music for 99% of the population you schmuck [editline]2nd September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=leontodd;37514227]This is why I only use Amazon MP3 for songs I buy. You get one DRM-free digital download at CD quality of the song and that's that. No bullshit.[/QUOTE] you get DRM-free content from itunes as well and it's basically the same quality as Amazon MP3.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;37515033]Most artists on bandcamp, for example, sell their stuff in FLAC format, alongside lots of other formats.[/QUOTE] The only useful thing about FLAC for most people is that you can re-compress it into multiple formats without a loss of data, going from MP3 > AAC incurs a loss of quality, even if the bitrate is higher (Think of it as copying a DVD vs. a VHS) Quality wise most people can't tell the difference past a certain point (that varies from person to person) in blind testing.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37517042]The only useful thing about FLAC for most people is that you can re-compress it into multiple formats without a loss of data, going from MP3 > AAC incurs a loss of quality, even if the bitrate is higher (Think of it as copying a DVD vs. a VHS) Quality wise most people can't tell the difference past a certain point (that varies from person to person) in blind testing.[/QUOTE] That is very dependant on the source and the song Personally I keep a FLAC copy just because it's lossless anyways, it's not like I'm running out of space.

i don't understand what anyone is talking about what the fuck does "ownership" mean in this context?

God, I hope Bruce wins this case.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37517722]i don't understand what anyone is talking about what the fuck does "ownership" mean in this context?[/QUOTE] Ownership of the MP3s and whatever else.

being able to do whatever i want with a product once i download it increases the valve of a product why the fuck is that so hard to figure out

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37513909]Because the quality is good enough for the vast majority of people and the prices are competitive? (And considering how long it's been around, remember that new stores have sprung up since then and the older stores have dropped their prices to compete)[/QUOTE] I guarantee i can get most albums that are on itunes, on cd for a less price, then have the capability of SELLING them to get the money back or giving it as a gift. You're talking about marketability when most people are prone to follow the crowd to get what the rest are getting. [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] I never said itunes was bad quality, but paying a ridiculous price for worthless data that you don't own, is pretty pathetic.

[QUOTE=lavacano;37518167]Ownership of the MP3s and whatever else.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure i asked what ownership means, not what we're owning i know it's ownership of the MP3's, but what does that mean in this context. isn't it common knowledge that i don't actually own the music, the rightsholders do?

[QUOTE=thisispain;37518224]i'm pretty sure i asked what ownership means, not what we're owning i know it's ownership of the MP3's, but what does that mean in this context. isn't it common knowledge that i don't actually own the music, the rightsholders do?[/QUOTE] I think it's owning the ability to use and transfer the files in whatever way that doesn't breach copyright law.

[QUOTE=AK'z;37518191]I guarantee i can get most albums that are on itunes, on cd for a less price, then have the capability of SELLING them to get the money back or giving it as a gift. You're talking about marketability when most people are prone to follow the crowd to get what the rest are getting. [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] I never said itunes was bad quality, but paying a ridiculous price for worthless data that you don't own, is pretty pathetic.[/QUOTE] Agree. The prices are horrendous. getting CDs is still the better option considering they're about the same if not better quality than FLAC, and the fact that you don't own them. Furthermore, if you have any sort of respect for the artist then buying off itunes is a pretty poor way to show it - the cut of profits the artist gets is absolutely miniscule.

i find this entire issue hilarious, tbh. people like to argue on one breath that "this is property that i bought, they have no right to take it away." and then in another say "it's not stealing if i download this, it isn't real physical property." people need to pick a logical thought process and stick with it. either accept that downloading shit is [I]stealing[/I] (and just do it anyway like everyone else), or give up [B]your[/B] rights to the property you legally "own."

When I bought CD's they were DRM protected to the bone, and I stopped buying CD's. Not because I jumped on the anti-DRM bandwagon, because I couldn't use them for windows movie maker at the time (I was a kid).

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37518282]i find this entire issue hilarious, tbh. people like to argue on one breath that "this is property that i bought, they have no right to take it away." and then in another say "it's not stealing if i download this, it isn't real physical property." people need to pick a logical thought process and stick with it. either accept that downloading shit is [I]stealing[/I] (and just do it anyway like everyone else), or give up [B]your[/B] rights to the property you legally "own."[/QUOTE] But those are very different. When something is pirated, the original is untouched, and whoever owns it still has access to it. That is not the case with companies taking stuff that you bought.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37518224]i'm pretty sure i asked what ownership means, not what we're owning i know it's ownership of the MP3's, but what does that mean in this context. isn't it common knowledge that i don't actually own the music, the rightsholders do?[/QUOTE] Ownership in the sense of determining what can be done with the material you have licenses for when you die. So if you pay X dollars for a license to something, does that license terminate upon your death? Consider that the license is fully paid and in good standing. What then, exactly, terminates the license? Why can't you pass that license onto an heir? What 'loss' does that cause the license owner to justify stopping you from passing it on?

Now stop making bad Die hard sequels and we're even. [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/[/url]

This is why I stick to Vinyl. Better sound quality, the albums look a lot nicer and usually have bonus swag in them, and are just fun to use.

[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;37518351]This is why I stick to Vinyl. Better sound quality, the albums look a lot nicer and usually have bonus swag in them, and are just fun to use.[/QUOTE] it's fun to listen to vinyl on the train isn't it? nevermind....

[QUOTE=SamPerson123;37518260]I think it's owning the ability to use and transfer the files in whatever way that doesn't breach copyright law.[/QUOTE] it's likely Apple has no legal say in such a thing. Apple simply sells the music, it doesn't administer the rights of people who use that music. i just don't understand exactly what the issue is, with iTunes now that it is DRM less there's no real restriction on using the files as you see fit, what is Bruce Willis suing for!?

Bruce is acting like a mom who just got her first laptop computer. just put the disc in the drive an click burn, mom! gosh

Lossy MP3's who cares

Bruce Willis is so fucking cool.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;37519039]Lossy MP3's who cares[/QUOTE] bruce willis apparently