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

[QUOTE=thisispain;37519060]bruce willis apparently[/QUOTE] silly bruce all that money he has he could have a wall 100ft high filled with CDs and LPs [editline]3rd September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;37518288]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] what i've never encountered a cd i couldn't rip

[QUOTE=thisispain;37518653]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!?[/QUOTE] I think what he, and others, want is a way to simply transfer their entire account [i]as is[/i] to their designated heir. As they would with a home for instance, here are the keys, it's all yours. Of course they can transfer the music right now to whoever they want, that's not the point. They're saying if we purchase music from itunes, we have purchased it not rented it. Therefore there's no reason you can't transfer the account as an asset. This is going to be important since all these online accounts have value. Twitter/Facebook/itunes/gmail/etc can all have photos, music, video, documents, and all sorts of other stuff in those accounts. If I die who gets my gmail account? Google? Why? What if I want it erased, or what if I want no one to get it? All this needs to be puzzled out by the courts in the coming years.

can't you just login into that account? accounts aren't bound to a specific person unless there's some strange shit going on in the iTunes terms and conditions. in a sense you buy the good (music mp3) while iTunes provides you a service. you don't own any music, you just buy a good in order to hear them. it's why making copies of it is against the law.

[QUOTE=cucumber;37514331]my hatred to apple grows day after day[/QUOTE] Hey, we all have to live in the same fridge, so cool it. But seriously, telling a consumer they don't own something that they bought? That has [B]GOT[/B] to be illegal on some level.

ok apple we're not pirating things we're just 'borrowing' them from other people

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37518282] 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] While I still don't think downloading is strictly stealing, I agree with you in the matter that it is hard to come to a conclusion with intellectual property. But I think the case of it is going towards in favor of consumers. I mean, would you really accept companies ruling over how you use the products you buy from them? If services like iTunes freeze your account just because you like sharing music with friends?

It's all about the message.

I only like Apple as a product and software maker, but I don't like Apple as a corporation.

Oh well apple,prepare to lose your customers.

[QUOTE=SataniX;37513829]I don't know of a single store that SELLS flac copies of music.[/QUOTE] Off the top of my head, I know of 3. CDON Platekompaniet NIN.com (Only nin songs, but you can still get them in FLAC or other formats)

I want to amass a massive collection of old school rock from the popular to the obscure as fuck onto a single ( or several) external harddrive and keep it my entire life, and pass it on to another person that I trust before I die, so that in case youtube dies, or it becomes too hard to find certain amazing music from the 60s and 70s it will be saved onto my harddrive for safe keeping. So that some of the best music from the greatest generation in rock music will be able to inspire people in the future.

[QUOTE]Apple can freeze users’ accounts if they suspect them of sharing tunes with others.[/QUOTE] Well that's just straight up dickery.

[QUOTE=SataniX;37513829]I don't know of a single store that SELLS flac copies of music.[/QUOTE] I don't know of a single person who cares about that

[QUOTE=latin_geek;37520334]I don't know of a single person who cares about that[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure the entire music forum invades every thread about digital music stores and acts like a noticeable portion of the market gives a shit

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;37513749]It's bullshit that you don't own the tracks anyway. I fucking paid for it, same price as I would in the shop. It's fucking mine.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure ITunes charges more...

[QUOTE=Blackfire76;37520364]I'm pretty sure ITunes charges more...[/QUOTE] itunes doesn't set the price

[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] Yes, thank you. Most people just flip flop depending on the argument and what they want to defend. You cannot defend piracy by using "it is not physical theft, they are not losing a sale" if you also try to defend physical ownership of downloaded material. I feel what I pay for and what I download should belong to me (of course the issue with software is very complicated) and I should be able to do what I want with it (including second hand sales, backups, installing to multiple PCs) and therefore I also believe piracy is theft. I am not saying I am innocent, I simply know what I am doing and I don't really try to justify my actions. I know people over here are heads over heels in love with Valve and summer sales and stuff, but this is no different than not being able to buy or sell used games in Steam or the fact that you are actually "renting" you games through Steam. I am glad someone with money, connections and hopefully the will, is taking on this case.

The music industry is made up of greedy fucks. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

[QUOTE=Lazor;37516322]lol maybe because 256 AAC is transparent to lossless music for 99% of the population you schmuck [/QUOTE] Makes sense that I'm the schmuck for not endorsing itunes.

He's gonna lose so hard. Apple will just go "It's all in the license agreement! If you don't like it, don't use our products!" I really can't see how he has any chance of winning here.

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;37520982]He's gonna lose so hard. Apple will just go "It's all in the license agreement! If you don't like it, don't use our products!" I really can't see how he has any chance of winning here.[/QUOTE] Oh God, it's South Park all over again. "Do you honestly think everyone actually [i]reads[/i] those things!?"

[QUOTE=Lazor;37520360]i'm pretty sure the entire music forum invades every thread about digital music stores and acts like a noticeable portion of the market gives a shit[/QUOTE] You're right that the majority of the population is fine with MP3, and for the most part it sounds good enough that I won't complain about it. HOWEVER, it is still surprising that we don't see any major websites with lossless equivalents to what iTunes sells. Just because the majority is fine with MP3 doesn't mean we should ignore the audio enthusiasts entirely. That said, as long as CD's are available I think we're okay.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37519248]can't you just login into that account? accounts aren't bound to a specific person unless there's some strange shit going on in the iTunes terms and conditions. in a sense you buy the good (music mp3) while iTunes provides you a service. you don't own any music, you just buy a good in order to hear them. it's why making copies of it is against the law.[/QUOTE] You can leave your collection of CDs to your heirs, why not digital versions of the same music? As far as logging in, that's not the point. The point is why can't the contents of that account(the music files he paid for) be transferred over to the new owner? Why should Bruce Willis's kids have to log into his account to access the music? The only real answer is that people in control of digital content want to do the same thing that people in control of phyical content did in the past- decide when/where/how you can access it and charge for it as many times as possible. There's no technical reason the account's contents can't be simply transferred.

[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] Linux Distro's have a good sound quality.

[QUOTE=AK'z;37520864]Makes sense that I'm the schmuck for not endorsing itunes.[/QUOTE] nobody cares if you endorse itunes but in literally every thread you go spouting shit about "high quality" music files that nobody cares about

hell i don't give a shit about "high quality" music, and my house is filled with stacks of vinyl

[QUOTE=Lazor;37524976]nobody cares if you endorse itunes but in literally every thread you go spouting shit about "high quality" music files that nobody cares about[/QUOTE] makes sense, since 90% of the time I'm listening to mp3s.

[QUOTE=AK'z;37525231]makes sense, since 90% of the time I'm listening to mp3s.[/QUOTE] wow what a zinger!!! still doesn't change anything about your thread shitting

This story isn't even true, [url=https://twitter.com/EmmaHeming/statuses/242631258310594562]according to Bruce Willis' wife.[/url]

because it was posted by the Sun never post anything that Rupert Murdoch had this fat little fingers in thanks in advance