Bruce Willis Planning Legal Battle to Leave iTunes Library in His Will

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, but in Australia if you buy an iTunes song you actually own it. Our (very strong and very easy to enforce) Trade Practices Act dismisses fine print. It regards what is offered as valid if it is "What a reasonable person would expect" on seeing the original offer. The iTunes store says "Buy now for $xxx", not lease or rent now, so here if you "buy" it, you own it. I have used our Trade Practice law successfully in the past.

You're lucky. Here in the States, laws are frequently passed to protect big business and devious practices like this buy/lease bit. Fine print is the name of the game.

[ucfgrad93]

According to MacRumors.com this story is false.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/03/...ansferability/

https://twitter.com/EmmaHeming/statu...31258310594562

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, but in Australia if you buy an iTunes song you actually own it. Our (very strong and very easy to enforce) Trade Practices Act dismisses fine print. It regards what is offered as valid if it is "What a reasonable person would expect" on seeing the original offer. The iTunes store says "Buy now for $xxx", not lease or rent now, so here if you "buy" it, you own it. I have used our Trade Practice law successfully in the past.

So you can resell songs bought from iTunes in Australia?

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

So you can resell songs bought from iTunes in Australia?

I doubt it. There is still the problem of ensuring that if a digital copy is sold, no original copy remains. The only difference with our consumer law is that fine print cannot override a plain English offer. For instance if you buy a diet product here that guarantees weight loss, but the fine print says that it might not work for all consumers, the company selling such a product has to reimburse the purchase price on the grounds that the product was "Not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased." They brought out laws to protect consumers from false advertising, false claims, and misleading or restrictive "conditions" regarding the purchase.

Recently they have amended laws concerning warranties. If your car transmission has a three year warranty and it fails at four years, the company still has to repair it as a transmission is regarded normally being good for five years or more. Warranties cannot limit conventional accepted usage periods. This killed a busy little industry in third party "Extended Warranties" - things like AppleCare.

The downside is you have to be prepared to take the company to court if they refuse to comply. As long as you can prove your claim - easy to do - you will win, but many people are reluctant to initiate a court case. For every breach of consumer law, a company gets a $240,000 fine. THat fine does not go to the litigant, it goes into Government coffers. Because of this most companies settle before it reaches court.

I have had several wins, the biggest for fourteen thousand dollars for repairs to an out of warranty BMW when the computer failed three months after the warranty expired. (They had to pay for the use of a hire car while the dispute was resolved - six weeks.)

[JoHunt]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

According to MacRumors.com this story is false.

https://twitter.com/EmmaHeming/statu...31258310594562

Someone asked if the the false rumor came from Samsung LOL

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

According to MacRumors.com this story is false.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/03/...ansferability/

https://twitter.com/EmmaHeming/statu...31258310594562

Now this is the first post in the thread that I believe. (well except the Monkey Business...)