tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7051388588539061530..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Bruce Willis to sue Apple over who owns his iTunes library?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38096162531988665102012-09-04T11:19:08.450+01:002012-09-04T11:19:08.450+01:00@Kharol: Many thanks for your comment.
@Anonymous...@Kharol: Many thanks for your comment.<br /><br />@Anonymous: Thanks for pointing to the Guardian article.Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-92137010630449748892012-09-04T10:54:04.473+01:002012-09-04T10:54:04.473+01:00The story is a hoax. See: http://www.guardian.co....The story is a hoax. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2012/sep/03/no-apple-bruce-willisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41260302419823716222012-09-04T09:40:26.823+01:002012-09-04T09:40:26.823+01:00I believe the chances of success are low, even tho...I believe the chances of success are low, even though I believe that justice is on the side of the user:<br />Copyright extends 70 years after death of the author, (and the works become "free" afterwards).<br />Thus a customer should rightfully expect that a usage time of the bought or licensed or sham-licensed intellectual property, which - from my point of view, in terms of consistency of law - is then also intellectual property of the new/additional proprietor created by whatever contract - is at least said "own life plus 70 years" period. As at that time the works are "free" any limitation to the right of use after that point in time would be unjust as well.<br /><br />Also I've never seen an express time limit in these "licenses", thus I think it's fair to say that they are to be deemed perpetual. And "lifetime of a user" is a time limit. <br />When the rights holders want to impose limits on the time of use they should be explicit and not implicit. Everything else is just a contract offered in bad faith. <br /><br />From the "asymmetric contract in bad faith" perspective a plausible outcome could be to reverse the contract, i.e. "Bruce receives his money back but has to give back or delete the music. <br /><br />Maybe it's time for legislation to clarify things in favour of the general public.Kharolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27244128925501452892012-09-04T09:36:37.076+01:002012-09-04T09:36:37.076+01:00This isn't a true story: http://www.guardian.c...This isn't a true story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2012/sep/03/no-apple-bruce-willisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com