Who actually 'owns' the music on an Ipod?

[Jung]

Actor Bruce Willis has allegedly discovered he can't pass on his iTunes collection to his children. It's part of a far bigger issue, as many are discovering.
Is Bruce Willis just like the rest of us? Did he, too, click on "I Agree" without reading the small print when buying music on iTunes? Ithas been reported that Willis is cross that heisn't legally entitled to bequeath his digital music collection, held on his "many, many iPods", to his children when he dies. He was said to be consulting lawyers about establishing a family trust to "hold" the music in an attempt to bypass the law - although his wife has since denied any suchlegal moves on Twitter.
Whatever the truth, it raises an interesting issue. "A lot of people will get a similar shockwhen they realise this is the situation," says Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, which campaigns for digital rights. "There will soon be a lot of upset customers, not just for Apple, but also for Amazon and all the other companies selling digital content, such as books, which operate these licence agreements. We have no rights over the digital goods we buy. Thelaws were written to prevent piracy, but treat everyone as a thief."
Joshy Thomas, an intellectual property lawyer, says that most iTunes users probablydon't realise that when they pay for content all they're actually doing is paying for an assurance they won't be sued for having that file on their computers. "Say I own a horse. I can give you permission to ride it every Tuesday, but it is still my property. It also doesn't mean your child has permissionto ride it every Tuesday after your death. This is the situation as it stands. Apple could fix this tomorrow, though, by simply changing its small print."
Mr. Thomas says the issue of who owns our"digital footprint" has been growing for a while now: "People are just starting to talk about this. For example, what happens to our Facebook page when we die? Or our email archive? Willis needs to tread carefully, though. By forcing a change in licensing agreements, he could potentially rob his fellow artists of income. Apple is only the middle-man here." The Hindu : Sci-Tech / Gadgets : Who actually 'owns' the music on an iPod?

 

[Audio]

Apple could fix this tomorrow, though, by simply changing its small print."

very unlikely. Jobs' deal with the 5 major record companies probably would go down the drain if that happened, im willing to bet that the rules of transfer of rights were most rigidly enforced/negotiated in that deal, all to maximize profit, even if it means selling 1 track to 2 same family members.

You are in essence, paying for the right to listen and use (not commercially/publicly-special fees go in effect there ofc-use like in a sense of personal use, a ringtone for example), not ownership, however it is ludicrous that you cannot be able to pass that right down the line to your children, thats just corporate buttfuckery screwing the little guy over tenfold.

In any case, the recording industry was shaken pretty badly in the "golden napster generation", thus they try to enforce ever more draconic rules over intellectual property. Thankfully, their latest attempt (ACTA) failed miserably.
Jobs with his proposal of iTunes actually might have saved them, so there could be some leverage Apple has over them, but i doubt it stretches very far.

In related news: one of the founders/owners of *********.se just got arrested in Cambodia, waiting to be extradited back to Sweden.

 

[Safriz]

thats why i never ever buy any apple product..
Too many strings attached.