I disagree. There is no difference, with respect to copyright, between a vinyl record of the Beatles and the iTunes equivalent. It's not copyright (which is an agreement between you and Apple Records) that is keeping you from bequeathing the iTunes copy to your heirs, it's the licensing terms (which is an agreement between you and Apple Computer).
No; with the vinyl record, you don't need a license at all, since the first-sale doctrine gives you the right by law.
Also, copyright is not an agreement between me and Apple Records. I've never agreed to anything, yet I'm still bound by it. The agreement is between society and/or the state and Apple Records.
Another example i belive is similar was patent "exhaustion" in the apple/samsung case. If apple buys the chips from qualcom, and qualcom has a licensce, samsung can't double-dip and accuse apple of infringing on things they bought from qualcom.
Fine, its not an agreement, but it is a legal relationship between you and the rights-holder. When things go south, you get sued by Apple Records, not indicted by the state.
To call it a "legal relationship" is even stretching it. Would you say that I have a "legal relationship" with every other person on the planet because if I make up mean stuff about them, they can sue me for defamation?
I disagree. There is no difference, with respect to copyright, between a vinyl record of the Beatles and the iTunes equivalent. It's not copyright (which is an agreement between you and Apple Records) that is keeping you from bequeathing the iTunes copy to your heirs, it's the licensing terms (which is an agreement between you and Apple Computer).
Don't confuse the two!