Yippie ki-yay! Bruce Willis vs Apple over iTunes song sharing?

Is New York City detective John McClane about to take down Apple? No, not really; McClane is a fictional character that actor Bruce Willis portrays in the four Die Hard action movies (believe it or not; a fifth Die Hard movie is currently being made). However, a UK tabloid report claims that Willis does have a real beef with Apple over its iTunes policies.

Will Willis throw Apple out of a 30 story building and say, "Happy trails?"

The Sun tabloid claims that Willis has collected a large amount of songs downloaded from Apple's iTunes store. The story claims that Willis wants to leave his digital music collection to his daughters when he dies. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't allow its users to legally share songs bought from the iTunes store with others.

The tabloid claims that Willis has set up a trust with some advisers where his iTunes music tracks can be stored. The report also claims Willis wants to back legal efforts against Apple that are aiming to give more rights to downloadable content consumers.

Whether or not this story is true or not (it is a UK tabloid, after all), the issue of who owns downloadable content is certainly one that is very serious and will continue to be debated for years to come.

Thanks to our moderator Stephen for the tip!

Source: The Sun | Image via Twentieth Century Fox

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia Purity Pro wireless headset announced

Next Story

Mozilla discontinues Firefox Home for iOS

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So all the music my sis bought off of the iTunes store for hundreds of dollars, she's ****ed when she's dead? **** THAT!

Well, if I remember well, in April this year, EU Justice Court has declared the sales of second hand software as legal. And software have usually a similar "licence" with those songs - including terms like "licensed and not sold" and "non-transferable". So the precedent is here.

Hell we made the industry, we can make requests to what we believe is right, you dont need to settle for everything a company WANTS to do, specially when they ALMOST become a monopoly. So everyone is saying if all of the sudden any new customee signs up to one of the almost only music stores availables and the TOS says to stick your thumb up your butt, will you also do it? There has to be a limit, and we need to fight to have fair rules and help ourselves. Otherwise we're just going to be a simple money maker for all of them fotever. When you stop fighting or caring, you start losing your freedom, for what? For a couple of rich boys with $ signs all over their faces.

Yay hes all like im going to leave to my daughters this bunch of crappy lossy aac songs that sound like **** instead of solid physical records that are actually worth something to somebody that respects their ears and doesnt settle for mediocrity. Seems to me he just wants the attention. Typical media whore

lamebo said,
Yay hes all like im going to leave to my daughters this bunch of crappy lossy aac songs that sound like **** instead of solid physical records that are actually worth something to somebody that respects their ears and doesnt settle for mediocrity. Seems to me he just wants the attention. Typical media whore

The thing is that very few labels / digital stores actually sell lossless music tracks.
Secondly, many tracks are only available in digital format because physical copies are no longer available.
Finally, there's very few people who can actually tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and a lossless format like FLAC.

Actual, with a new court ruling in the US, he has a leg to stand on. Give it sometime to play out, Bruce never was a fool, from the days of playing pool at the bars in Carney Point Nj when he said he would be a star and a few years later when he said he made a action movie that was going to be a hit, many laugh at him, the smart ones lined up behind him and agreed, and there was on one or two of us then. I'm behind Bruce again............

All the MP3s that I bought with my Zune pass... my kids can have. Or my wife. Or my cat if he knew how to work the computer. While they might be legally only mine, in the end it's just a file. How the hell do you enforce that? Sharing it to gobs of people yeah, that's bad. Just passing it to a loved one. Ah, heartless ****** corporations. Can't live with em, can't live without em. Now back to wow beta where I'm giving time/money/soul to another corporation.

Of all the things his millionaire kids are gonna care about when he passes, some digital music files woul be the least of their concerns I imagine. Although why can't he just give them an iPod with the songs on it

-T- said,
Of all the things his millionaire kids are gonna care about when he passes, some digital music files woul be the least of their concerns I imagine. Although why can't he just give them an iPod with the songs on it

I know, same thing I thought too...how retarded

obiwankenobi said,

I know, same thing I thought too...how retarded

Principle, maybe? Some people actually like to the right thing . . .

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,
Wasnt the non sharing dictated by the music industry, and the same for Amazon, Microsoft, and Android ? Yet the lawsuit is aimed at Apple ? I dont get it

The non-sharing is indeed dictated by the music, movie, software and publishing industry. Digital content is nontransferable.

a0me said,

The non-sharing is indeed dictated by the music, movie, software and publishing industry. Digital content is nontransferable.

In the US maybe. Their ToS does not barge right over my fundemental rights to be a pirate... *coughs* I mean to buy my music digitally.

Shadowzz said,

In the US maybe. Their ToS does not barge right over my fundemental rights to be a pirate... *coughs* I mean to buy my music digitally.

actually yes it does, with out those stipulations a person couldn't buy music digitally to begin with and all Digital music would be illegally gained. MP3's would be converted which is again an illegal act, as the licence on the CD is non transferable to another medium ( Digital, Cassette ) or able to be broadcast for public use ( party, radio ) Radio stations have special licences / agreements

I guess Apple-bashing brings in more pageviews but seriously this is an issue with every piece of digital content out there.
Can you leave the games you bought via Steam, PSN, Xbox LIVE Marketplace, etc... to your children when you die? What about the eBooks or music you bought on Amazon? The music you bought on Zune?

a0me said,
I guess Apple-bashing brings in more pageviews but seriously this is an issue with every piece of digital content out there.
Can you leave the games you bought via Steam, PSN, Xbox LIVE Marketplace, etc... to your children when you die? What about the eBooks or music you bought on Amazon? The music you bought on Zune?

As Apple and their fans like to remind us with every chance they get, iTunes is the biggest music store around. When Microsoft does something in Windows that Apple does with OSX, Microsoft takes the heat because they have the largest marketshare, of course then the complaints are not called Microsoft-bashing, it is called sticking up for your rights, standing up to the man, or simply "opinion"

nohone said,
When Microsoft does something in Windows that Apple does with OSX, Microsoft takes the heat

Such as?

a0me said,

Such as?

An example of many: Microsoft proposes an new web standard that extends standards that Google proposed to allow Skype within web browsers without installing software (cannot remember the name of it now). Microsoft submits those extensions to a standards body, and here on Neowin a certain group of people started crying that Microsoft was trying to embrace and extend, and subvert Google's submitted standards. It was just Microsoft trying to throw their weight around and force their will onto the standards process, blah, blah, blah.

Apple, when they released face time, promised that they would submit their protocols to a standards body. Here we are, two years later, no standards submitted, and it is integrated into OSX. They could use the standards set forth by the Google proposal, and could use the Microsoft proposal also. But, rather than doing so, those same people here on Neowin complain that it is Apple's product, they should be able to do with it whatever they want, even if it is to go back on their word to release it as a standard.

Of course, when Microsoft does anything that does not perfectly integrate with standards, they are called out for it (remember Kerberos, when Microsoft added an extension using a way in which Kerberos was designed to allow extensions?). But Apple people like to talk up how OSX is the "Most standards compliant OS," then they add nonstandard protocols (like face time) and it is still the "Most standards compliant OS" and it is fine to add many, many non-standard protocols.

And of course, when Microsoft added Messenger to Windows by default, people complained that it was anti-competitive, added bloat, added security vectors, etc. Apple does it - look how many iPhones we can chat with!

nohone said,

An example of many: Microsoft proposes an new web standard that extends standards that Google proposed to allow Skype within web browsers without installing software (cannot remember the name of it now). Microsoft submits those extensions to a standards body, and here on Neowin a certain group of people started crying that Microsoft was trying to embrace and extend, and subvert Google's submitted standards. It was just Microsoft trying to throw their weight around and force their will onto the standards process, blah, blah, blah.


You have to admit that Microsoft has a long, documented history of "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613a_htm.htm) which had made them really hard to trust.

Apple, when they released face time, promised that they would submit their protocols to a standards body. Here we are, two years later, no standards submitted, and it is integrated into OSX. They could use the standards set forth by the Google proposal, and could use the Microsoft proposal also. But, rather than doing so, those same people here on Neowin complain that it is Apple's product, they should be able to do with it whatever they want, even if it is to go back on their word to release it as a standard.

Isn't FaceTime an evolution of iChat, an app that's been integrated in OS X for 10 years (released with Mac OS X Jaguar) and offered video chat (long) before Skype or MSN Messenger did?
I've only used FaceTime on occasion (because of the (at the time) Wi-Fi only restriction, and the fact that it has no interoperability with other services except AIM) and the quality of the video was better than Skype or Google Video Chat. I use these a lot more because they're available on all platform, and Skype video worked over 3G from day 1.
And of course, when Microsoft added Messenger to Windows by default, people complained that it was anti-competitive, added bloat, added security vectors, etc. Apple does it - look how many iPhones we can chat with!

I only remember the fact that Messenger would launch automatically by default, and it was a pain to take it out of the system. That's something that iChat never did.
Additionally, the anti-competitive thing is something that comes with being the OS installed on 95% of all computers.

a0me said,

Snip...

So in other words, you trying to prove my point that people complain about MS doing the same things that people excuse Apple for doing with OSX?

nohone said,

So in other words, you trying to prove my point that people complain about MS doing the same things that people excuse Apple for doing with OSX?


iChat existed way before Google or Microsoft submitted their proposals. Apple hasn't tried to embrace, extend and extinguish anything.

Also, iChat AV was released as a paid app ($30) at the time (it became free afterwards) and offered functionality (AV chat) that nobody else offered, while Messenger has always been free and offered the same functionality as the competition.

And finally, the "excuse" that OS X has is that it only has (or had) a 5% market share, compared with Windows' 95%.

a0me said,

iChat existed way before Google or Microsoft submitted their proposals. Apple hasn't tried to embrace, extend and extinguish anything.

Also, iChat AV was released as a paid app ($30) at the time (it became free afterwards) and offered functionality (AV chat) that nobody else offered, while Messenger has always been free and offered the same functionality as the competition.

And finally, the "excuse" that OS X has is that it only has (or had) a 5% market share, compared with Windows' 95%.

So in other words, my point is correct. iTunes holds a vast share of the market of online sales - the two biggest competitors in online music is/was Amazon and Zune. When people talk negatively, to use your own words, it is "Apple-bashing" and needs to stop. But when talking about Microsoft, when they hold the biggest market share in OSes, then it is, to use my words, "anti-competitive, added bloat, added security vectors, etc."

You were very easily distracted from the original point to attack Microsoft, but you were not bashing, no, you were just stating your, and other's, opinions. No bashing there.

nohone said,

So in other words, my point is correct. iTunes holds a vast share of the market of online sales - the two biggest competitors in online music is/was Amazon and Zune. When people talk negatively, to use your own words, it is "Apple-bashing" and needs to stop. But when talking about Microsoft, when they hold the biggest market share in OSes, then it is, to use my words, "anti-competitive, added bloat, added security vectors, etc."


There's a major difference here.
The article singles out Apple for an industry-wide practice (i.e. the nontransferable clause is included in the ToS of every digital store).

a0me said,

There's a major difference here.
The article singles out Apple for an industry-wide practice (i.e. the nontransferable clause is included in the ToS of every digital store).

Yep, and we have Microsoft singled out for shipping with Messenger, Media Player, IE, etc. with the OS, while Apple ships Safari, iTunes, iChat/FaceTime, etc. That is the point, Windows has a large marketshare, and Microsoft is scrutinized for every little thing they do in Windows when the competition does the same. Apple has a large marketshare, and they are scrutinized for every little thing they do in iTunes, while the smaller competitors are not held as accountable. But when that is applied to Apple, people will call you are a hater, Apple bashing, etc. When that is applied to Microsoft, people are standing up against the man. And you are doing that in this conversation. You claim that people are picking on Apple, but then turn around and find excuse after excuse to find fault with Microsoft when comparing large marketshare products.

nohone said,

Yep, and we have Microsoft singled out for shipping with Messenger, Media Player, IE, etc. with the OS, while Apple ships Safari, iTunes, iChat/FaceTime, etc. That is the point, Windows has a large marketshare, and Microsoft is scrutinized for every little thing they do in Windows when the competition does the same. Apple has a large marketshare, and they are scrutinized for every little thing they do in iTunes, while the smaller competitors are not held as accountable. But when that is applied to Apple, people will call you are a hater, Apple bashing, etc. When that is applied to Microsoft, people are standing up against the man. And you are doing that in this conversation. You claim that people are picking on Apple, but then turn around and find excuse after excuse to find fault with Microsoft when comparing large marketshare products.


Windows has (or at least had) a monopoly and it's the only reason they've been scrutinized.
Apple has what? 5-10% of the PC market, maybe 20% of the smartphone market and 60% of the digital music market. They're not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.

jakem1 said,
It was pretty stupid of him to buy content from Apple.

Music that you buy from Amazon and other digital stores is also nontransferable.

Bruce Willis was not forced to purchase music through iTunes. He agreed to the terms and continued to do so anyway. Why didn't he just buy CDs or DRM-free tracks?

Geezy said,
Bruce Willis was not forced to purchase music through iTunes. He agreed to the terms and continued to do so anyway. Why didn't he just buy CDs or DRM-free tracks?

DRM free-tracks cannot be legally given to someone else according to the iTunes agreement and their licensing of the purchase under copyright law.

Besides, it if possible that someone with money would have started collecting a very large set of Music before DRM free content was available on iTunes.

(PS Zune/Xbox Live DRM-Free content is only held to copyright law, meaning you can transfer/share/give it non-commercially, so a person could leave their Microsoft purchased DRM Free content to a loved one. Legally it is just like leaving a book to them.)

Any bets on whether Apple will change their licensing, whether the base story is true or not?

thenetavenger said,

DRM free-tracks cannot be legally given to someone else according to the iTunes agreement and their licensing of the purchase under copyright law.

Besides, it if possible that someone with money would have started collecting a very large set of Music before DRM free content was available on iTunes.

All of the iTunes collection is DRM free now, so if you redownlaoded your albums (it doesn't cost anything to do this anymore, all your purchases tracks are in the cloud) then you will be downloading DRM free versions.

Also I don't know why people are thinking they ever 'owned' music when they bought a CD? The laws are exactly the same (you are licensing the music). Straight from the RIAA's mouth in regards to cd's:

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpi...ector=piracy_online_the_law

The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

DomZ said,

All of the iTunes collection is DRM free now, so if you redownlaoded your albums (it doesn't cost anything to do this anymore, all your purchases tracks are in the cloud) then you will be downloading DRM free versions.

Also I don't know why people are thinking they ever 'owned' music when they bought a CD? The laws are exactly the same (you are licensing the music). Straight from the RIAA's mouth in regards to cd's:

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpi...ector=piracy_online_the_law


Im so glad we have very, very different laws concerning these and they go above anything RIAA or others claim... hooray
Falls under "AuteursRecht" which is like copyright. But you buy a license for a cd, book or anything similar. You then can borrow away they license to someone else, give it to someone else or even sell it to someone else.
You do not own the data itself, you do own a usage license. Which isnt fixed directly to you.

What we buy from iTunes, is legally allowed to be transfered to a 3rd party. And there is nothing (much, they can ban you from itunes though ) they can do about it.

DomZ said,

All of the iTunes collection is DRM free now, so if you redownlaoded your albums (it doesn't cost anything to do this anymore, all your purchases tracks are in the cloud) then you will be downloading DRM free versions.

Also I don't know why people are thinking they ever 'owned' music when they bought a CD? The laws are exactly the same (you are licensing the music). Straight from the RIAA's mouth in regards to cd's:

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpi...ector=piracy_online_the_law

I wasn't aware that all content was available for DRM-less re-download. I avoid iTunes personally like the plague, but thank you for the correction, as it does inform users.

(The only problem would be content that is no longer available on iTunes, as content availability does shift as licensing deals change, even with the mighty iTunes. Are you 100% that even content that is no longer licensed for distribution through iTunes is available for re-download DRM-Free?)

As for copyright law and online privacy the RIAA is the last place you probably want to use as a reference, as they slant their 'opinion' of the law to sound far more restrictive than it is.

For example, what they fail to mention is all digital content is essentially 'copied' material. If you read the RIAA site, by their words, a RAID set of drives with redundancy would be a violation of digital copyright, and backups would be a violation of digital copyright if you did more than one.

Digital content, just like published content on paper, cds, etc have the same legal usage rights and protections. The problem is people think they 'own' the content, when all they ever own is the medium and the usage rights of that medium to view/use the content.

With digital content, the medium is abstract, which makes it even more confusing.

However, recent rulings and applications of digital copyright end up being just like traditional mediums.

So if you die, you can leave your physical paper book to a loved one, or give a book to someone, or give a CD to a friend.

The same is essentially true of digital content, so you can also leave digital versions of copyrighted content to a loved one, give it to someone as long as you destroy your copy, or give it to a friend if you destroy your copy.

The legality of digital content usage has been ruled to be more flexible than what the RIAA wants people to believe, along with changes in legislation in the USA make it easier to 'give' and even 'loan' digital content.

This is how the library system can legally loan digital eBooks now, and if you look at how the RIAA views the law, what the US Library system is doing would be 'illegal' - even with their DRM mechanisms as they only own a medium license of the content, as the library cannot own works any more than a person can.


The only gray area is what is 'destroying' your copy, which would not apply in the event of the death of a loved one. And these have been struck down when people are trying to do the right thing, and not making copies or backups for nefarious usage or reselling or exchanging.

The RIAA site's position is anything you do is illegal and we will get you, and they quote the rulings they 'like', which is why it not the best source for actual legal opinion.

farmeunit said,
It's not sharing, it's leaving them to someone when they die. Don't really see why this can't be done.

It says there, "Unfortunately, Apple doesn't allow its users to legally share songs bought from the iTunes store with others."

If you want me to reverse the wording for you: Legally, it can't be done... or rather, it'd be illegal for Bruce to do it, his will that he wants use to assign his itunes content to his daughter is also a legal binding contract. You can't over ride someone elses contract with your own. It just doesn't legally work like that.

Now, what is strange is that they've got the policy in the first place. When we 'buy' the music, are we only buying the right to listen to it from the account it's stored on? If so, its no wonder they helped bring the price of music down (loads).

I think digital content should have the same rights as physical content. After all, the MPAA and whoever keep telling us piracy is theft, it works both ways!

farmeunit said,
It's not sharing, it's leaving them to someone when they die. Don't really see why this can't be done.

Because no matter what we know or think morally is the difference or right, Apple still does not allow it.

In legal contracts like a Will, you cannot enforce anything based on something that is illegal. Which would make a Will null/void if someone was to contest it just based on the transfer of property that the personal does not have the right to transfer under the law.

Silly and sucky, yes, does Apple care, nope..

farmeunit said,
It's not sharing, it's leaving them to someone when they die. Don't really see why this can't be done.

Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc... grant “nontransferable” rights to use content, so if you buy any digital content on their stores you cannot give (transfer) it to your children when you die.

a0me said,

Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc... grant “nontransferable” rights to use content, so if you buy any digital content on their stores you cannot give (transfer) it to your children when you die.

I understand the legalese, I'm just saying, I don't see why it's not legal. I don't mean "legal according to a certain contract", I mean as in I have a bunch of songs on CD, tapes, record, or whatever format it is in, and I decide to leave them to someone when I die, then are the "music police" going to come take them away? If I buy the music through Apple, I'm just paying for the right to listen to the music, and not do what I want with it, aside from sharing with everyone (ie, true file-sharing)? That is crazy that people would actually fall for that, or that Apple would even do that. Actually I guess it's not so crazy for Apple.

That's yet another reason I hate Apple. I never bought anything from iTunes just because I dislike the other ways they handle things. Now that I know this . . .

farmeunit said,

I understand the legalese, I'm just saying, I don't see why it's not legal. I don't mean "legal according to a certain contract", I mean as in I have a bunch of songs on CD, tapes, record, or whatever format it is in, and I decide to leave them to someone when I die, then are the "music police" going to come take them away? If I buy the music through Apple, I'm just paying for the right to listen to the music, and not do what I want with it, aside from sharing with everyone (ie, true file-sharing)? That is crazy that people would actually fall for that, or that Apple would even do that. Actually I guess it's not so crazy for Apple.

That's yet another reason I hate Apple. I never bought anything from iTunes just because I dislike the other ways they handle things. Now that I know this . . .


By your logic, you must also hate Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc... because they all handle digital rights the exact same way.

a0me said,

Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc... grant “nontransferable” rights to use content, so if you buy any digital content on their stores you cannot give (transfer) it to your children when you die.

You might want to go re-read the terms.

I'm not sure about Amazon; however, XBox Music - aka Zune DRM-Free MP3 content is licensed under standard copyright, so you can share, give, and transfer it to another person as long as it is personal and not business, i.e. you can't charge for it.

It is just like a physical CD or a Book, you can loan it, give it, or leave it to another person in the event of your death.

a0me said,

By your logic, you must also hate Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc... because they all handle digital rights the exact same way.

I can download anything I want, music wise from Amazon without DRM. I can also lend books, etc.. I haven't bought anything from MS except software which has a limited life expectancy anyway. Music does not. I think you missed the part about all the other things Apple does to make me hate them, but that's another story.

They are more expensive than some other service and more restrictive. I hate iTunes also, but necessary to do things with iPod. It's just their way or the highway. I work in education and they won't allow vendors to knowingly sell to schools. We HAVE to purchase from Apple directly.

Edited by farmeunit, Sep 3 2012, 3:44am :

farmeunit said,

I can download anything I want, music wise from Amazon without DRM.


Music downloaded from iTunes is also DRM-free.
And Amazon has the same restriction as iTunes.
Re-read the Amazon MP3 Music Service: ToU, "Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, NON-TRANSFERABLE RIGHT to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use."
I can also lend books, etc..

I was obviously talking about eBooks, not physical books.
And eBooks are not transferable.

thenetavenger said,

You might want to go re-read the terms.

I'm not sure about Amazon; however, XBox Music - aka Zune DRM-Free MP3 content is licensed under standard copyright, so you can share, give, and transfer it to another person as long as it is personal and not business, i.e. you can't charge for it.


Are you sure?
Just took a look at the ToU and it says that you're granted "a personal, non-exclusive, NON-TRANSFERABLE, limited right and license to view and privately display any Retained Rights Content you obtain via the Service in your Territory" which is basically the same as iTunes, Amazon, etc...
http://www.zune.net/en-US/legal/termsofservice.htm

a0me said,

Are you sure?
Just took a look at the ToU and it says that you're granted "a personal, non-exclusive, NON-TRANSFERABLE, limited right and license to view and privately display any Retained Rights Content you obtain via the Service in your Territory" which is basically the same as iTunes, Amazon, etc...
http://www.zune.net/en-US/legal/termsofservice.htm

Ok, you are confusing two things, and neither of them have anything to do with non-DRM music content.

1) The Agreement with Microsoft is non-transferable

2) Specific items not mentioned are non-transferable and specifically VOD is non-transferable, which even implies that once you have obtained the content, you can transfer it, it is only 'streaming' or 're-downloading' that is not transferable.

Here...

ZuneSite
22.3 Content Usage Rules for Music and Music Video. All music and music video content you purchase, rent or acquire on a subscription basis from the Zune Service in your Territory is subject to this contract and any other applicable terms and conditions. These include: (i) limitations imposed by copyright owners; (ii) use of digital rights management (DRM) technology; and (iii) the usage rules, located athttp://www.xbox.com/usagerules .

Going on to the XBox licensing we find...

XBoxSite
For DRM-free sound recordings, you are authorized to make only such copies as are reasonably necessary for your personal and non-commercial use, and any other copying in excess of that is expressly prohibited and may constitute copyright infringement.


In other words, this informs the user of what Copyright Law dictates, and then mentions that the guidelines are based on Copyright Infringement Laws.

There is NOTHING above or beyond Copyright usage laws applied. PERIOD.

a0me said,

Music downloaded from iTunes is also DRM-free.
And Amazon has the same restriction as iTunes.
Re-read the Amazon MP3 Music Service: ToU, "Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, NON-TRANSFERABLE RIGHT to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use."

I was obviously talking about eBooks, not physical books.
And eBooks are not transferable.

Actually Amazon does permit lending of eBooks.

You can also 'borrow' eBooks from your library that have been purchased through Amazon and non-Apple sources.

thenetavenger said,

Actually Amazon does permit lending of eBooks.

You can also 'borrow' eBooks from your library that have been purchased through Amazon and non-Apple sources.


That's nice, but the issue is not about lending (which is only available on a selection of eligible titles BTW) but transferring your rights. Which Amazon doesn't allow.

thenetavenger said,

Ok, you are confusing two things, and neither of them have anything to do with non-DRM music content.

1) The Agreement with Microsoft is non-transferable

2) Specific items not mentioned are non-transferable and specifically VOD is non-transferable, which even implies that once you have obtained the content, you can transfer it, it is only 'streaming' or 're-downloading' that is not transferable.

Here...

Going on to the XBox licensing we find...


In other words, this informs the user of what Copyright Law dictates, and then mentions that the guidelines are based on Copyright Infringement Laws.

There is NOTHING above or beyond Copyright usage laws applied. PERIOD.


Sorry I don't see anywhere where it says that you can transfer the content to someone else.