People,
I keep addressing the original topic, but there's many other things of a tangential nature brought into the discussion which has little to do directly with Lan's and his sister's situation. But I understand why people have so many questions about their situation.
I think the beneficial service these forums provide is that they can increase human understanding. And doesn’t that make the world a better place? But we must deal with facts; not vague statements, innuendo, but with facts. There are many statements which are brought in which do not apply to Lan’s question, the original poster, about which I have been talking. Those statements muddy the waters, cloud people’s minds, and don’t necessarily represent the truth of Lan’s situation, nor help with our understanding of it. It may not be a conscious decision to confuse and control fellow human beings, but instead echoes of previous page discussions. But I have only been talking about Lan’s situation; maybe some people are talking about other situations. For instance, selling, wiping etc. It may be best to discuss one situation at a time. I will focus mostly on Lan’s situation, but will address some of the other things brought into the discussion. With that goal in mind, I offer the following:
Fact: the TOS is actually not the final say of what one is required to do but rather the laws of the land or the courts have the final say. It is perfectly legal to sell or transfer licenses for software, even if the TOS says you can’t—-in the EU, for instance. It depends on the laws in the jurisdiction in which one lives. Google-ize-(eyes) the case of “Oracle verses UsedSoft”. Oracle, a somewhat litigious company, sued UsedSoft because they were selling used software licenses for the Oracle database. It was against Oracle's TOS, but in spite of that it is perfectly legal in the EU to sell and transfer software licenses (with clear documentation one is actually transferring the purchased license). In short, the corporate lawyers may write the TOS to the advantage of the corporation—I am shocked!— and restrict your rights, but those restrictions may be non binding depending on the law of the land. So you have to know the law in the jurisdiction where you live. For another example:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/nobody-reads-tos-agreements-even-one s-that-demand-first-born-as-payment/?comments=1
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/07/13/2010231/tos-agreements-require-giving-u p-first-born----and-users-gladly-consent
People agreed to giving up their first born in TOS click box. Now in many countries it is illegal to trade children, and that part of the TOS is not enforceable and can be ignored. From somebody who said they were a lawyer:
“Short summary: If the license says something that is enforceable in court, odds are super good that you can't get it removed with anything short of an activist campaign. If that's not your thing, you're still a decent human being for not caring. I understand that you have other priorities. If the license says something that is not enforceable in court, why should you care at the outset? Deal with it if the circumstance arises. Again, you have other priorities.
I call it pragmatism. I don't care whether you do or not.”
But getting back and focusing on Lan and sister’s case. From my experience in a family, if somebody says you can use something it usually is usually a loan. Sometimes later the sibling could ask for the item’s return. Sometimes not. It really is often ambiguous. Would you not be surprised with the following discourse?
Lan “Hey sis, are you using that iPad?”
sis: “Nay, you can use it.”
Lan: “Really? Thanks!”
Do you think family members are conceptualizing whether this is a transfer of ownership, a limited loan, or some indefinite loan? or maybe not even thinking in those terms?
Lan tells us that it is still her iPad, she owns it and he is just using it: “now, i'm using her iPad, “
As long as she owns the iPad, how is she violating the TOS by letting her brother use it? Facts please. Isn’t it perfectly legal to let her brother borrow her iPad? With all the apps?
MB says: “The whole definition of what constitutes a reasonable "definite vs. indefinite" time has already been determined by the courts” What courts? Case law depends on similar cases. What is the case reference? Was it similar to somebody loaning an iPad with software on it? It wasn’t music or something else, was it? The rules are different for different things. And what was the courts’s determination? 6 months? 2 years? 1 week? What are the facts? and no alternative facts please. Back statements up with facts, please. As long as Lan’s sister owns the iPad, I think she can loan it with all the apps to her brother. How is this contrary to the TOS? Is there a time limit on her loan? Or is it as long as she owns it?
It is very good to back things up with actual facts, especially today. There is so much mis-information, trolls, bots, mis-understandings, that we should all be very skeptical of what we read on the internet, don’t you agree? I would appreciate any real references to similar cases, not just "people have been sued". Unfortunately the way things are today, references to facts, and similar cases which may apply to Lan and his sister, are very necessary in order to have a meaningful conversation which promotes understanding. Sometimes even that is not enough.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on Lan’s sister? Is she a good person for letting her brother use the iPad? or an immoral person for letting him use the iPad?
Of course, as she is loaning it to Lan there is no requirement to wipe it, as babowa pointed out:
“Licensor grants to you a nontransferable license to use the Licensed Application on any Apple-branded products that you own or control. “ As Lan said, Lan’s sister still owns the iPad: “she has purchased many apps, now, i'm using her iPad”
I can understand why she did not want to share her password as her credit card is linked to the Apple ID, but if she gets Lan to put his credit card on her account then she does not have to trust Lan; Lan hast to trust her. If Lan has little trust, or little credit, he can just put a prepaid Visa card on the account, and that would limit his damage. If she does have Lan’s credit card on her ID, she may then feel safe in sharing the password with her brother. If Lan is going to purchase items, he should get his own ID to purchase under, so when she wants her iPad back, or Lan wants to buy a new one, he can put his purchases on his new iPad. And yes, you can purchase and download items from different IDs as long as it’s, “on any Apple-branded products that you own or control “I think Lan is controlling the iPad.
“- You can use Content from up to five different Apple IDs on each device.”
This is something for parents too; get your kid to have their own Apple ID, but don’t put your credit card on their account, get them a pre-paid one, or one with a very low credit limit. Then when they move out, they can take all their music, apps, ebooks, etc. with their ID. When/if they get a non-pre-paid credit card they can put that on their account.
Married folks should have separate IDs too; they can be on the same credit card, which can be changed later if the need arises. That way they can share purchases on their Apple devices. Log into the iTunes store with the wife’s account, purchase and download her purchases, then logout of the wife’s account and login with the husband’s account for his purchases and downloads. As they both own the Apple devices this does not violate the TOS. Of course, check your states laws on property ownership of married couples. There may be minor differences depending upon the state. In some states property possessed prior to entering into marriage may be deemed to not be common property. (This is getting rather nit-picking, isn’t it? From the above urls, most people don’t even read the TOS.) I think property bought while married is common property, but check with your lawyer, of course! If there is a break up, they can each take their ID with them, but they would not have their ex-partner’s ID, all their partner’s items would eventually go away.
I ‘m not sure what the iTunes EU agreement says, but maybe EU folks would find it advantageous to make sure all software purchases were on a separate ID just for software; don’t mix in ebooks, music, movies.
I’m sure someone will say never share your password with your spouse, your kids, your brother, your sister. Of course we should all check with a lawyer before we share anything……blah blah blah.
Well that is about all I am going to say on this topic. I think the whole situation has needlessly be muddied up, obfuscated, by all kinds of non-applicable statements. I also don't think Lan's sister is going to be hauled into court either, as she seems to be following the TOS. I think it’s nice for her to help Lan.