For some years I’ve BOUGHT (note word) albums of music from Apple. On their shop website it specifically uses the word “Buy”. I find now that I can’t play the music I bought and paid for. Apple now put conditions on the transactions, expecting me to RENT the music I own, because I can only play my music using their player.
What’s the deal here… Why don’t I OWN the music I PAID for.
Minor nitpick: You never OWN the music that you paid for. It is owned by the copyright-holder.
What you OWN is a licence to use the music in the specific ways that the terms and conditions (lengthy, legalese, that you probably didn’t read) allow.
Is it fair? Hard to say without a bit more detail about what the actual problem is, and details of the platform etc.
Personally, I opt out of this crap - but that is becoming more difficult (while still paying).
Well. semantics is one thing, but surely it can’t be possible for actual words to have their MEANING CHANGED? Or maybe in this crazy world a word meaning can be changed. I’m talking about the word “buy”. If I purchase a music Album- CD say, the licence and copyright is paid for in the purchase price is it not? Apparently in the Apple world, they can use the word: BUY, when they ACTUALLY mean RENT. Get my point?
Absolutely I get your overall point. That’s why I wrote: I opt out of this crap.
The meaning of the word “buy” has not changed but perhaps you have been misled about what you bought. You bought a licence. You most certainly did not buy the copyright. The terms of the licence may in theory prevent you from making any copy at all.
Indeed. A CD is vastly more consumer-friendly. In that case you bought the physical medium (the actual CD) but you still only bought a licence to use the content of the CD in accordance with the terms of the licence. The difference is that the CD has no mechanism to enforce the terms of the licence. Hence you can combine morality with flexibility.
But did you buy a CD? (The reason I ask this is that some people are buying actual CDs and then loading them into Apple iTunes-thingy thus potentially losing the flexibility that actual CDs give you but potentially gaining some minor benefits.)
Interesting conversation Person. When I bought the music (not CDs), the purchase page illustrated the music graphic, not a licence graphic. Now ‘not bought?’ We call that ‘misrepresentation’ in other areas of marketing. -Advertising a different product to that which is delivered. I wonder about the many music albums I bought from iTunes, (in the good ol’ days) which I used to be able to play with no restrictions, but now can’t. I’m sure Apple would have an office-full of lawyers who could have me banged-up in an instant if I so much as mentioned it.
(Yes I love CDs and even Vinyl).
Maybe. But most likely it was all not misrepresented in those 30 pages of legalese that you didn’t read. So at best you could argue that the picture was inconsistent with the legalese and/or the picture misled you. Note that since a CD is still subject to use in accordance with the granted licence, a picture of a CD does not technically imply that you can use the content in any way you like - and I don’t think you will get very far arguing that you expected to receive a physical CD. 
(Since I don’t use this crap at all, can you post here what the “music graphic” is?)
Did the licence terms of the older albums actually change? That would be worth exploring if so. Perhaps you didn’t keep a copy of the licence terms. (As a theoretical illustration of how this might not work for you: the licence terms always said that you can only play the content using Apple’s player but that was not previously enforced.)
What player are you trying to use? i.e. would you use if it worked?
Are the licence terms unconscionable? Maybe. Who can say? I think you have the answer though …
… few people are going to go up against a trillion dollar company who has an army of lawyers.
Many other “buyers” would sympathise, and echo your plaintive call! 
Apple’s by no means the only company selling what really are only temporary licenses for digital objects, and apart from severely limiting how the purchaser can make use of that license, reserving the right to remotely delete or inactivate the object for their own reasons. For example, if their own contract with the author / publisher of the object has ended, they can’t legally continue to provide the license to those who paid for it.
See this other topic for more discussion about this issue.
So options would seem to be:
I’m choosing the third option.
Thanks gents, yes it was a “plaintive cry”, (always naively hoping that the world would be a more just world!) And of course I knew the answers as you guys say. Yes of course they can change the conditions of use any time they please, why on earth would I think different! As you advise Person… Option #3, no is the word. I’ll now thread up my open-reel tape of ‘Sweetheart of the Rodeo’ and count myself lucky to have some ‘cool’ analogue music.
It was possible in the past to download purchase music files in AAC format:
Have you tried this to see if it still works?
Hi @Jools. You may want to have a read of a thread with similar discussions in the context of digital vs physical music.
I don’t know if you recall the hulabaloo around the APRA campain against people copying their own tapes, records, CDs etc? It was about us mere consumers only being given permission to play the music, not copy it, because the music copyright is ‘owned’ by the artist or their trust, the recording company, or by some investor who bought it.
The APRA organization now includes AMCOS. The following information is from the APRA AMCOS website:
“The Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS) administers and licenses reproduction rights and collects royalties when music is copied on various formats, including in physical media and digitally. These reproduction rights are often called ‘mechanicals’.
AMCOS proudly represents more than 35,000 members and rightsholders for the collection and distribution of reproduction royalties across digital, physical and print formats in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and key Asia Pacific markets, as well as globally through AMCOS’ reciprocal agreements worldwide.
The licensing of these rights ensures that songwriters, composers, and music publishers are paid for the reproduction of their music — whether on physical formats like CDs and vinyl, or via digital downloads and streaming, or in sheet music and other educational materials.”
We don’t ever own the music we buy, we are paying to use it.
