ITMS Faces Complaint From Norwegian Ombudsman

Whiney Mac Fanboy writes "Following the French Bill that threatened Apple's iTunes service in France, the iTunes music store is facing more uncertainty in Scandinavia. According to a report in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Norway's Consumer Ombudsman has filed a complaint with Apple's music download sales service iTunes, arguing that the transaction terms violate Norwegian law. The Register is also reporting this story:, saying a contract cannot be regulated by English law, rather than Norwegian law, so iTunes must accept responsibility for damage its software may do, and said it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold. Consumer Council told the Reg: 'The Consumer Council has asked Apple to respond as to whether iTunes should work on other platforms - they have until 21 June to respond. After that the Ombudsman is likely to set another deadline and then start fining the company.' The BPI (Britain's RIAA equivalent) has also called upon Apple to license Fairplay."

Comments

Symptom of a wider problem.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

While I'm sure we're going to have the inevitable "Apple should withdraw from Scandinavia" posts here, people should really consider that this is a symptom of a wider problem; Apple trying to operate assuming that all legal systems are the same as the US's.

Notions of fair use / legal exchange of copyrighted materials vary all over the world. Apple's DRM ignores all these difference (limitting legal use of content in some countries) and relies on the whip of the US-only DMCA for enforcement.

Its pretty obvious that this isn't really an Apple/Norway problem, but a DRM/Worldwide problem - Apple is just the most successful DRM pusher (the first try is free!) at the moment.

PS. FP on my own story submission?

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

:::.. testmy.net test results ..:::
Download Connection is:: 8762 Kbps about 8.76 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB)
Download Speed is:: 1070 kB/s
Upload Connection is:: 1060 Kbps about 1.06 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB)
Upload Speed is:: 129 kB/s
Tested From:: http://testmy.net/ (Server 1)Test Time:: 2006/06/08 - 6:56am
D-Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-74WJC2O8D
U-Validation Link:: http://testmy.net/stats/id-OCJ23HPT5
Host Average:: host:cox.net dl-avg:4626Kbps ul-avg:662Kbps
User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) [!]

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[arborlaw]

The "wider problem" here isn't only the US-centric serving-up of DRM...it's the US-centric view completely. You make a contract with a citizen in another country, the contract is governed by...the other country's laws. Doh.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Yvanhoe]

Apple should withdraw from Scandinavia anyway, it would be a major victory for anti-DRMs and make pulicity around this issue.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

While I'm sure we're going to have the inevitable "Apple should withdraw from Scandinavia" posts here, people should really consider that this is a symptom of a wider problem; Apple trying to operate assuming that all legal systems are the same as the US's.

This is a symptom of a wider problem. US companies do tend to assume that US Law is applicable everywhere, and indeed, this view is not restricted to companies. USians do often think that everyone, everywhere is subject to penalties for infractions on their laws or properties. Take the case of McKinnon for example. Many felt his extradition was correct, despite the fact that he is not subject to US law, and that the US armed forces properties overseas do not enjoy any protection under the UK legal system.

Of course, owing to their huge influence, US companies have succeeded to a large degree in making US law the default internationally, paticularly in the business sphere. On the one hand, this is a good thing, as commerce becomes standardised. On the other, it is quite a dangerous thing, as US mores are often exported and imposed on foreign societies.

For example, US mores regarding drugs laws are often applied in foreign countires, often when there is no real problem ariseing from that drugs consumption in the country in question. A prime example of this is marijuana. The drug became illegal in the United States, arguably as a result of a moral panic, and the rest of the world followed suit. In recent years, the drugs illegality has been "toned down" and even reversed somewhat in other nations.

It is often the case that where the US goes, others follow. Given the often conservative nature of US society, this trend often worries me, as mores and standards chosen for a different population are frequently hoist upon my own. It is of course, paticularly worrisome given the increasingly reactionary nature of a substantial portion of a growing number US people.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Awful Truth]

Not at all true. Typically contracts between parties in different legal systems (even between U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract. That way there's less of a chance of conflicting legal systems, though it can happen -- for instance, if party B agrees to use party A's legal system and do something legal in A's jurisdiction but not in B's. I work in the Financial industry; almost all derivatives contracts (for instance) specify English law governs the parties. If they use U.S. law, they specify New York State. It's not really that financial firms think they can get the best deal in those places, but rather that the law is most well developed for this industry there, and so there are more precedents and less ambiguity. So no, it's probably not a case of U.S. Centrism as it is a desire to work under a predictable legal framework. If you're rolling out a service to customers in many different countries, you don't want to have to retain lawyers in each, and customize your product.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[arborlaw]

That works fine for contract law, but it won't affect the application of other laws. If one jurisdiction considers the transaction or event to be a crime...or a tort...or a violation of a regulation. Contracts only go so far, m'friend.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

You pasted from the wrong window you fucking numpty

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world doesn't matter. Get over it. You're country is the size on one of our states. We don't care.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[DragonWriter]

You make a contract with a citizen in another country, the contract is governed by...the other country's laws.

That's not really true, which should be obvious because, if were true, which laws applied would depend on which party to a contract was considered "you". The interaction of various national laws and treaty regimes (like the CISG) to contracts that span multiple countries is not nearly as straightforward as "you make a contract with a citizen in another country, the contract is coverned by the other country's laws."

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Jo Owen]

You mean just like how holland affects the US drug policy?

US policy is directed by the US only.

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Midnight Thunder]

see my question about indie labels: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187871&cid =15495851

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[arborlaw]

I agree with you, I'm generalizing to oversimplify it on purpose....in reality it is nowhere near straightforward, as legal questions go. And, I think, a lot less straightforward, even, than your reply. So here's a more detailed example that shows exactly how contorted it can become:

Say I am Joe American making a contract with Svenka the Swede, for a monthly all-you-can-eat video feed subscription to a bestiality and pedophilia porno site. I happen to be sitting at my computer in my bar in Memphis, Tennessee (home of the most content-restrictive obscenity community standards in the United States).

The contract issues are relatively easy, aren't they? Svenka's contract is a standard subscription and license agreement that says that Swedish law "governs" and that the Convention on International Services and Goods applies (which, like the UCC in the US, "reads" in a whole host of default terms into the contract).

Oh, but wait a minute...Joe American happens to have purchased his subscription via Purchase Order form used by his business, Joe's Sleazy Porno Bar & Grill, and on the front of the purchase order it prominently states: IT IS A CONDITION OF ACCEPTING THIS ORDER THAT TENNESSEE LAW APPLIES TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT THE PARTIES AGREE TO EXEMPT THIS TRANSACTION FROM THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES AND GOODS. ANY TERMS TO THE CONTRARY OF PURCHASER'S ORDER SHALL NOT BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT, BUT SHALL BE NULL AND VOID. Or some such.

So now they are in the extremely-common situation where they have a "made" and performing contract, where the contract itself contains two conflicting statements about what's actually in the contract, and what's not. The Swedish contract says the CISG applies. The Tennessee purchase order says it knocks out other contract terms and that Tennessee law applies, or else there's no contract (commonly called a "blockbuster clause" in UCC lawyer parlance). And, as I said, the parties are actually performing the contract--Joe American is happily streaming hot horsey love and pediophilia into his bar TV sets, and Svenka is ringing up the kronor.

Just on the contract level, as I'm sure you know, it is usually even more complicated on the jurisdictional front: Svenka's contract provides for all disputes to be resolved in Sweden, while Joe's Purchase Order specifies courts in Memphis have to be used.

So now there's a problem with the wire transfer payments and Svenka turns off the feed, and Joe wants to go to court to enforce. He naturally chooses Memphis because it's down the street.

The Memphis court is going to apply Tennessee conflict-of-laws principles to determine a host of issues: A. whether it should apply its own conflict-of-laws principles, or those of another jurisdiction; B. whether it has jurisdiction (clearly it has personal jurisdiction over Joe, but not over Svenka, at which point it will consider whether Svenka has "minimum contacts" with the forum sufficient to submit her to the jurisdiction of the court; C. whether it is preempted from applying Tennessee conflict-of-laws and contracts law by a "higher law," ie, federal law or international treaty; D. whether the Purchase Order actually "knocks out" the terms in Svenka's contract requiring the application of the UN Convention on International Services and Goods under the UCC (question of treaty law); etc. Oh, and of course, since the contract is for illegal material, it might consider whether the contract is "void ab initio" for public policy purposes under either jurisdiction's laws, which might excuse it from having to reach any of these other issues.

And obviously, these are just the contract issues. Joe's contracting with Svenka and receiving the video feed may (indeed, would) subject him to US federal and Tennessee criminal laws on obscenity and distributing pornography to his customers. Svenka is theoretically on the hook for that too as a "co-conspirator", but she's not within the personal jurisdiction of the US federal or Tennessee cour

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Yvanhoe]

I egoistically think from my european point of view :-)

I am heartedly with you if you want to try and affect the US laws, but I, for one, would like to be some recent laws in France changed, even if it "costs" us the access to iTunes DRMed products

Re:Symptom of a wider problem.

[Pofy]

>Not at all true. Typically contracts between parties in different legal systems (even between
>U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract.

Yes, but if someone in, say, Norway buys from a shop in Norway, norwegian laws applies, period. In this case, it is about Apple's Norwegian store, not if someone from Norway goes to some site in another country and buys from there. Still, at most you will end up with the possibility of the country you buy from having its law apply.

Do note that we talk about consumer sales here, which in most cases are conducted in the country you also live in (or is visiting). For such cases, there is no room or need for specifying laws to govren the purchase. The fact that companies themselves buy and sell between them across boarders is a different bussiness and such sales are typically governed by far less laws and there is much more roof for contractual agreeements on most things, while for consumer sales, the laws are usually not possible to override by contracts, including spcifying another law.

>If you're rolling out a service to customers in many different countries, you don't want to
>have to retain lawyers in each, and customize your product.

On the countrary, at least for consumer sales, if you want to be present in different countries, you MUST know the laws and adjust to them. With your proposal, each consumer would instead have to emply a laywer for each country when he goes shopping instead, obviously a horribly bad situation. It would basically be chaos, imagine going to your grocery and having 10 different laws apply to your purchase!

Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[eldavojohn]

The article linked is a little hard to read but Playlist has a decent report on the story. Also note that MacWorld UK ran this story yesterday.

But this kind of raises an interesting question. When a company operates accross many countries, which country's law do they uphold?

We saw both Google & Yahoo! run into a bit of a jam with their services in China. They pretty much violated what would be considered ethical duties in the United States overseas. Is this wrong? Do they face legal implications in one country or the other?

With iTMS operating in the UK, the US & Norway, what are they to do? Fairplay seems to be violating laws in the UK & Norway while in the United States it seems to be law to have some form of DRM (and with lobbyist Herr RIAA in charge, that's not going to change anytime soon). Do they alter the way their service works in each country? If so, sign me up for some musikk!

Perhaps Apple will license Fairplay so that other devices can play the MP4 music ... though I doubt it. They've got quite a racket going and I'm sure they don't want to hurt iPod sales anywhere. Maybe they'll have to better define a few EULAs in order to avoid this, I'm not a law-talking guy so I'm not sure.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Apple should do the same thing Yahoo, Google, MS & Cisco should do - Don't operate in a country unless you're prepared to follow their laws.

In the case of Google, MS & Cisco - they should pull the hell out of China - their laws are unreasonable, and no company with a conscience should operate there.

Norway on the other hand has perfectly reasonable laws - Apple should change their world wide operations to comply with Norwegian law :-)

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can 'should' all you want. But where is it defined whether or not they are legally liable for any of their actions from either side?

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

From one of TFAs: Moreover, it is unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must give consent to is regulated by English law.

Every contract I've ever signed stated which jurisdiction's laws applied ("shall be governed by the laws of the state of California"). I don't understand how Norway can say that if one of the parties is Norwegian (or in Norway) that only the laws of Norway can control.

Hell, IANAL, maybe someone can explain this.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, IANAL, maybe someone can explain this.

I sure can, but I require my $700/hour fee up front.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[winwar]

"I don't understand how Norway can say that if one of the parties is Norwegian (or in Norway) that only the laws of Norway can control."

Because they make the law in their country? I'm sure Apple can say the US law applies but it doesn't mean that Norway has to honor it....

This is a problem that has become widespread in part due to the internet.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[famebait]

I don't understand how Norway can say that if one of the parties is Norwegian (or in Norway) that only the laws of Norway can control.

They don't. They say that when a business which has a norwegia branch operates a norwegian-language e-shop explicitly directed at the norwegian market, distributed through a .no site, and in every way strives to come across as a local shop, then it is no longer an import scenario: they are operating in the norwegian market, and are subject to norwegian trade law, and just claiming they're not doesn't make it so.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[badmammajamma]

"In the case of Google, MS & Cisco - they should pull the hell out of China - their laws are unreasonable, and no company with a conscience should operate there."

Yeah, and we shouldn't buy any goods from China since nobody with a concience would do that. Have fun buying...just about anything. Holding Google to a standard different than your own is called hypocracy.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

No. The contract (that both parties agreed to) states the governing jurisdiction. As an example, here's a quote from Sun's Java license:

13.GOVERNING LAW. Any action related to this
Agreement will be governed by California law and
controlling U.S. federal law. No choice of law
rules of any jurisdiction will apply.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[bri2000]

Generally speaking in the EU consumer contracts must be governed by the laws of, and jurisdiction in respect of disputes granted to, the jurisdiction in which the consumer resides. This is to prevent forum shopping by companies looking for countries with the weakest consumer protection laws and purporting to take advantage of those in other countries. A huge number of software and tech companies seem unaware of this (assuming that choice of law and jurisdiction in clauses work in the same way in the EU as in the US) and, presumably, don't want the expense of hiring local lawyers to check this sort of thing for them. My personal favourite was the license for the EU edition of the XBOX version of Doom 3, which purported to be governed by the laws of Texas...

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Holding Google to a standard different than your own is called hypocracy."

Is that a lower form of democracy?

Anyway, it's quite possible to avoid made-in-China products, you just have to try. Not everything comes from there, not even all cheap stuff.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[arborlaw]

But this kind of raises an interesting question. When a company operates accross many countries, which country's law do they uphold?

Juris (the law) + diction (the power to speak the law).

There is an entire meta-category of legal principles called "conflict of laws" that courts consult to determine which location's law to apply. The real answer to this question involves applying conflicts-of-laws principles recursively from several points of view and determining what you can get away with. Some relevant questions:

A. Where are you worried about being subjected to the legal system? ie, where is the court that you are afraid of, located? (IF NO ASSETS IN JDX -> "don't worry")

B. What is it you are worried about, which might be enforced in that location? (location's criminal law, my contract terms)

C. Does the location have conflict-of-laws principles that apply? (consult local law expert about local law)

D. If so, are the location's laws and principles seeking to be applied as "controlling" in a conflict-of-laws context? (a jurisdiction may have extensive regulation in a particular area--in such cases, another jurisdiction's courts will defer to that jurisdiction's power to "speak the law" on that issue)

E. If so, is it likely that a court in Home Jurisdiction will throw you on your tuckus if you ignore Other Location's quirky laws? (generally not, if the court is here in the US--we're a bunch of imperialist Hague-hating lex Americana types).

So there's the process...imagine what it costs to pay a lawyer type to figure all that out, for each contract, for each jurisdiction on the globe.

And...(meta-meta) each jurisdiction has its own conflict-of-laws principles.

B.I. (before Internet) it was a lot easier to figure out which law to apply, because events and transactions all occurred in one place--Joe bought a screwdriver from Bob, at Bob's store in Peoria. Now Joe is buying porno from Svenka in Uzbekistan.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Tom]

I don't understand how Norway can say that if one of the parties is Norwegian (or in Norway) that only the laws of Norway can control.

Because laws are not a "choose any you like" concept. You have to follow the US speed limit on US highways, even if you are a foreigner driving a japanese car, you know?

Same thing here. Norwegian law applies if you sell to norwegian customers, even if you're an american company.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[nso]

Actually, an EULA has no legal grounds in Norway. There is absolutely no difference on the consumers rights and duties if you add one or not.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[zxSpectrum]

IANAL, but from my understanding, EULAs are not legally binding contracts under Norwegian law.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Thanks, that's interesting. I will still draw the distinction between consumer protection laws and contract law. In other words, a company could/should be held to the local standards for product liability, which is consumer protection, but a contract has the option of stating what it's conditions are and both parties agree to it, else it is not a contract.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Nevynxxx]

Who defines reasonable?

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[pla]

No. The contract (that both parties agreed to) states the governing jurisdiction.

Thus the problem here...

Norway has basically said that a Norwegian company selling to Norwegians can't cherry-pick a jurisdiction outside Norway. Simple as that.

If Sun's Java license instead said "Any action related to this Agreement will be governed by Saudi law and controlling Sharia law", would you still feel inclined to just accept that their words make it so? Even though it would make you, (probably) a US citizen, downloading a product in the US from a US company, subject to execution for using it to denounce Islam?

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[famebait]

You must be talking about some other country. Here in Norway, your corner shop can't claim to operate under the law of some foreign country in order to escape the law, even with the use of a contract, and neither can Apple when they operate as a local business entity.

If the customers were dealing directly with Apple in the US, things would of course be different.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[SmashMacFly]

But this kind of raises an interesting question. When a company operates accross many countries, which country's law do they uphold?
The thing here is that it depends on the customer's country laws ! Some country laws will tell you that you're subject to the laws of the country of the company you're buying to; some other country laws will force you to comply to their regulation to be able to sell your products.
As an example I would take the case of a web contest that would be held on a UK web site might be forbidden in France because they do not have the same laws. I saw it with one of my client who had web sites all over Europe: the contest was ok for all countries except for France ... and modifying the rules would have allowed the contest to enter France but would have blocked it in other countries.

That's where the nightmare is: every state will tell you "Obey the Law !" but if you obey to the law in a country you will violate the law in another, or violate the laws of equality of the market in Europe.

This said, I don't think that the main motivation for Apple to keep "their" songs secure is the reduction of iPod sales. I would consider the ITMS as an addition to the iPod accessories and certainly not the opposite. iPod was there long before the ITMS and the success was already huge.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Holding Google to a standard different than your own is called hypocracy.

I don't operate in China, so am not holding them to a different standard!

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But this kind of raises an interesting question. When a company operates accross many countries, which country's law do they uphold?

Their own.

It is frequently the case nowadays that Multi-national companies are larger and more powerful than nation states. They act accordingly. Local laws are, by and large, adjusted to meet the needs of the company via lobbying, threats of withdrawal, etc. Fines and repayments are similarly dodged. About the only things multinationals are subject to nowadays are corporation taxes, and they usually campaign to see those reduced as well.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

In the case of Google, MS & Cisco - they should pull the hell out of China - their laws are unreasonable, and no company with a conscience should operate there.

Oh wait....

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[TubeSteak]

Nope, the GP has no clue what he's talking about, at all

In the U.S., if a company has a significant business presence* in a State, then they are subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.

If some cookie cutter EULA says "State of New York"... well, that doesn't mean shit, unless that company has no significant business presence in your state.

The second Apple opened a branch in Norway, their product became subject to the laws of that country.

Apple can either comply, change the laws of Norway, or take their shiny white iBall and go home.

*A significant business presence doesn't actually require significant business, it just requires a significant presence. Like a company store or corporate offices etc.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[vidarh]

As others have said, it's not in Apples right to choose whatever jurisdiction it wants. If they sell to Norwegian consumers from a Norwegian subsidiary running a site targetted at Norwegian users, then Norwegian courts will claim jurisdiction no matter what Apple says in their license. Granted, they would probably be unable to significantly punish Apple Inc., but they could fine and potentially shut down the Norwegian subsidiary and prevent Apple from trading in Norway if they are found to violate Norwegian law.

Norway has very strict consumer protection laws, and not only can companies not pick whatever jurisdiction they want without a good reason, but a whole lot of things foreign companies like to put in their licenses are null and void in Norway no matter whether or not the customer has signed a contract in blood and sworn on their mothers life that they'd accept it - many rights simply can't be signed away without proper consideration, because companies are considered to have a strength advantage in terms of pushing their terms through at the expense of consumers.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Tibor the Hun]

Am I the only one who still pronounces it jurismydiction?

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Eljas]

This is actually very tricky matter. I don't know about laws in Norway, but if I remember correctly, current EU consumer directives say, that consumer can not sign contract that governs which coutrie's laws affect the rights the consumer has. If the company has actual business in the country of the consumer, then the consumer protection laws of the consumer's country are in effect.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Half a dent]

Simple solution - no "local" presence. Use a .com address based in the USA and charge in US Dollars. Forget about .se, .co.uk, .fr or any other nationality - if you buy from a US site you buy on their terms or not at all. Other countries can do the same.

I have purchased DVDs, software, car engine parts and much more from around the world. I paid in the currency of whatever country I purchased from using a credit card (so no currency problems).

Sure being digital there are issues about your local country not being able to tax you this way (what a shame) but this is addressed by the wider balance of trade when foreign buyers purchase from your national sites.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Pius II.]

...and when you buy from .ru sites, you'll buy under Russian terms. So allofmp3 is legal (well, as long as you go there via their Russian domain).
Or is it?

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a story on WPR a couple months ago about a family that tried to do just this. It turns out that the only thing that's actually difficult is shoes.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[bigbigbison]

As I understand it, most companies that operate internationally have seperate companies that are oncorporated in that country. They may either be wholy owned by the parent company or a joint venture with someone in that country be it another country or in some cases, the government itself. This is why we have people interviewing the president of Sony of America or Nintendo of America. They are legally different than plain old Sony and Nintendo.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Half a dent]

Not if the property (in this case data but could just as well be physical) is not theirs to sell.

That is a completely different argument. Not just the sale but the ownership of the property, thus their right to sell (or not).

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[VagaStorm]

As long as allofmp3.com is legal in russia, and they sell a product you are alowed to import to your contry, that is probably correct.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[muuh-gnu]

But under russian law they _are_ allowed to sell it, and they get billed by artist organisations like every other radio station in Europe.

It's not a different argument, it's just a different law.

"Intellectual property" is not something inherent to every law text, since it is crreated artificially and contrary to a natural understanding of peoples rights. It is either defined very strictly, to maximize the authors and publishers profits, as in the US, or rather laxly, as for example in Russia or in China, to make it possible for the poor masses to take part in out modern culture.

So something which is considered "property" in the US, may not automatically be a property in other countries.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[badmammajamma]

Sorry but it's just not that simple.

Not everything comes from China but thanks to "globalization" most everything made that has electronics or mechanical parts has some parts of it that were either manufactured or processed, in some way, in China. Net effect: you're supporting the Chinese regime.

In cases like clothing where you might find find alternatives from other countries, most of those other countries are no better than China and exploit their workers just like China does.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[ZorroXXX]

a whole lot of things foreign companies like to put in their licenses are null and void in Norway no matter whether or not the customer has signed a contract in blood and sworn on their mothers life that they'd accept it

And the fact that such invalid terms are just void is a major weakness in my opinion. It should be a criminal offense for a company to try fool a customer to follow terms that the company knew or should have known were not legally just. With punishment either like for illegal price cooperation or higher.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Half a dent]

Good point.

IANA(Russian)L but I can see that Russian law has evolved under much different circumstances than most western nations.

There are calls for Russia to tighten the law up before being admitted to the World Trade Organisation. Plus the ultimate sanction would be to block the site(s) at the ISP level I guess, although this would rapidly become a game of Tag, with the site changing it's address, then being blocked, changing... etc.

The main problem with most downloaded music like most CD sales is the percentage taken by the record company and all the middlemen. I would have thought that it was in the interests of the artists to get together and launch a site independently. It would not take many big names behind it to be successful - once they had completed their contracts with the record companies of course!

I am not up to speed on the production part of the music industry but there must be a performers union like there is for actors. They should organise something - prices could be cheaper than what the current online prices tend to be and the artists would still make more per sale.

I have downloaded the Harvey Danger album "Little by little" from their website and made a fair contribution. Maybe not everyone's choice of listening but a very good idea. http://harveydanger.com/

Just a thought.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Pofy]

>Simple solution - no "local" presence. Use a .com address based in the USA and charge in US
>Dollars. Forget about .se, .co.uk, .fr or any other nationality - if you buy from a US site you
>buy on their terms or not at all. Other countries can do the same.

Sure, you can do that. It does not mean of course that you can enforce your contract on people in other countries though (unless they come visitng your country perhaps) since they are still governed by their own laws so you may actually end up with far LESS protection for yourself.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Pofy]

>No. The contract (that both parties agreed to) states the governing jurisdiction.

You missed the point, the LAW in Norway, and moany other countries says that such terms are voind and unenforcable, that is, you can't contract away the law or chose what laws to apply to such a consumer sale. Doesn't matter that you agree to it or now since it is not valid.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Pofy]

Consumer sales laws in many, and especially foe European countries are of the nature that you can't contract them away (or they would be pretty usless). Typically the only way to contract about them is if it is in the favor of the consumer. So basically they set a minimum standrd that applies and you are free to make additiona contract terms only if they are better for the consumer.

Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[Eivind]

That may be an interesting question in general, but it's not relevant here. Apple is clearly operatingin the Norwegian market, marketing directly to Norwegian consumers as evidenced by:

• They have a website in Norwegian.
• Served from a .no domain.
• Marketing this in Norwegian media.
• Infact one of the terms of use that the ombudsmann was critical of (due to free market concerns) was a point wherein customer has to consent to *ONLY* use the service in Norway.
• Infact you can only buy from the norwegian itunes-store using a norwegian credit-card or norwegian bank-account.

Under *these* circumstances, claiming that they're under English law (not US) is clearly not going to stick.

"iTunes must accept responsibility...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for damage its software may do". Whoa! Does anyone in Scandanavia use Windows??? Talk about damage!!!!!

Re:"iTunes must accept responsibility...

[hyfe]

Alot of uneducated replies here, so since I just read the entire original complaint in Norwegian; so I'll summarize (numbering is my own). Oh, sorry for my bad attempt at formal'ish english, I'm kinda tired now :).. and sorry for replying to an early post to get this near the top :)

First and foremost; the whole problem here is that iTunes is specifically targetting the Norwegian market, as only Norwegians are allowed to use the Norwegian version of iTunes. This clearly sets it apart from most other net-stores which counts as *imports*. There is no doubt whatsoever that Norwegian laws apply here and this is probably a large reason why iTunes is being singled out. Forbrukerombudet (ombudsmann as you wrongly named him:)) did however note that several other services would be targetted soon (he lists a couple of music stores, but I can't find it now)

Complaint 1:
In order for a contract to be valid under Norwegian contract law it has to be two-sided; that is outline both responsibilties and priviligies. The iTunes EULA is completely one-sided completely failing to provide you with any benefits whatsoever. They do not accept any responsibilities nor guarantee anything.

Complaint 2:
The language itself is unclear. It does not define what 'service' as so far non-liability concerning downtime means. Does it means the store, the player, the DRM, etc? Added to this, all the terms are not available in Norwegian (which frankly, is pretty much the only point he makes I think is a non-issue).

Complaint 3:
Their attempts at disallowing non-Norwegian credits-cards for use at Norwegian iTunes is against the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA).

Complaint 4:
Their attempt at having the right to change the contract/terms at any time whatsoever is clearly not allowed by Norwegian law. At the most extreme, if the iTunes EULA was valid they could instantly revoke your music without you having any say.

Complaint 5:
No return-policy. This is required by Norwegian law; however this is one of several points he makes where he does not demand change *yet*, but ask them to share their views on this, due the technical issues involved.

Complaint 6.
DRM; he goes on a bit of rant here, and then lists a few laws they may be violating, and asks them for feedback.

Mark you, this is not our ombudsmann, which is someone appointed to help us against the goverment, but our consumer-ombudsmann who helps against corporations :). If you're Norwegian, I really do recommend reading it here (pdf). It's very well written and extremely insightfull. The main-stream press coverage does not do it justice at all.

Re:"iTunes must accept responsibility...

[Squirrelgirl]

Ah, good comment. However, it is quite a natural and logical demand to have all of the EULA available in norwegian, and not just that but good norwegian.

I cannot find it now, but I recall that there was a similar conflict about Microsoft always writing their EULA in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS FOR PARAGRAPHS THAT WENT ON FOR AGES and that was potentially not good practice by norwegian law because it made more than reasonably hard to read.

Language matters to most people in a country. Personally, while I am Mac fangrrl, I find it unforgiveable of Apple to not have their terms and agreements completely and fully translated.

Re:"iTunes must accept responsibility...

[hyfe]

Ah, good comment. However, it is quite a natural and logical demand to have all of the EULA available in norwegian, and not just that but good norwegian.

Hard for you to know, but the entire EULA is available in Norwegian (albeit quite horrible Norwegian, but lawyer-speak never was any good in any language). His complaint was concerning the actual iTunes store, where only parts of it (client-side) is availabel in Norwegian.

While I originally thought this to be a non-issue, I had to give in on it. The problem is that the EULA specifically demands for you to check the iTunes store for policy-changes, so actually understanding the text on the store actually becomes a necessity (as opposed to using it for shopping, which you really don't need to understand much english to do).

Either way, it's still kinda a non-issue, as most Norwegians have quite decent vocabularies and read English completely fluently (all movies are shown on English here). We may have a little trouble speaking English since we for some reason speak Norwegian to eachother constantly (hence some people being under the miscomprehension that we're 'bad' at English.. we just need a few minutes to switch), but we'll understand pretty much everything (Films without subtitles are generally ok, as long as there's not too much mumbling). In fact, I've met one person my entire life who wasn't functional in English and that's my Grandfather who dropped out of school when he was 12 :)

Don't like Apples DRM

[hsmith]

Don't buy it. I fail to see where this gets complicated. Apple shouldn't be forced to make iTunes file format work on other players, no one forces GM's Corvette engine to work in a Civic.

Apple is an "opt in" monopoly, they force not one person to start using iTunes and their DRM. I use them because I don't really feel like searching the net for MP3's, it is all in one place. I would assume 99% of other apple iTune users do the same. Don't like Apples DRM, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't shop there. This forcing everyone to do something because you don't like it is getting out of hand.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy it. I fail to see where this gets complicated. Microsoft shouldn't be forced to make Word file format work on other OS's, no one forces GM's Corvette engine to work in a Civic.

MS is an "opt in" monopoly, they force not one person to start using Word and their file format. I use them because I don't really feel like converting to PDF before I send to someone. I would assume 99% of other MS Word users do the same. Don't like MS Word, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't shop there. This forcing everyone to do something because you don't like it is getting out of hand.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[clickety6]

Don't buy it. I fail to see where this gets complicated. Apple shouldn't be forced to make iTunes file format work on other players, no one forces GM's Corvette engine to work in a Civic.

But GM don't actively try to prevent you from putting it into a Civic if you want to.

I would thinkA pple need to be a bit careful thoyugh because with the possible imminent demine of their nearets competitor (allofmp3) how far are they from being a monopoly on the sales of online music? And if they do get decalred a monopoly, would they then be forced to open up their format?

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[JanneM]

It's not a monopoly issue, but a question if iTunes breaks various consumer protection and retail laws in Norway.

If a company wants to do business in a country, it must follow the laws of said country or not do business there, that is the simple issue. Saying "but it's legal where we come from" is not a defence. To put it this way, would you want to allow (say) Chinese cars to be sold in the US without the safety features US law requires, simply because they aren't required in their country of origin?

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Penguinoflight]

Apple represents a large part of the market, and they fail to provide content to those who dont use their hardware. This practice is bad for consumers, so governments everywhere should make it illegal. The example you give is flawed, nobody forces a GM corvette engine to work in a honda, because it will work in a honda. The problems you encounter trying it are mostly due to the small engine bay, which is something that a consumer can benefit from. Nobody benefits from apples exclusive hardware/content link.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[hsmith]

No, the only thing that prevents other individuals from starting new companies which provide music is the RIAA. Not apple. Apple isn't the problem, at all. Anyone who thinks apple is the problem is blind to the real issue, the monopolistic practices of the RIAA in not allowing other firms to sell music such as Apple.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

This is NOT a monopoly issue, the issue is that the contract you enter when you purchase via iTunes is in violation of norwegian consumer proctection laws. Unlike the US, Norway doesn't blindly believe in the "every man for himself and the market forces will fix any problem" idea.

Worth noting is that complaints against local music download sites have also been raised and will be investigated for the same reasons.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[merdaccia]

Although I agree with you, I think you're missing the point. This isn't about a group of consumers saying they want iTunes songs to work on player x. Nor is it about company y, which makes player x, saying Apple should license FairPlay because they want protected AAC to work on their players. This is about Norway saying that to operate in Norway, you have to follow Norwegian law. And that means having licenses that are regulated by Norwegian law, including the inability to disclaim damage liabilities.

The issue of whether Norwegian law requires the songs to be playable on other devices still hasn't been decided. If the ruling goes against Apple, then Apple will have to license FairPlay in order to continue operating iTMS in Norway. The only thing they would be forced to do would be to comply with the law if they choose to operate in Norway. Hardly unreasonable, especially given that every online music retailer would be subject to those same laws.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[ezzewezza]

I would thinkA pple need to be a bit careful thoyugh because with the possible imminent demine of their nearets competitor (allofmp3) how far are they from being a monopoly on the sales of online music? And if they do get decalred a monopoly, would they then be forced to open up their format?

Coffee first. Then try to type.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[colanut]

Apple represents a large part of the market, and they fail to provide content to those who dont use their hardware. This practice is bad for consumers, so governments everywhere should make it illegal.

When you wrote this, my iTMS tracks on my Dell/Windows computer stopped working. Gee thanks. Fail to provide content? Now it is Apple's civic duty to provide content to consumers everywhere? They said here is our store and here is how it works. People thought it was a good idea and they are the market leader. However, they are no where near saturating the potential market and I don't think they can be considered a monopoly in this respect. Digital music and downloads is still an immature sector and the rules are still being written.

Before you write me off as a fanboy- I have mostly switched to eMusic and Bleep both of which work fine on my iPod or any other device that I can find. But I would caution getting hung up on the Apple-ness of these stories. As stated earlier, this is about DRM and global distribution coming in to conflict with local laws and customs.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple represents a large part of the market, and they fail to provide content to those who dont use their hardware.

Huh? You can use iTMS on Windows without purchasing a single hardware item from Apple. It's not exclusive to Macs, and it's not exclusive to iPods.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

And if they do get decalred a monopoly, would they then be forced to open up their format?

No - there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a monopoly, just some restrictions on what you can & can't do.

I suspect Apple is a tad worried about being accused of unfairly using a monopoly in one market (mp3 players) to extend into another market (online music sales).

But thats a little Offtopic for this story - which has little to nothing to do with monopolism & everything to do with fair use & DRM.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[hsmith]

While I don't disagree, I just think it is bad law. That is all. Norway will end up forcing apple to not open shop there, which will lead to less choices for the end user. I think that is the bigger problem.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Sheltem The Guardian]

They would it you'll try to do that commercially.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Tom]

Apple is an "opt in" monopoly, they force not one person to start using iTunes and their DRM.

Irrelevant. Monopoly is monopoly no matter how nicely you call it.

All you "free market" drones overlook that the antitrust laws are in place to protect the free market, because one thing that the market can not sort out is if it is itself broken - you need a working market to "sort things out" the free market way, so when the market itself is broken, you are lacking the very self-regulation force that could fix it.

Monopolies are the AIDS of capitalism - they attack the immune system, the very "free market forces" that you glorify.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[hsmith]

Do you not know when you go to buy iTunes that they only work on iPods? Is this not a well know fact or is this something that Apple hides from you? The terms are well known before hand, no one is a "victim"

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[jacksonj04]

As the length of a conversation increases, the chances of someone making a comparison to Microsoft in the hope of getting "+1 Insightful" approaches 1.

- Jackson's Law of Slashdot Karma Trolling

Actually, your MS argument sounded perfectly fair to me. Don't like Word? Use OO.o.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Tom]

If a company wants to do business in a country, it must follow the laws of said country or not do business there, that is the simple issue. Saying "but it's legal where we come from" is not a defence. To put it this way, would you want to allow (say) Chinese cars to be sold in the US without the safety features US law requires, simply because they aren't required in their country of origin?

I think you need a better example to get through to the average american. How about this:

Would you want to allow some company from the Netherlands to sell drugs to your schoolkids, simply because in the Netherlands they are legal?(*)

(*) don't mention that there are some restrictions and that this applies only to some drugs which are widely considered to be not much worse than tobacco or alcohol. That'd only make things more difficult, and americans don't dig difficult. :)

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[hsmith]

If you actually knew your history, in the United States big business WERE the ones that lobbied FOR anti-monopoly laws to ensure state protection OF their monopolies.

The gov't doesn't protect you from business, they are bought off by other businesses for state sponsored protectionism.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[jamar0303]

Well... In fact, Chinese cars do cut costs by removing safety features. I know- the local taxis don't have seatbelts for the back row, and don't have airbags for the front row. For that matter, I'm sure that they'd break emissions regulations in the US- when I can SEE the exhaust gases coming out of the car, there must be SOMETHING wrong.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a sharp difference between a "market entrepreneur" and a "political entrepreneur" -- See the work of M. DiLorenzo for insight on this point.

Any company that benefits from special rules or protections set up by the government is a political entrepreneur. Most successful businesses in America today are politically entrepreneurial. This is the fault of government for letting companies bind the public with favoritist legislation that locks out competition.

The free market works whenever individuals (and groups of individuals known as "companies") are free to exchange things of value voluntarily. This process works in the natural order of existence.

When markets fail is when governments crowd out free enterprise by initiating special rules, regulations or favoritist legislation, which can come in many subtle forms. Licensing businesses sounds innocuous, and yet it's why taxi cabs cost so much in many cities. Taxi cab companies are therefore political entrepreneurs, seeking safe harbor in government excluding competitors.

Microsoft, Apple, and many other technology companies are by and large at the "market entrepreneur" end of the spectrum (despite the FUD about antitrust.) They innovate and compete freely in the market for your attention. Nobody here is enslaved to Microsoft -- the Linux and Apple users prove it every day. The market enforces a single operating principle on all participants: when you want something, you have to "build it or buy it." The standard MS complaint on Slashdot is, "I want world-class interoperability without having to use MS products!" Well, the product called "world-class interoperability" isn't up to governments or companies -- it's up to individuals and the platforms they choose to use. The complaint is tantamount to saying, "I wish everyone wouldn't choose to use a platform that I don't like."

My response? When you want something, build it or buy it.

Socialist response? When you want something, have the government take it from others on your behalf. This, by definition, is why socialism in any form (including those practiced by the US government) cannot avoid harming individuals.

That's why free markets kick ass.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[kraney]

A corvette engine would work fine in a Civic if you just do the work to put it there. I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to get the hood back on afterwards.

These guys would probably be glad to help you: http://www.jagsthatrun.com/

Personally, I think the volvos smoking their tires look the oddest.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Tom]

I know my history very well, thank you. It just happens to not be US history, you know? There's a world outside your borders, dude. ;)

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Tom]

On the surface, your argument sounds convincing. However, it falls down once you dig deeper.

You ignore that "free market" as you laud it exists only in the theoretic world of the textbooks. This theoretical free market does indeed work as advertised. But it requires a few things that simply do not exist in the real world - total information being one of the critical components.

With limited information available to one side of the market (usually the customers), the game shifts from "whoever can make the best offer" to "whoever can seemingly make the best offer" - an important shift that gives rise not only to marketing, but also to shady business practices and outright fraud.

This is where some simple government regulations comes in and supports the market. Through warrenty requirements, for example, these regulations ensure a certain amount of information being available and allow customers to make informed choices. For example, if I know that by law the claims on the outside of the package have to be true or I can return the item, then I have more information than I would have without that law - because without it I would have to research the truth value of each and every claim instead of being able to rely on them.
In so far as regulations create a reasonable lower margin, they support the free market by bringing reality more in line with theory.

I do agree that a lot of regulations are not reasonable, and quite a few should be abolished and were almost certainly the work of lobbyists.

However, this fear of any and all regulations some people exhibit is just insane. The solution to tyranny is not anarchy.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[TubeSteak]

It's almost like you're willfully blind to the actual issue.

The problem, in Europe, has nothing to do with licensing MP3s.

It has everything to do with licensing FairPlay.

Eurpean laws are setup to protect competition.
By not licensing FairPlay, Apple is running afoul of those laws.

Blaming the RIAA or their Euro counterpart is completely irrelevant.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[racas]

I agree that one company should not be forced to make their product compatible with other company's products. It is wrong to force them to do so.

However, I do think they should be prevented from taking steps to ensure that it can't work with other company's products.

GM designing their engines to work specifically in a Corvette and not formatting it to work in a Civic = Fine.
GM including technology that ensures it does not work if installed in a Civic = Not Fine.

MS's Word file format designed to work with Word without being designed to work with OO.o = Fine.
MS including code that checks the environment to prevent the format from being read if OO.o is running = Not Fine.

This is especially important in a monopolistic situation (e.g., MS). It prevents any form of competition. If the competitor's product can't work with the established norm, how do they obtain a user base? If 95% of the populace purchases their music from iTMS (and I'm not saying this is the case), how can a third-party Portable Entertainment Device manufacturer hope to get off the ground if Apple specifically prevents the music they sell from working in that Device?

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Tom]

And your average German is so enlightened? Give me a break.

I can't remember a German trying to dry his cat in the microwave, no. ;)

Please.. your own generalizations show the world that you are indeed retarded.\

Your reply shows that you are unable to spot slight sarcasm.

But... since we were talking about Norway, you might find it interesting that Norway happens to be the #1 nation in the UN Human Development Index, while the US ranks in at #10...

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[idobi]

Except why should digital music be held to a different standard than, say Gillette razors? My Mach 3 blades doesn't work on my Quattro Razor. Oh no. We must protect the consumer!

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[webdog314]

The iTunes Music Store isn't in Norway. I can use my iPod just fine without iTunes.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[valintin]

You are absolutly wrong. GM has been forced to license their diagnostic format. The diagnostic code has to be availble to prevent a hardware lock in for repair centers. That's why you can take your GM car to a local shop and have it repaired without having to goto just the GM repair center.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Ajehals]

Because if I make some blades for your Quattro I am not going to be sued for patent infringments or copyright breaches. (Assuming I dont just copy the blades completley and just produce something that fits the razor...).

Anyway the issue here is that Apple cant pick what laws apply to their business anymore than I can pick which ones apply to me.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Emetophobe]

I don't know how this got modded insightful, while I too hate the RIAA, your comment is completely off-topic. TFA is about how Apple is operating a business in a country and not abiding by said country's laws. How you can blame this on the RIAA, I don't know.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[esper]

Microsoft, Apple, and many other technology companies are by and large at the "market entrepreneur" end of the spectrum

Interesting. When I read your definition that "Any company that benefits from special rules or protections set up by the government is a political entrepreneur", I immediately thought of the likes of "Microsoft, Apple, and many other technology companies", whose business models are based on taking advantage of specific rules set up by governments. The rules I refer to are, of course, patent and copyright law. While these laws may theoretically apply to everyone (and thus could be seen as failing the "special" part of your definition), they have been tending towards redefinition into a form which benefits large corporations far more than smaller companies or individuals. Everyone is supposed to operate under the same copyright laws, but I can't afford to send the BSA after someone who infringes on my code or use the DMCA to bring down a TV station playing my music without permission.

I'm not saying patents or copyrights are inherently bad (although I do believe their current forms in the US to be excessive and counterproductive), but rather that Microsoft's continued existence as a business depends on legislation just as heavily as the taxi drivers from your example.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[xero314]

Do you not know when you go to buy iTunes that they only work on iPods?

That's interesting. I have multiple friends and family members that use iTunes to download music. Some of them use windows computers, some mac, some iPods and some othe MP3 players and not a single one has said they have had any problems using their downloaded songs on any other machines, including regular CD players.

Not liking Apple or DRM is one thing, but lies are another, please stop spreading the fud.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Original AC here.

I take exception to the idea that the "free market" only exists in theory. This is the unfortunate result of lots and lots of free and public education conveying the meme that the free market is a nice "idea" and all, but face it, you need the government to help you navigate "reality."

I feel that the only thing the government should do is to help protect the property and inherent rights of its citizens. This position makes room for the following to my thinking: national defense (but not necessarily national offense), criminal and civil courts, contract enforcement, truth in advertising, and lots of other things.

One thing that is scarce in any market is information -- and as we know, anything that is scarce and useful is also valuable. Free markets would work instead of government to provide information such as, "who provides the best vacuum cleaners that are free of defects?" Vacuum cleaner companies that are on the up-and-up will offer warranties voluntarily because it becomes an edge in a competitive market for vacuum cleaners. If they don't honor their warranties, they end up in the courts. Companies that do not offer warranties will be able to charge less for their products in the market because a superior offering is readily available.

This isn't to say that consumers won't ever get burned -- it's to say that the information that a consumer collects while being burned is valuable to them if they choose to leverage it. If I were burned buying a crappy vacuum with no warranty, I'd decide to create a review and feedback system that people could check into before buying such goods themselves. I'd offer to review products, have members of the industry pay to have their products tested, etc. My company would of course face pressure to give products an artificially good review, but if word got out that I did so, I'd be ruined.

Such a scheme would never work, you say? Witness Underwriters Laboratories. Consumer Reports. These efforts are relatively minimal in the face of mandated warranties, government regulations, etc. But think of what that regulation costs its citizens! For those Slashdotters who don't make a lot of money, or don't realize how much is taken in taxes, you need to know that $20,000 in taxes to the Federal Government could go a long way toward covering one foolish purchase of a broken vacuum in absence of the same overreaching government that currently does little to protect you from such purchases anyway. It's mostly smoke and mirrors.

The only way we can know that a product or service has value is if it gets tested in a free market -- where people voluntarily exchange for it. The government, by definition, is a coercive exchange. Live here, pay your taxes, we spend how we like. We can never know the true value of what the government spends our taxes on without testing the exchange under voluntary conditions.

To think that free markets can't solve problems like fraud, misrepresentation, etc. is to misunderstand the limited role a government must play. Protecting property rights is the sole purview of that government.

And to say it doesn't work just because it only exists in "theory" is to ignore examples of history. The argument could just as easily be turned on the idea of democracy: "that's a nice idea in theory and all, but it's never been tried in reality, so it must be false. So there's no point in signing that Declaration of Independence, Mr. Jefferson."

That said, I agree with you that lots of regulation is grounded in special interests -- these interests are what I am distinguishing as "political entrepreneurs."

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Original AC here again.

I'm entirely with you on the abysmal state of patent and copyright law. Protecting "business methods" and "interface styles" is a huge burden on ingenuity, and these are examples of political entrepreneuring without question. I believe wholeheartedly in patent reform. As to the how, I'm not entirely sure, but my gut says patents should be drastically reduced in power. They are basically a little monopoly grant.

That said, the companies I mentioned are on par with all other companies in their use of the patent system. In other areas, their ingenuity clearly shines through in bringing to market offerings that people take up regularly. I don't believe in forcing open the MS word standard by legislation.

I also don't believe in using DMCA and similar laws to define the game of rights management for all parties. The RIAA should figure out how to compete or take their ball and go home, but for God's sake, stop bribing the umpire!

P.S. how amusing that my word image for submitting this comment is "unjust"

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[DocSavage64109]

If the other countries had the same laws, then this would have never been a problem in the first place and we the consumer's would be able to play whatever music we want on whatever devices we want (assuming licensing fees are reasonable).

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I can do wathever i want with my cars.

See, an italian got a Lada Niva prototype car (from teh soviet russia) with a Ferrari V8 engine.
You can't do wathever you want with the DRM. You don't have the *right* to do so.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[esper]

itunes.no is in Norway. Oslo, to be exact, according to their whois records.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[drouse]

To put it this way, would you want to allow (say) Chinese cars to be sold in the US without the safety features US law requires, simply because they aren't required in their country of origin?

Yes, actually, I would want to allow that -- I imagine it would greatly reduce the cost of getting a new car and allow a lot of people to trade in their old cars for new ones. After all, lots of those old but in use cars don't have the current set of safety features but are still being driven -- and sold, purchased, traded.

As long as people aren't lied to I think they should be able to buy what they want.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Penguinoflight]

I could argue about your dedication to apple, because you and others are hung up on how apple is not doing anything wrong. You brought up something that is more important though. DRM enabled global distribution isn't solely controlled by content providers and recording industry fags. It takes hardware manufacturers and software developers to support their ideals and they take their share in the blame. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the portable music market, but they do have a large portion of it, and they have done nothing to reduce the power of fair use violators.

Of course, many will say this whole discussion doesn't matter because apple is just doing business and you can take your business elsewhere, blah blah blah. It's key to remember though, Apple could make a lot more money by cheating on content producers (ala allofmp3), instead of cheating their users/customers. How can users uphold this ideal? This is why I dont enjoy any apple topics. Every time there's some big fake bloated argument that is neither true nor relevant.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Tom]

I take exception to the idea that the "free market" only exists in theory. This is the unfortunate result of lots and lots of free and public education conveying the meme that the free market is a nice "idea" and all, but face it, you need the government to help you navigate "reality."

Nonsense. I have a specific criticism that you do not reply to. Information as a requirement to the workings of the free market can not at the same time be a commodity to be traded at a free market. You are mixing various levels here. We could call the information about markets "meta-information", then I would agree that other information can be traded on a market.
However, you can not make meta-information a subject to trade, because by definition everyone in the free market requires full access to it, and something that everyone has everything of anyways doesn't make a good trade good (it's value would be zero).

This isn't to say that consumers won't ever get burned -- it's to say that the information that a consumer collects while being burned is valuable to them if they choose to leverage it.

Yes, probably. But you are leaving theory for pragmatics here. The free market theory requires that trades on the market are made by two partners who posess all necessary information about the trade. The theory does not contain elements of surprise or fraud. And that's exactly where according to my argument the government comes in to ensure that we have at least something that closely resembles a free market, by making sure that there are limits to the amount of fraud and mis-information.

Such a scheme would never work, you say?

On the contrary, I know a number of such services and consider them excellent. They are another (non-government) method to approximate the theoretical free market. However, they still do not offer complete information as required by the theory. They limit the impact of marketing, fraud and mis-information, but they do not eliminate them.

The only way we can know that a product or service has value is if it gets tested in a free market -- where people voluntarily exchange for it.

In theory, yes. In the real world, there are countless counter-examples. Now you might claim that there are insubstantial values and some people who pay, say $1000 for gadget X which is also on the market in identical form as gadget Y for $800 are expressing the value the put on the brand of X as compared to Y. However, in reality most of these people do not know (i.e. lack information) that X and Y are actually identical (and there are many examples of products being 100% identical, down to having been manufactured in the same plant, and being sold under different brands for different prices).

We can look at much simpler examples: In most markets, the customers do not even know about all offers that are on the market. No shop carries them all, neither brick-and-mortar nor online. No comparison test gets them all.

We can never know the true value of what the government spends our taxes on without testing the exchange under voluntary conditions.

Not everything has value that can be found in a free market exchange. You have posted some examples yourself: National security, police, etc. - how much is it worth to you not to be robbed every day? ;)

To think that free markets can't solve problems like fraud, misrepresentation, etc. is to misunderstand the limited role a government must play.

"must" according to whom?

But I'll be very interested in a free-market solution to fraud. Remember that fraudsters have become extremely mobile - see spammers and phishing. Sure you can set up an info site. But not everyone will read it. So there'll always be some victims. No matter what you do, there will always be phishers because you have a reaction time. With a global Internet, even a short reaction time results in a few victims. Since the cost of spamming a billion peop

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[webdog314]

Their whois record only tells you where the domain is registered, not where the server is located. And even then, going to "itunes.no" only takes you to apple's homepage, not their music store.

The iPod is a piece of hardware. "iTunes" is a piece of software for your computer. ITMS is a music service. You can buy an iPod and never use the online store. I haven't. If you choose to use the music service, which is in the U.S., then you choose to accept the U.S. terms of service, including their DRM.

It's not like you can't put your own CD's on your iPod. It's only downloaded music that is restricted. I wish they didn't have to use DRM, but do you honestly think that people wouldn't just download the songs they like and pass them around to everyone else they know with an MP3 player? Sure, they do that now with CD's, but $18 instead of .99 cents is a large enough deterrent for most people that they might think twice about handing out freebies. By restricting the use of the music, Apple not only locks in it's market share (because, yes, you do need Apple hardware to play music purchased in the U.S.) but it also vastly increases it's revenue because more people will download a given song (at least in theory).

We can complain about DRM all we want, but from a business perspective, it does work.

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[esper]

Yeah, it didn't occur to me that itunes.no might not be the Norwegian ITMS site until after I posted. Mea culpa.

(And, yes, I have an iPod and iTunes, but have never used ITMS other than to locate free podcasts to subscribe to. Even then, it took a while before I noticed that the podcast directory was part of ITMS.)

Re:Don't like Apples DRM

[Squirrelgirl]

Rather have the law and our rights on our side than Apple Music Store, even though I've spent a good 4 Gb of money on it by now and I love Macs.

Apple won't give up on norway though. Their partners are not doing at all bad, there's just opened 2 new stores in Oslo, in very important noticeable neighbourhoods. Apple sells software and computers like never before.

It's not completely impossible that another online store here would offer music according to norwegian terms if it became an issue. If France, UK and Norway decide the terms aren't reasonable, I doubt Apple wants to just "give up" on UK and France. They are huge markets.

And one more thing.... ;) To me, while Apple face the brunt of it, I still don't necessarily see Apple as entirely to blame. There's still the topic of the huge demands and tolls that the record companies demand of Apple, combined maybe with a little of Apples own opportunity searching. I am all for showing the record companies that they can't do whatever they like to us, even if, unfortunately, Apple is hurt a little bit by it in the process.

I would think that the "EULA"s that comes with music CDs with copy protection now, given the Sony Rootkit issue for example, warrants a check by the Consumer Ombud in itself...

Spelling...

[reset_button]

Consumer Council told the Reg

s/Reg/Rag

FP

[Anonymous Coward]

PS. FP on my own story submission?

I, for one, welcome our new solipsistic, non-editorialising overlords!

The Cold Market War

[Draracle]

Damn those socialists and their attempts to put competitive markets over monopolies/oligopolies!!! And licensing DRM? Why would we even want DRM if we have to license it? This is totally against the rules of Supply and Command.

So here is what I don't get...

[tfvdw2at]

...can someone explain why Apple selling music that only works on their devices (unless of course you consider those crappy Motorola ROKR and SLVR phones) is bad, but Sony selling games that only play on the PlayStation or Microsoft selling software that only runs on Windows is OK. Seriously. Why is what Apple is doing any different in the eyes of the Norwegian government?

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[pintomp3]

a better analogy would be sony selling cds and dvds that only play on sony hardware.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[tomcres]

There's nothing wrong with it, but eventually Apple is going to find that it is a bad business decision as PlaysForSure devices improve and better and cheaper music stores appear. My wife and I just replaced our iPods with PlaysForSure devices, and I know a couple other people who are switching as well. My wife subscribes to Y! Unlimited and I subscribe to Rhapsody. For what one album costs on iTMS, we get our choice of half a million albums per month that we can take with us. And if there's something that Yahoo! Music or Real does not have, I can always shop at MSN Music, Walmart, or any of over a dozen other online music stores. (And FWIW, Real purchases are 192kbps AAC/WMA and MSN are 160kbps WMA, both discernibly superior to iTMS's 128kbps AAC-plus Real gives a 10% discount on purchases to Rhapsody subscribers. I get tracks for $.89 versus $.99. For ten tracks-or a full album-, that's a whole dollar saved!) Plus, I can play my Rhapsody music (both purchased and subscribed) on my Roku SoundBridge, as can my wife with her Y! Unlimited music. Can't do that with iTunes because Apple won't license Fairplay to Roku.

Apple's monopoly in portable players in large part was due to their superior user interface and the garbage that generally passed for competition. Now, Creative, Toshiba, and the other mfrs. have devices that are well-built and have streamlined their UIs. Plus, they all use USB 2.0 now (whereas initially, iPod used FireWire and most competitors used to use the slow-as-snails USB 1.1). The playing field is leveling in terms of hardware and usability, and I suspect that in the coming year or two, the balance will start to shift to PlaysForSure as people become more aware of the better alternatives out there.

Apple will lose its dominance, but it will be driven by consumers, not by government interference.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[ajs318]

The video games thing is bad. The Atari 2600 lasted years beyond its time precisely because third parties were producing game cartridges for it that were better than anything Atari could have done. As soon as some European manufacturer actually starts wanting to make PlayStation or XBox games, the courts will be in session quicker than you can say "anti-competitive behaviour".

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[vidarh]

The difference is that Apple is intentionally and artifically restricting the ability of consumers to use a product on other companies hardware.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

You bring up a valid point, but it is about what the consumer expects. I for one expect my music files to work on all mp3 players just as my tapes worked on my tape players. Nobody expects the playstation games to work on anything else than a playstation.
I am from Norway and the two gouverment agencies I am most pleased with is "Forbrukerombudet" and "Datatilsynet" (translates roughly to department of Consumers rights and Dep. of Privacy rights respectivly). They both do a excellent job of defending the mostly clueless masses.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...can someone explain why Apple selling music that only works on their devices (unless of course you consider those crappy Motorola ROKR and SLVR phones) is bad, but Sony selling games that only play on the PlayStation or Microsoft selling software that only runs on Windows is OK.

This particular issue is about the terms of use for the software, not the DRM on the music. Basically, the legalese says they won't certify it won't break other things on your computer, which is a violation on the law there. As to why that law has not been applied to the thousands of other programs/software sold (like Windows), I suspect it is because no one was motivated to go after them.

As for the legal difference between DRM and a natural incompatibility, there are two factors. One, Apple intentionally prevents their content from running on other systems. Two, Apple is approaching monopoly status for portable music players, so antitrust law may come into play.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[MyNameIsEarl]

a better analogy would be sony selling cds and dvds that only play on sony hardware.

A Playstation 2 game is a DVD that only runs on the Playstation 2. And for a good majority of PS2 "games" I have seen the content is mostly a movie, granted it is a game engine rendered movie, but a movie nonetheless.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[oh_bugger]

It's very simple. A music track can be played on many systems very easily, infact there's already a format (mp3) which I'd assume that all portable music players will play. Playstation Games are complex things which require specific hardware. The difference between requiring a supported music format and games which play on every system is huge. Try telling Sony to produce a working version of GTA San Andreas for the Nintendo DS (I know Sony don't make GTA, it's just an example of being required to produce for all systems).

With music, the final format is independent of how the music was made, what system it was designed for etc. With games and software, the format and end system is usually part of the design process very early on, meaning that if multiple systems were required to be supported then the design process would have to change. Which in my opinion is a much bigger ask than getting a song sold as an mp3 rather than AAC or whatever iTunes uses.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[GalacticCmdr]

...can someone explain why Apple selling music that only works on their devices (unless of course you consider those crappy Motorola ROKR and SLVR phones) is bad, but Sony selling games that only play on the PlayStation or Microsoft selling software that only runs on Windows is OK. Seriously. Why is what Apple is doing any different in the eyes of the Norwegian government?

Sony is not selling games that only play on the Playstation. Sony is selling a development kit for the Playstation hardware. If I wanted to develop my own game for the Playstation then I could just buy the SDK and have at it. This is very much unlike Apple.

I cannot just buy a FairPlay SDK.

Just because I know Slashdot loves automotive analogies. Imagine that when Japanese cars began first appearing that GM (the largest car company at that time) put in a gadget that only GM-approved gas (music files) would run in GM-approved cars (iPods). Now they could licence this gadget to Ford and Chrysler (like Motorola's ROKR/SLVR) to give them some cover. Sure the Japanese companies could create a device that allows US-gas to run in their cars (convert to MP3), but it is an extra step and extra cost they and their consumers must bear. This will greatly limit their market penetration not based upon worth or value - but more based upon abuse of their near monopoly (Microsoft).

In fact, the car companies are trying something very much like this by claiming their error codes as copyrightable under the DMCA. Thus if your GM car breaks you will only be able to get it fixed at a GM dealer or company that purchases a GM-licence, assuming they sell any at all (FairPlay).

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[fribhey]

The difference is that Apple is intentionally and artifically restricting the ability of consumers to use a product on other companies hardware.

yeah, kind of like how Microsoft is intentionally and artificially restricting the ability of the consumer to use windows DRM media on other companies Operating Systems...... last i checked Microsofts DRM doesn't play in Mac OS X

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The problem is that games are more or less still intrinsically tied to the hardware it is coded on because of their computer based nature, and audio is just a hard coded waveform. I'm not sure why the console makers have a problem with emulation, Sony and Microsoft should licence out that platform because they make their money on games. Their main concern is to prevent the distribution of unauthorized game copies, so long as an emulator doesn't ignore that, I don't see why the console makers should be concerned.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[Thorsten Timberlake]

Where as Apple is putting an artificial limit on use of the music they sell you, it's quite reasonable to expect that a PS2 game won't work in an Xbox.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[jamar0303]

I'd subscribe to Rhapsody or Y! Unlimited, but Rhapsody doesn't carry any Japanese tracks, and Yahoo! doesn't either (If their unlimited subscription carried over to their Japanese site, I would, but their Japanese music service uses Sony DRM. Solve the problem of international music purchases, and I'm all in. Until then, Yahoo China's the only way to go for me (at least, between my trips to Japan- otherwise I buy the CD when I get to go there). Heck, check out my sig- if you understand Chinese (or get an online translator) Yahoo's music download service in China is 100% FREE- no subscription fee, no pay-per-download, no payment at all!

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[pmiller396]

This analogy is flawed.

iPods (GM-approved cars) can use music (gas) in any of several formats (mp3, aac, apple lossless, audible audio books) and can easily convert other formats (wav, CD/aiff) into one of the supported ones. A better analogy is this: GM develops a new type of fuel (hydrogen balls, anyone?) and new engines that will run this fuel as well as the old options. GM then decides to not willingly license the engine or fuel technology (fairplay).

Meanwhile, the brain-dead, corrupt politicians (brain-dead, corrupt politicians) have conveniently passed a law saying that disassembling an engine (reverse-engineering DRM) is a federal crime and should be treated more seriously than armed robbery, rape, homicide, vote fraud, etc.

Also meanwhile, Ford (Microsoft), which owns 95% of the highway repair business, has developed another new fuel: tallow-dipped donut holes (WMA). Ford is willing to license its technology to anybody except GM (Apple) to attempt to leverage its highway monolopy into a fuel monopoly.

Okay, this analogy sucks too. Just don't forget that iPods can play anything except DRM owned by competitors, and that the other guys restrict your options too. They just spin it differently.

Oh, and don't even think about what happens when the highway patrol find out that the tallow-dipped donut holes taste delicious!

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[valintin]

Xbox games, PC games, and Gamecube games don't work on a Playstation. They all operate in closed systems. It is clear when you purchase a game that it is for the Playstation, not your PC or the Xbox. The iPod is not a closed system.

The iPod plays music from a variety of sources. If it could only play music that was purchased for the iPod then it would be clear to the consumer that they are purchasing iPod music. It's not clear to most people that they are purchasing iPod music. They are purchasing songs. Songs obviously play on a variety of hardware. I think there is a reasonable expectation that music files are device independant.

If the iPod was restricted to only playing music that was downloaded from iTunes I think they would stand a better chance in the court of world opinion. But since they are playing the whole field they need to play by a whole set of rules.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[Emetophobe]

The difference is that Apple is intentionally and artifically restricting the ability of consumers to use a product on other companies hardware.

Didn't Microsoft do that with DR-DOS and Windows 3.1? Anyway, lots of companies do this all the time to protect their products. Doesn't Apple also artificially restrict OSX so it only works on their hardware?

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[zpeidar]

Sony made some Portables that didn't play MP3s.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[Frenchy_2001]

..can someone explain why Apple selling music that only works on their devices (unless of course you consider those crappy Motorola ROKR and SLVR phones) is bad, but Sony selling games that only play on the PlayStation or Microsoft selling software that only runs on Windows is OK. Seriously. Why is what Apple is doing any different in the eyes of the Norwegian government?

Because the government is not stupid and can still tell the difference between a natural problem caused by different architecture and requiring effort to solve (like porting said game or program to a different platform) and an artificial limitation placed here to create a monopoly on the access (like the iTunes music).

There is NO real reason the iTune music wont play on any other hardware than the iPod. They are not asking Apple to change their encoding (after all, if they just released un-DRMed MP4 files, that would be fine. It would STILL not play on every other player, but then it is their fault), just to remove the artificial barrier of DRM.

If YOU cannot tell the difference, i feel sorry for you.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[tfvdw2at]

Thanks for your sympathy Frenchy. I will sleep better tonight knowing that somewhere, you are out there feeling sorry for me.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[skeldoy]

Well music is a far bigger industry than just one branch of a console market.
The money involved is enourmous, even ridiculously so given the entertainmentvalue.
We have to pay 1$ for a 4 minute song (with a production cost of between 0 and 10.000$)
and 16$ for a two hour movie (with a production cost of ?00.000.000$).

I seriously do not know how much money it costs for sony to produce a playstation game, but I can bet it's
more than the cost of recording an album. I know for sure that people get a lot more entertainment-value per
$ from games than music. I think the Forbrukerombudet is pretty realistic when they choose Apple as their
main opponent. The music industry is somehow a more powerful opponent (to consumers) than Sonys playstation games.

Mind you; it's the representative of the people of norway, not the government, that wrote this letter to apple.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[Eivind]

Both are definitely bad. But neither may be unlawful in Norway, that was merely one point among literally dozens that the ombudsmann wanted Apples comments on.

Other points included:

• Apples rules say they can unilaterally change the rules *after* you bougth a song. That is not allowable under Norwegian law. A sale is final, the rules agreed to at the time of sale needs to stay effective after the sale.
• Apple claim that English law shall govern any dispute. That's not allowable for a service offered by a Norwegian branch, using a norwegian domain, in norwegian, marketed at norwegian consumers. Norwegian law applies in Norway, Apple can accept that or withdraw (fat chance!).
• Apple disclaims *all* liability, even such as migth arise as a result of gross neglience or purposeful actions by Apple. That's not allowable under Norwegian law. (neither US, I'm pretty sure)
• Apple states that all risks arising from their handling of your personal data is carried by you. (not them) That's not allowable. If *they* for example, lose your credit-card number or whatever, they are certainly responsible for any arising loss, if they like it or not.
• The terms of use are grossly unbalanced. It talks only of apples rigths and consumers duties. Yet it neglects to mention any of Apples duties and consumers rigths. Even where such exist. This makes it misleading.
• DRM prevents consumers from doing certain things they are acusomed to being able to do with music. Information about this is very much lacking. Nowhere does it inform you that you can't resell, lend or give away your music. Nowhere does it say that your music-collection may be gone the day your player-device breaks. Nowhere does it say that the ability to move music to for example a new computer is dependent upon Apple still being in business, and Apple choosing to (in the future) grant you this ability. (nowhere do they promise this ability) Important restrictions like these should be prominently displayed.

• The terms of use forbid cracking the DRM -- even if that is needed to for example access the music you bougth and paid for after Apple stops producing compatible players.

There was (lots!) more. But this will do for starters.

Re:So here is what I don't get...

[sorbits]

Apple takes an existing third party product (music) and resells it in a form where it can only play on Apple-produced devices. This is done by deliberately encrypting the music. They also put arbitrary limits on how you can use the product, like number of devices you can play your music on.

These rules are dictated entirely by Apple, and they are enforced by a layer of technology added to the original product sold, a layer which has never existed before, and which can be argued, was only added to give Apple sole rights of what could be done with the product, even after it left the store.

So while the outcome is technically the same as only being able to run Windows programs under the Windows operating system, Microsoft did not take an existing product and changed the rules of the game to provide Windows with a monopoly for running Windows software. If Microsoft did take active measures to prevent software from running e.g. under Wine, then they would be target for the same complaints as Apple has been subjected to.

Swedish Chef != Norwegian Ombudsman

[yardbird]

Bork bork bork?! I know they are right next to each other and all, but they are two different countries (at the moment).

Other elements of note: the ombudsman's name is Thor!*, and other headlines on the Aftenposten site include: "Women wont [sic] give up laundry" and "angry hare attacked dogsled". I thought Norway was only silly in Monty Python sketches?

* NB: It's actually Thon. Drat.

Re:Swedish Chef != Norwegian Ombudsman

[juletre]

Some swede just called us (Norway) the silliest country in the world.

But then we dont think swedes are particularly bright, either.

Re:Swedish Chef != Norwegian Ombudsman

[MaGGuN]

and other headlines on the Aftenposten site include: "Women wont [sic] give up laundry" and "angry hare attacked dogsled". I thought Norway was only silly in Monty Python sketches?

Don't forget: "Moose surfed on chunk of ice"

Re:Swedish Chef != Norwegian Ombudsman

[Eivind]

Aftenposten is in general a very serious and well-respected newspaper. But for some reason, their english articles on the web (only a _tiny_ fraction of all articles) is always Simpsonesque. For some reason they always chose to translate exactly the strangest articles. No idea why.

Aside from that, living in Norway it's not really hard to see that there's a core of truth in the inspiration of many Monty Python sketches. There's some seriously strange stuff going on. (allthough I'm fairly sure that's true in most countries, otherwise they'd be boring)

Re:Swedish Chef != Norwegian Ombudsman

[Squirrelgirl]

Aftenposten seems to try to work with the Norwegian Tourist board... somewhat. ;) (www.visitnorway.com) You can always read www.norwegianpost.com who are slightly better. :)

Re:Why is this so complicated?

[IAmTheDave]

I'm tired of all this crap with respects to music. It's just music... why is it so complicated to just sell people music and compensate artists? All the DRM business, angry countries, law suits, etc. It rediculous damnit! Stop the madness.

The madness is a result of the amount of money to be made. When money can be increased by control, no matter how evil said control is, control is introduced. In the recent past, it has also become vogue to lobby congress for some laws that help enforce said control.

See: music, movies, tiered internet, cable monopolies, sports blackouts, DRM, DMCA, trusted computing, product activation, HDCP, PATENTS, 120-year copyrights, etc., etc...

hsmith meet kettle, he says your black.

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are saying that people shouldn't force other people to do stuff because they don't like it. Wich means you are telling people to stop doing something because you don't like it. Ah, the irony. One rule for you and one rule for everyone else right?

The european countries have different rules about consumer protection. They actually think that companies that become to influential should be put under controls to ensure that the consumer doesn't come under the control of a companies whims.

Silly stuff like making sure the countries laws apply and not whatever EULA a company lawyer dreams up next. Making sure that not one company can achieve a de-facto monopoly making it impossible for new companies to innovate.

You seem to favor companies over people because Apples DRM is forcing itself on these countries because Apple does not like their laws.

Europe is an "opt in" monopoly, they force not one company to start trading in the EU or use the EURO. Sound familiar?

Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black.

[hsmith]

No, I simply believe the socialist mindset of Europe is bad business practice. Europe will end up keeping Apple's iTunes out entirely, which is WORSE for consumers because they have LESS choices of what they can use to download MP3's. iTunes gives the consumer one more choice in where to purchase their music and their terms of use are clearly printed. Don't like them, shop somewhere else or start your own company to sell MP3's. Oh wait, you can't do that because the real monopoly, the RIAA, doesn't let you do that.

Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black.

[Tom]

No, I simply believe the socialist mindset of Europe is bad business practice.

You are funny. Europe is very much not socialistic. Just because americans like to label everything left of "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" as "socialist" doesn't make it so.

Europe still believes in a balance between human rights and corporate rights. The balance swings a little here and there depending on government, mood and whatever lobbyist group is offering the best entertainment program this year, but it is far from socialism. On the contrary, for a couple years now it's been more right-wing than left (some of the "leftist" parties today run on programs that aren't too far from the right-wing programs of a decade past).

Europe will end up keeping Apple's iTunes out entirely,

May I invite you to a reality check?
USA: Population ca. 298 mio.
EU: Population ca. 458 mio.

We're a considerably larger market than you are. Neither Apple nor Microsoft nor any of the other big corporations will withdraw from the european market, no matter what and no matter how often you dudes repeat that ridiculous idea.

Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black.

[vidarh]

By your arguments consumers should just bend over and accept whatever corporations want to shaft them with, because that's what will give us the greatest choice - the more friendly we are to companies, the more interested they will be in selling to us.

The problem with that argument is that selling out to corporations damages our long term choices. If we allow companies to lock us in to their DRM schemes or whatever else they feel like and stitch up the market between them, they will quickly eliminate choice and competition.

If history has shown one thing very clearly, it is that "free markets" don't work without some level of regulation to ensure they stay free.

Sometimes that regulation hurt consumer choice temporarily, but without it there's no incentive for big business to give in. In this case, if the RIAA keeps seeing their ability to reach the European market shrink because of terms that are incompatible with laws of a variety of European countries, they will eventually cave in.

Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black.

[TubeSteak]

Your point was very well put, but you missed one thing.

European laws focus more on protection for competitors than consumers.

That's probably why this is a big deal, since Apple's non-licensed FairPlay locks out other competition from using DRM on the iPod.

Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black.

[esper]

Most supporters of free markets seem to take it as axiomatic that competition is good for consumers. Therefore, what is good for competitors is (generally) also good for consumers.

In this particular case, yes, making FairPlay available to manufacturers of other digital music players is beneficial to Apple's competitors. But it also allows consumers a choice of what player they wish to use with FairPlay-DRMed files, which is to their benefit - some people may not be able to afford an iPod, others may hate its user interface, others may want a feature that it lacks, etc. Allowing players to be developed which address these issues without having to give up the ability to play iTunes tracks is clearly beneficial to consumers.

If its illegal in Norway

[1336.5]

Why the fuck did they allow it in the first place?

Freggin tards.

Don't like Norways laws?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Don't operate there. I fail to see where this gets complicated. Norway shouldn't be forced to make their legal system work with iTunes.

Norway is an "opt in" legal system, they force not one person to enter the country & operate under their laws. I would assume 99% of other companies that operate from Norway do the same. Don't like Norway's legal system, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't set up shop there. This forcing everyone to do something because you like it is getting out of hand.

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[TexasDex]

Easier said than done. If Norwegian residents can browse the internet then they can buy from the iTunes store. When two businesses in different nations decide to make a deal the laws of both nations can't both apply at once. If Apple had a server in Norway that served iTunes then perhaps they might have some legal grounds, but it seems to me like Norwegian residents should be free to enter into agreements with parties in other countries. Norway has no jurisdiction in the U.S., only in their own country. If Norway wanted to prevent its citizens from using iTMS then it could make it illegal to be a customer of them, but their goal is to protect the people not confine them. That's where this gets complicated: it's an agreement between parties in different nations. iTMS isn't "operating there" AFAIK, the people there are essentially meeting in international waters to exchange goods/services. So if either party happened to break the contract, and sue over it, which country would you sue in? Apple would probably have to sue in Norway, Norwegian citizens probably in the U.S. That means Norwegians don't have as much recourse as they would if iTMS was stationed in Norway, and the Norwegian government isn't exactly thrilled at the thought. I say: get used to it. Such is the Internet. Disclaimer: IANA international law expert, just somebody who has hung out on Slashdot enough to sound like one.

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Easier said than done. If Norwegian residents can browse the internet then they can buy from the iTunes store.

Incorrect. Apple divides the market up. Try buing from the US itunes with a British Credit Card.

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[houghi]

Don't operate there. I fail to see where this gets complicated. Norway shouldn't be forced to make their legal system work with iTunes.

I hope you think the same when it comes to Russia whit the mp3 site.

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I hope you think the same when it comes to Russia whit the mp3 site.

Errr, yes I do. I think allofmp3 shouldn't operate in Norway without obeying their laws.

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[esper]

iTMS isn't "operating there" AFAIK

You are incorrect:

Domain Name: itunes.no
Organization Name: APPLE COMPUTER Filial av utenlandsk foretak
Postal Code: NO-0216
Postal Area: Oslo
Country: NO

(Sorry the columns don't line up right. The lameness filter seems to think whois records are lame, presumably because it considers the strings of dots used for spacing to be "junk characters". Idjits.)

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a scam so they can overcharge people depending on where the live, just like dvd region coding. It's just an artificial lock that offers no benefits to the consumer. I wish this bullshit was made illegal. I don't see why iTMS can't just run one site that can be accessed globally (same prices for everyone), why does it cost $0.99 in US for a song, but more in UK?

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[Jon Pryor]

Apple has to charge different prices in different countries becuase Apple needs to license the music separately for each country, and the licensors in each country may want to charge different prices (and restrict what can be licensed!).

Consider books: you write a book, and it gets published. If some other publisher wants to sell your book in a different country, that publisher will need to talk to you (assuming you remain the copyright owner). However, it's quite likely that a different country will speak a different language, so your book will need to be translated, adding additional expense which the publisher will want to recoup. Result: the book in the other country costs more to purchase than just purchasing your original book + shipping it.

"But this adds translation charges, which aren't at issue here!" True, but translations aren't the only source of additional fees. The countries copyright association may require blanket fees in order to handle copyright infringement (consider blank media -- CD-Rs, tapes, etc. -- which includes such hidden fees), and this will need to be handled by all licenses.

Summary: Apple (probably) can't set a worldwide price because it (probably) can't get licenses which would permit a single worldwide price.

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Summary: Apple (probably) can't set a worldwide price because it (probably) can't get licenses which would permit a single worldwide price.

Pity Apple charges waaaaaaaaaay more for Apple hardware products (iPods, Macbooks, etc) in their UK store compared to their US store.

Face it - Apple charges what the market can bear & divides the market up to ensure that they maximize their profits!

Re:Don't like Norways laws?

[Squirrelgirl]

Does the price difference include VAT, US sales taxes where appropriate, shipping, handling, repackaging with (in my case) norwegian keyboard and software and so on?

For me, the price have never been that grossly different. But that might also be the weak dollar. ;)

and if Apple/MS etc cease to exist

[Anonymous Coward]

so does your music

nice going

Pavlov FTL

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like Apples DRM, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't shop there.

That stock response isn't even remotely relevant to TFA under discussion. If Apple (and others, according to TFA) don't like Norwegian law, they should vote with their pocket book and not trade there.

unreasonable?

[dbc001]

"it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold." Wow - we Americans are so used to unreasonable contracts, bullshit fine print and the like that it is absolutely amazing to see this kind of language used in defense of consumers. If we had laws like this here in the states it would be devastating to the economy - because our entire economy is based on these kinds of unreasonable contracts. Imagine what would happen if our government actually defended us against corporate malfeasance and greed!

Nations

[Tom]

This is most excellent news. Finally, some politicians wake up to the fact that it is them who should regulate copyright, DRM, licensing, warranty and a ton of other issues. That's what we have them for.

It would be a failure of democracy if some politicians in the US, which I could not vote for or against, could set policies for my country. Or some corporations could decide where to apply which laws.

If you want to do business in X, follow whatever rules/laws apply in X. If you don't like it, don't do business there. It really is simple, isn't it?

Oh yeah, that also applies to countries and laws you don't like, no matter if it's Norway and it's copyright laws, or China and its censorship laws...

Re:Nations

[zpeidar]

Why reinvent the wheel, we've already got a perfectly good phrase for that: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" Weird how people seem to fail to understand that sayings like that one actually has a purpose.

The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[dada21]

All of these organizations are pro-control anti-consumer and we all should realize that immediately. No government mandate on companies is ever good for consumers because it decreases the amount of competition in a market and it raises prices. You can't prove otherwise. Higher prices with less competition usually mean lower quality products and even lower quality research for new products.

Thank you Apple for the iPod. My household has 3 (2 we bought new, 1 we won) and The Freaky Blonde has downsized her CD collection to storage and we've recaptured almost 10 square feet of space. She uses them in all our cars and she uses them hen exercizing. I personally don't use one (I'm happy just burning MP3s to CD) but the device is incredible, and would never have been made if Apple was forced to follow mandates that supposedly protect the consumer.

If they had to follow these idiotic laws in the beginning, the consumer would be protected, surely: protected from ever seeing great devices like the iPod and whatever the next competitor will release.

The only thing missing right now would be a revocation of the DMCA so that hackers could legally find ways to allow the iPod to run other software. Don't you see how it is always government that reduces our choices and our freedoms? Apple can't freely say no to running another company's songs, and the consumer can't say yes to modifying his own product that he bought.

Pro-consumer? Right.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[aztec rain god]

Um, what's hen exercising? Sounds like you have an interesting wife.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[famebait]

If they had to follow these idiotic laws in the beginning, the consumer would be protected, surely: protected from ever seeing great devices like the iPod and whatever the next competitor will release.

I suggest you check out which laws are being referred to before criticising them so sweepingly. Right now you are, among aother things, arguing that it is essential for a well-functioning market to allow the seller to unilaterally change the contract (e.g. revocinga all your songs) for any or no reason and at any time after the deal is done, signed and paid. And it's making you look really dumb and/or trollish.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[cronius]

First of all you're bashing the DMCA which has absolutely nothing to do with this, that law has nothing to do with Norway.

Second, no one is attacking the IPod, and it's irrelevant if it's a fine product or a pile of manure.

Third, changing a contract after a deal has been made without consent from both parties can only be defended in a commercial dictatorship.

Fourth, the force behind this is the same force that stopped companies making small children work in factories for low wages many years ago in the western world (etc). They're trying to protect us, normal people, from big corporations who only think about profits and wouldn't give a damn about peoples rights if they didn't have to. And you're playing the devils advocate saying "we'd better let them do whatever they want, even if it's totally unreasonable, because I want cheaper/better products." Wake up man.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[cpt kangarooski]

Wow, are you dumb. Go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Try chapter 9, at around halfway through.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[dada21]

Their original contract allows for a modification of the terms and conditions. What is the problem there? If you agree that the contract can be changed, accept it. If you disagree, don't accept it. The market works because if people don't want modifiable contracts, they wouldn't exist.

How does that make me look trollish? This has everything to do with contracts instead of regulations and mandates by government. Contracts let EVERY transaction be different (I purposely strike out terms on many contracts that I sign and have done so recently with my cell phone provider and my roofer). Laws force every transaction to be the same.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[egriebel]

Right now you are, among aother things, arguing that it is essential for a well-functioning market to allow the seller to unilaterally change the contract (e.g. revocinga all your songs) for any or no reason and at any time after the deal is done, signed and paid.

How do you get that out of what he said?? Is this just a thinly veiled use of the Chewbacca Defense?

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

All of these organizations are pro-control anti-consumer and we all should realize that immediately. No government mandate on companies is ever good for consumers because it decreases the amount of competition in a market and it raises prices. You can't prove otherwise.

I see so you think consumer protection laws are all useless. For example, false advertising laws? For example, food safety regulations?

Or is it maybe that some do more good than harm and it is just a scale of where a particular law falls on that scale? There has been a long tradition of laws that prevent a consumer from signing away all their rights and these laws are especially important when a monopoly or emergency is involved. Without them, emergency rooms would force you to sign the next 10 years of your life away to work as a slave before treating you.

Higher prices with less competition usually mean lower quality products and even lower quality research for new products.

Sometimes consumer protection laws increase competition or lower prices, especially when a monopoly is involved. Often they enforce a minimum, safe, level of product quality. Innovative research is rarely driven primarily by money. Usually, people do new, cool things because they can and they then capitalize upon those that seem profitable.

If they had to follow these idiotic laws in the beginning, the consumer would be protected, surely: protected from ever seeing great devices like the iPod and whatever the next competitor will release.

Maybe, but the market does provide. If the government says no beef with more than 10% rat feces, some company will produce beef without as much rat feces, even if it costs more. Companies will produce software and take responsibility for what it does. Half of the provisions in Apple or any other software company's license are unenforceable, even in the US. They just put them in there to give their lawyers more ammo.

The only real question I have, is are the laws being applied equitably or is someone on a vendetta here. I mean have they read the license for Windows?

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[famebait]

He said all the consumer protection laws were harmful to the market. One of the results of one of those laws in Norway is that the ombudsman complained that reserving a carte-blanche to alter the deal after making it is clearly unreasonable.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[dada21]

Sinclair's "The Jungle" was pure fiction -- not based on facts at all. Roosevelt needed a demand for socialism from residents in the U.S.A. and Sinclair's book came out with perfect timing. Sinclair was pro-socialism himself, so he wrote the fictional piece in order to scare residents into supporting Roosevelt's ridiculous pro-State changes to the law.

Familiar with the rotting meat in the book? That was government's doing. Meat packers had shipped meat for military use and had told the government to keep the meat chilled or it would go bad. The government didn't listen, and the meat spoiled. Guess who got blamed?

Humans and rats didn't fall into meat grinders -- Sinclair made this up. To this day people still talk about the myth of human flesh and rat flesh in the hot dog. Didn't happen. But the FDA was created due to the outcry from reading the book, and the FDA has definitely murdered millions over 100 years by not allowing certain drugs and health regimes to be released in time to save those who died. They still hold up many medical miracles from our country.

Years later, Sinclair admitted that the book was a fabrication and was only written to change the minds of America toward government control. And many of the meat packers were in full support of the book because they knew that new regulations would keep competition out of the market, a market that didn't have the problems that Sinclair wrote about.

Don't use fictional works of socialism to back up your theory that regulation ever helps. It doesn't, it never will. Proper tort laws and contract enforcement is what will keep companies and consumers both safe and sound and allow both to have opportunities to profit fairly.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[famebait]

Their original contract allows for a modification of the terms and conditions. What is the problem there? If you agree that the contract can be changed, accept it. If you disagree, don't accept it. The market works because if people don't want modifiable contracts, they wouldn't exist.

The market is clearly not doing its magic here, as demonstrated by the fact that droves of people are actually "accepting" these ludicrous terms that no sane person would knowingly subject themselves to; many of them in places where they can't trust local law to protect them from the worst abominations in a contract.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[dada21]

Two parties make an agreement. Both parties are not in any way being forced to accept this agreement. Both parties agree. How is that anti-consumer?

I have _not_ made 3 purchases in the past week based on bad contracts. One was with a roofer (my other roofer decided to accept my terms), one was with a mechanic (I struck out the part about going over the quote and he didn't accept it) and one was with a lawyer. We couldn't come to terms, so we didn't do business. That's the free market.

If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[cpt kangarooski]

Sinclair's "The Jungle" was pure fiction -- not based on facts at all. ... Years later, Sinclair admitted that the book was a fabrication

That's quite a unusual, possibly unique claim. Maybe you should support it somehow, or cite where you're getting this from.

So far all I'm getting is that you're a gigantic rube.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[Jo Owen]

If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?

Because thats exactly what its there for.

The law is to protect the weak and ignorant. So one entity can't jut fuck over the next, now you also have to obide by _societys_ values when you want to play with others.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[dada21]

Do a little research and you'll find that Sinclair was aghast that laws were created over just 10 or so pages of his book. These laws, Sinclair knew, would create preferential treatment ("monopoly") of an industry, and it did: it created cartelization of the meat industry that still exists today.

Sinclair was an admitted socialist, and wrote the fictional book because he hated capitalism. He had no idea that the book would work against his wishes, though, and instead of creating "worker's rights" where none were needed, we see preferential treatment of a cartel now. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave.

The book is fiction, it is based on almost no real research, studies, or references. He didn't reference anything for his book, I won't reference my research here when ad hominems are used against me. If you really think the book had any basis in fact, you need to just dig deeper.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm well aware of Sinclair's politics (it's hard to not be if you read it) and his opinion to the public response to his book.

However, I've never heard of anyone claiming that the incidents in the book were completely made up. A claim like that requires support if anyone is to believe it. So far you still haven't provided any.

Also, I haven't used an ad hominem argument against you. It was merely an insult.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[esper]

All of your three examples are of contracts between two people of roughly-comparable status in the contract, giving you the ability to negotiate terms, or either of you can walk away from the deal if you so choose and find someone else to work with.

That's a completely different situation that EULAs and other such contracts between an individual and a corporation large enough to run over the top of that individual without even noticing them. Microsoft, Apple, etc. don't offer you a contract, they dictate terms to you. Yes, you can walk away, but doing so is at significant cost to you and none to the other side. That's why consumer protection laws exist - you can't enter into an equal agreement with Apple, so the government steps in on your behalf.

(Of course, Apple only exists as it does because the government specifically allows it... I would prefer to see laws changed to remove corporate personhood and many of the other protections which allow them to overpower individuals so readily, in which case the consumer protection laws could probably be weakened or go away entirely, but that's not happening any time soon.)

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[dada21]

I disagree.

The consumer is the most powerful entity in a market where goods are readily available (such as MP3 players). They _don't_ have to buy. How does Apple's contract force others to accept it? There is no excuse for accepting a bad contract. We accepted 3 such contracts from Apple (and we buy off iTunes as well) because the contract isn't so bad. So what if they change the terms of the contract, I buy the iPod for today. If Apple changes their contract terms tomorrow, some competitor will come in an planet them beneath daisies.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[Blakey Rat]

Either cite a reference, or otherwise prove your claims that the novel was made-up, or get in line behind the Time Cube guy for your meds.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[LeneJ]

And if Apple now decided you could only play the song once, and then you have to delete it, AND they reserve the right to send in someone to check twice a week, that is OK with you?

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[wall0159]

this is ridiculous - are you suggesting that ITMS shoppers ought to read the entire contract every time they buy a song (this is necessary according to you, since Apple could conceivably change the contract at any time)? Should they 'strike out' parts of the contract they don't agree with?!?

I suggest you get out of your ivory tower, and live in the real world.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[ZorroXXX]

[micro pre rant]
It is sad that your post has gotten Troll mods. I strongly disagree with what you are saying, but it is an opinion you are free to have and you should not been modded Troll. The meta-moderation helps somewhat I guess, but this is in principle "damage control". It would be better to have something that prevented unfair moderation. I am all for openness in control/steering issues. Read Animal farm for an example of how bad things turn out when decisions are made behind the scenes.

So I would like to see slashdot's moderations have attribution of who that made them. Now, anonymity is important as well and there might be times where one would like to not give an Insightful moderation publicly. So I think a system where moderations are public by default but where anonymous moderations is possible, perhaps only for 2 or 3 points and most certainly not for Troll mods.
[/micro pre rant]

Please feel free to disagree with any of my opinions. The things that are marked as facts though should be impossible to disagree with and if you do you must come with an argument of why you think the fact is invalid.

[opinion] To me it sounds like you strongly believe that, to put it perhaps a bit naively, a free marked exists and left to itself without any external influence everything will automatically turn into optimal performance. Right? [/opinion]

Well, I hope you will start considering the following: [fact]The free marked is a model, and as a model it does not fully describe the reality[/fact]. All models are wrong, some models are useful. -- George Box

As already described in this post [fact]the free marked model is dependent on total information. This is a condition not fulfilled in the real world[/fact], and the post describes [opinion]very clearly[/opinion] how government regulation can increase competition.

No government mandate on companies is ever good for consumers because it decreases the amount of competition in a market and it raises prices. You can't prove otherwise.

[fact]The above mentioned post does prove that (at least) one kind of government mandate will increase competition[/fact].

[fact]Another thing that the free marked model is dependent on is a large number of insignificant sellers and buyers[/fact]. [opinion]While the consumers usually fulfill this criteria, the producers seldom or never does[/opinion]. [fact]This can be another reason for government intervention to make sure that no single company or group of company controls a too large part of the marked (anti-trust)[/fact].

So there you have two counter-proves to your "You can't prove otherwise".

[opinion] Sometimes people argue that the best companies will win long-term, using nature evolution as a model for economics. But this is grossly misleading when used in context of single entities; evolution is never about single individuals but many generations. This model can be used sensible if talking about trends, for instance open source vs closed source.

"Survival of the fittest" from an evolutionary aspect is extremely different from anything related to human corporate business because there are some fundamental and huge differences between nature and economics. In nature

• All animals in a race are approximately the same size.
• All animals start completely from scratch (I.e. there is no heritage and just because you are son of the leader wolf that does not make you special).
• Evolutionary changes are relatively small (No animal will say increase 100% in size over just one generation[1]).

While this is the complete opposite for corporations. So if you are one of those using the expression "survival of the fittest" about companies, please stop. [/opinion]

[1]
Perhaps unless you start with one single cell I guess...

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[riker1384]

Umm, it's a novel. That what a novel is, made-up events. If they bear some resemblance to real events, the burden is on anyone else to cite a newspaper or some other non-fictional source to show this.

For instance, you don't have to give people evidence that the Eugenics Wars from Star Trek never happened, or that Skynet didn't kill everybody. They're made-up events and if you held that they happened in real life I'd ask you to prove it.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[famebait]

The law should serve the citizen, and do so in a way that relates to reality, not some fictional world where everyone has a law degree. Lots of people are stupid. As long as people are different, one half will always be less smart than most. That does not mean they've done anything wrong or deserve to be exploited. Ad you don't even have to be among them to be susceptible to trickery from someone who has the upper hand in understanding nuances of legalese (which of course large corps can afford people to do or them). The fact is most people will sign this stuff withiut reading or understanding that they have no right to actually receive the product. I can't think of a single reason why the seller should be entitled to enforce such terms.

You are of course free to believe that these people should be fair game for anyone who figures out how to shaft them. I believe that a major points of civilised society is precisely to protect the regular guy from the predatory ones.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[Eivind]

Their original contract allows for a modification of the terms and conditions. What is the problem there? If you agree that the contract can be changed, accept it. If you disagree, don't accept it. The market works because if people don't want modifiable contracts, they wouldn't exist.

That assumes that both parts in the negotiation is about equally informed and have about equal influence on the outcome, which typically isn't the case in consumer-purchases.

There are certain things you cannot sign away in a contract. As written, if interpreted literally, you sign away everything when buying from iTunes, yet I doubt even a US court would uphold that.

Apple can change the contract unilaterally after you buy. So, what would you do if you bougth a song on iTunes today, and tomorrow Apple changed the contract to say you need to pay Apple an additional $5 million, or hand over your firstborn.

Would you honor this ? Would you expect a US court to enforce it ?

Norway has stricter consumer protection laws than the US. There are *more* things you can't sign away as a consumer here than there is in the USA. (but they exist also in USA) We like it that way. We're a democracy. We decided we want our law to be like that. Apple (or you !) don't have to like it. They're free to not do business in Norway if they so please.

What they're not free to do is doing business in Norway without being subject to Norwegian law.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, of course it is a novel. However, it was also an exposé of the actual conditions at the time.

And I would also point out that not everything in a novel is necessarily made up; I read Johnny Tremain as a kid, and that book deals with a lot of the factual people events in Boston leading up to the Revolution.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[laughing_badger]

If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?

Because leaving 'dumb' people with parking-lot therapy as their only source of comeback isn't advantageous to society as a whole? Keeps the street cleaners in business though I guess.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

Their original contract allows for a modification of the terms and conditions. What is the problem there? ... The market works because if people don't want modifiable contracts, they wouldn't exist.

You are an irrational simpleton. Who, IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, would WANT a contract which the other party can change AT WILL? NO ONE! The only people who want such a contract is the party with right to change the terms. That is not a fair or rational contract between two parties.

Such open-ended contracts DO NOT exist because people want them. They exist because some parties are powerful enough to *force* them on others.

If it were legal, there would be contracts which have an option for slavery, and PEOPLE WOULD SIGN THEM, because they will have no acceptable alternative. Just because something *CAN* exist, does not mean it *SHOULD* exist.

Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

Two parties make an agreement. Both parties are not in any way being forced to accept this agreement. Both parties agree. How is that anti-consumer?

The consumer HAS ABSOLUTELY NO POWER to affect the contract. Their choice is "Yes or No". On the other hand, Apple not only gets to write the contract, but can change the terms at any time for any reason. No one would choose to enter such a contract if they had a choice, but the fact is, THEY DON'T. The choice is only "Yes or No". This is not a rational contract, it's gambling. It's a bet that Apple won't screw you over.

Now, I will grant that that's a fairly safe bet, for the most part (some people have already found changes in the terms to be problematic for how they were originally using iTunes, but by far, most haven't). But don't *pretend for a second* that such licenses are somehow good for the consumer. They are, and can only be, anti-consumer.

Here's an experiment. Try adding a "I can change the terms of this contract at any time" clause to a contract you sign with someone in a position of power. See how far that will get you. It's a clause that can only be added by someone in a significantly more powerful position.

If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?

Not being able to comprehend the implications of a contract does not make one dumb. Blindly believing that the free market exist, however, is.

No one is saying that the government should "be their daddies". One of the government's proper roles in the economy is to impose artificial rules when the natural rules are sufficiently unacceptable. How can you *possibly* be so moronic as to believe that the market will somehow magically end up, entirely on it's own, in the best state possible, or even a good state, every time in every way? How can you *possibly* be such a simpleton as to believe that the government can do no good when it utilizes its power to alter the market, while believing that corporations can do only good when they use their power to serve their own needs?

Altering terms after sale

[init100]

it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold.

I wonder if he is aware of that this is common in other businesses too. IIRC altering terms after the purchase is somewhat common in proprietary software licensens, not to mention web site and ISP terms of service and privacy policies. In those cases it is up to the consumer to stay updated about changes to those agreements.

Supported by others in Scandinavia

[Jugalator]

ITMS Faces Complaint From Norwegian Ombudsman

... and the Swedish, and the Danish, according to a Swedish newspaper.

So I think this is a problem with laws common to a number of Scandinavian countries, and in short they dislike that Apple is writing themselves free of so many things upon signing up; e.g freedom of changing the license agreement without warning and with immediate effect.

Apple also violates European warranty laws

[MarkoNo5]

Apple also violates the European warranty laws, which impose a minimum 2 year warranty on every electronic device. In addition failures in the first 6 months are assumed to be production faults unless the manufacturer can prove otherwise. Try having a MacBook Pro fixed for a known issue when the serial number is not on the list of Apple.

Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws

[zidohl]

True, in Norway Apple allready violates the warranty law which holds the manufacturer responsible for 2 years after purchase, while Apple only gives you 1 year, after that it's up to the consumer to prove that this was a manufacturing error, not a problem caused by the consumer. Ofcourse it's impossible for any consumer to provide this information without doing something to the iPod that would make the warranty void anyways. This leaves the store that sells Apple products to provide a replacement or fix the problem, so basicly none (or extremely few) Norwegian stores can sell iPods and make money from it if they provide the warranty that is requiered by law. Since they don't seem to be doing anything about the warranty issue, i don't see why they would do anything about this even if it violates the law.

Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws

[C_nemo]

Actually, I've had luck (two or three times) with politly reminding the Apple guy on the phone that I am a resident of such a country (Norway) and the laws grant me a minimum of two years of warranty. They usually state that there is only a one year warranty, but fold if you "remind" them about the terms of the law. Products in general cost a fair bit more here (including apple products compared to other european countries), so i beleive they have factored this into their price.

What might make the norwegian law (forbrukerkjøpsloven (law of consumer purchases), google it and plug it into bablefish if your adventerous ) special is that it states that the rights defined in it cannot be signed away and contracts of purchase can only improve the rights granted not take them away.

Now, to get the mobile phone companies to respect the law the same way apple does...

Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws

[C_nemo]

It may be related to the fact that the law of conumer purchases only regulates the transaction between a person and a company. If you buy directly from apple i've experienced them to honour the law, but if you buy from a separate retailer the retailer might try to shift their cost over to you, since they cant claim a replacement unit from apple outside the one year warranty. That practice is of course illegal, but is allowed to flurish because people generaly accept the claims of the retialer. In fact some of these 3rd party retail outlets should be burned to the ground because of their insane extra apple premium, on top of the regular apple premium. 'Eplehuset' are the only ones which I have seen selling at applestore prices...

I think that is similar to the situation with mobile phone manufacturers, but with apple they have a consumer retial store which of course the mobile phone manufacturers don't have.

Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws

[Squirrelgirl]

What about the insane real estate expenses they might have? ;) At least we have some competition in Oslo now. I doubt Officeline can continue as they have, but then they also sell a lot to companies who are not always all that concerned with the price depending on service agreements, support agreements etc.

Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws

[C_nemo]

ohhhh, OfficeLine... That combination of words makes my blood boil. We had OfficeLine in Tromsø (place I was born), and, goddamn, more pricegouging weasels is harder to find. A mysterious X% on top of every retail price. When a game costs 527NOK you know that its something fishy about their pricing schemes. I remeber the total shock of walkin into "Eplehuset"'s first store in Trondheim (where I live) and actually meeting a compentent person.

As an illustration, When i bought my iBook, I first went into OfficeLine in Tromsø with a long time mac user friend of mine, asked about the iBook, and I knew from the same friend that i could get a 20-something% discount fof the apple sales price if i paid 100$ for a one year ADC student menbership.

OfficeLine:

Me: Does MATLAB run on OS X (I really didn't know, turns out it did)?
The OfficeLine guy: [blank stare] ... goes to check on the computer, takes his time. Comes back with "I dont know"
Me/My friend: Is it possible to buy form you and get the ADC discount?
The OfficLine guy: [blank stare again] "What is ADC?" (I kid you not)

Eplehuset, about a month later
Me: Im thinking of buying an iBook (my opeing line at OfficeLine as well)
Eplehuset emplyee: Show me the iBook, and _really_ stresses that it is the exact same price as on Apple's webiste
Me: Asks about the ADC discount
Eplehuset emplyee: "No, you can only get ADC discounts directly from Apple, you should gove them a call", and hands me a buissness card with Apple Store's norwegian phone number.
Me: Completly baffled by good customer service and knowledge of the sales person goes home and orders from Apple. And returned later for an iPod

Since then Eplehuset has opened in three new cities, and at least the shop in Trondheim is a certified Apple repair centre, making owning an iBook bought in 2003 right in the middle of a certain SN range a lot more pleasant.OfficeLine in Tromsø decided that a retail store accessible for the public was a waste of time. Closed the shop. moved to a warehouse and sells to buissness and educationl sector (they cant buy directly from apple) and sells overpriced Apple products in a corner of the DVD section in a bookshop.

Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws

[Squirrelgirl]

Officeline operate a store on Aker Brygge. A huge open shop with stands where you can walk around and a "genius bar" in the style of the Apple Retail stores in the US. Their shop employees have always been really helpful and supporting and knowledgeable, and their prices have improved. I think Officeline today isn't what they were just 2-3 years ago. Also, I dropped by Eplehuset to ask some questions and the employee I met didn't know much of anything.
Other times I have been there they have known. It depend on who you ask there too.

I think that can be true of many shops that unfortunately, to some extent, you can end up asking the wrong person on the wrong day. But I can't really say I have had worse experiences at Officeline than Eplehuset. I think both in general have been helpful and supportive. Sometimes not so much, but mostly good.

It's however true that Officeline is more expensive than Eplehuset, but my experience is that if you want something that isn't usually carried, Officeline are better at getting it. Eplehuset tend to carry what they're sure most people will buy and be hesitant to do special orders. Officeline will go that extra step and help you order something weird and unusual.

Oh nos!

[XdevXnull]

Or what if we had laws where we weren't allowed to buy and sell forced laborers for our tomacco fields? Our economy is based heavily on the slave trade, and if we didn't have slaves anymore, the nation would collapse!

Do they?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Do windows games only run on windows? An odd fact is the reak Microsoft games like Flight and train simulator are very light on the DRM. The last versions I bought didn't even seem to have any at all.

Nothing is stopping you from making it possible to run MS games on say Linux or Macs. In fact several projects are doing just that, legally.

Yes this is stretching things but that is because this is a very difficult subject. Laws are ancient and mostly written down before the idea of media containers. With this I mean things like a VHS cassete wich contains media/content wich is married to a specific device.

Think about it for a second. Two hundred years ago you didn't have this problem (I think). Most items you buy and trade do not depend on another device. If you buy wood it will work work with any brand of saw. Nothing says you can only wash your clothes in a Miele washing machine. A book can be read with any pair of glasses.

Since the legal system moves incredibly slowly and has to be changed by people with no real skills like politicians who are controlled by that dumbest of all critters, the voter we still haven't learned to deal with how to regulate media formats.

That leaves the consumers who choose wrongly out in the cold. People often bring up betamax vs VHS in this context. But what about the poor shmucks who choose V2000 eh? For that matter what about those who bought into laserdisc?

V2000 was a really crap choice. If you made the mistake of choosing betamax you at least could still get new players for your old content as Sony kept supporting its standard. Your V2000 tapes were useless once the standard disappeared and the players stopped being made instantly. This is bad for the consumer and the task of an Ombudsman is to protect the consumer.

There is however a problem. With physical media containers like tape cassetes or laserdiscs there is no easy way to set a standard. You can't make VHS accept a laserdisc or vice versa so the consumer just had to pray he choose the right standard.

This ain't just bad for consumers it is also bad for business. Remember the CD? I rememeber a lot of stories about slow mass adoption because people weren't sure this would the future format.

But again there was no way around it. LP couldn't be upgraded so no in between option was possible to make adoption less painfull.

This is not ideal. Compare for instance with the difference in how new book technologies make their way into the market. We have had far more print improvements because the moment a new tech is invented in printing it can be put into place as long as the printer is willing to buy a new press. He then doesn't need to hope people will upgrade their eyes to his new format. Silly? Well not as silly as the movie industry.

They try to fit every new tech onto the old format by inserting it in the weirdest places on the film to make sure old theathers without the latest projector can still use the latest film. Because banking on everyone adopting your new unique format is risque.

So now back to apple. With purely digital containers it is actually silly we still have needs for certain players. We no longer have the physical restrictions so why can't we just play aac on any player out there?

The old format wars were a necessity because of the physical differences but digital formats can play anywhere. Who thinks it is silly you need to Quicktime player for .mov files, the DivX player for .divx files and Windows Media Center for .avi and Realplayer for .rm files?

If you are the least bit computer literate you will probably have setup your machine to play all these different media containers through one player. Yes because it is digital you can player your "laserdisc" on a "lp player". Amazing eh?

So now that this is possible perhaps it is also possible for an Ombudsman to ensure consumers no longer loose out in the format wars? Could we introduce laws th

NOT about DRM

[Pliep]

Many bloggers, newssites and posters-of-comments seem to think this is about DRM. It is not. Norway just wants iTunes to abide Norwegian law, which means that iTunes is repsonsible for security leaks etc. in the software.

Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha ha ha ha

[xenolon]

I'm a little curious where you're getting these sales figures?

From this TIME article:

...For every 99 Apple gets from your credit card, 65 goes straight to the music label. Another quarter or so gets eaten up by distribution costs. At most, Jobs is left with a dime per track, so even $500 million in annual sales would add up to a paltry $50 million profit...

and this NARIP document. (Sorry, direct link to a PDF.)

If you insist on making spurious claims about Apple, or any other company for that matter, don't try to disguise them as facts please, that's all we ask. They're certainly not the kings of interoperability, but I can't think of any OS/company that is. no, not even *nix.

English Law = England, not US

[cmiller173]

Talk about US Centric. ITMS Europe is based in Luxembourg and its terms of service are governed by English (as in England) law, not US law.

That said, if Norway was part of the EU this would not be a problem for Apple as I think that they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to apply, but since Norway is not AND apple got a Norwegian TLD for ITMS Norway AND nicely translated the site into Norwegian a Norwegian using the site would likely assume they are dealing with a Norwegian subsidiary operating under Norwegian law. If on the other hand ITMS Europe used a .uk TLD, even if they translated the site, I think they could justifiably say that the Norwegian person coming to the site would be expected to know that they are dealing with a site operating in the UK, under UK law.(yes I know that TLD use is not strictly tied to geographic location)

Re:English Law = England, not US

[Pofy]

>That said, if Norway was part of the EU this would not be a problem for Apple as I think that
>they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to
>apply

Not completely true, you can't chose law at will inside EU, especially if both the seller and buyer is in the same country. Even if you are buying from another country than your own inside EU, the seller can't chose arbitrary laws of a country of choise, at most you can end up with the laws of the country in which the seller is doing his bussiness, however, there are still restrictions in the unfair terms used so that they can't be worse than in the buyers country. Here is a good link to an EU directive on the issue:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/u nf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
Click on link in second paragraph, or chose another language if you like.

Who is doing business where?

[cmiller173]

Is ITMS Europe doing business in Norway or are Norwegian customers doing business in Luxembourg where ITMS Europe is based?

Digital downloads are so screwed up

[WolfZombie]

I know that myself and a lot of other people would be willing to pay $1 to download music that isn't crippled by DRM. When are the industries going to realize that actually means less in costs for them? Fewer lawsuits, less technology going into the creation of a digital song, and more people downloading and paying for music is going to mean more profit for everyone... well, everyone but the lawyers! Damn DRM and damn the lawyers!

Same old story.

[MaWeiTao]

The reality of the situation here is that these European nations are coming down on Apple because it's a foreign company. If Apple were European they would be happy to allow the company to conduct business as it sees fit.

However, it's an American company, and more importantly it's a popular and successful one at the expense of European competitors. Europeans want a free market, until it becomes a detriment to European companies. Then they expect their government to shield them from that same free market.

If the Europeans don't like Apple's service why doesn't someone start their own? It's as simple as that. Apple isn't forcing anyone to use iTunes.

Re:Same old story.

[famebait]

bollocks. European companies know the local laws. Apple is trying to seak away from them. It's that simple.

Re:Same old story.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality of the situation here is that these European nations are coming down on Apple because it's a foreign company. If Apple were European they would be happy to allow the company to conduct business as it sees fit.

The "same old story" here is that Apple are not the only company who the Consumer Council are targeting, merely the largest and most newsworthy.

From TFA:

The council is not only concerned by iTunes. It says several other download services in Norway also break consumer protection law and it expects the Ombudsman to take similar action against them.

Re:Same old story.

[just_forget_it]

The reality of the situation is that you pull facts out of your air and state them as absolutes.

Re:Same old story.

[zpeidar]

Well, let me list the possibilities for getting iPod-compatible music: 1: iTMS (Legal) 2: CD-Ripping (Legal) 3: Using services like the one that was recently raided in sweden (not so legal) Simple fact is that iPods are the biggest target group for Digital Music Sales, and Apple controls the only DRM that these support, and as long as the record companies insist on using that POS, then we're SOL for setting up competing purely digital stores that target the iPod.

Re:Altering terms- No! Stop The Bullies

[cannuck]

Common?! What is common - is that in the USA (and Canada too) - the Politicians (and their civil servants) are simply puppets of the Blue Chip Boys (and Girls too now). The Blue Chip Boys and Girls' (the unelected, the self selected, self appointed billionaire Elite) daily mantra is to screw the consumer - and has their Politician/Puppets produce any, all laws/regulations to make sure the consumer continues to be screwed.

You seem to favout the notion that whatever the Elite want - the Elite get - and screw everyone else

Fortunately, some European countries are several thousand years old, and have matured enough to realize that one doesn't need to constantly screw the consumer - in order for themselves not to be screwed

Burn to CD?

[bidule]

Something isn't quite right about this ongoing iPod/iTMS story in Europe. You don't need a PhD to come up with those arguments, why is it that I never heard them?

I wanna sell music for the iPod! Those devices can play MP3 and AAC. Why can't you sell in that format? I mean, it sure isn't Apple that stops you from doing so. And selling an unincumbered format would make everyone happy, including Apple.

I wanna play iTMS songs on my player! See the previous point. But while RIAA blocks that, can't you burn your song to a CD and reimport them? Yeah, I know it sucks. But we are talking about politicians, they only care about appearances anyway.

Considering the stinks the music labels raise not long ago trying to "optimize" the track costs in iTMS, I am wary of weakening the position of strength that Apple holds over RIAA et all. OTOH, letting WMA get the field isn't good either.

<tinfoil>But this whole campaign makes me wonder if there's anyone behind pulling the ropes.</tinfoil>

Re:Burn to CD?

[wootest]

Every three months or so, a rival of Apple's talk to the press and say that they are evil and should open up their operation, usually flaunting deliberate half-truths like "Apple's proprietary AAC format" (which is really the MPEG standard AAC format with Apple's proprietary FairPlay DRM, as opposed to Microsoft's proprietary WMA format with Microsoft's proprietary PlaysForSure DRM, but never mind). Creative and SanDisk have made lasting impressions in this genre of PR with Harmony and the mud-flinging ad campaign, respectively. The point is this - they don't *really* want to empower the consumer, they just saw a market share chart and they want Apple to look bad or tossing them some crumbs in order to not look bad.

What's great about this is that there are consumer organizations behind this. They are taking a genuine interest in the consumer. Up and until now, we've been complaining and representatives have been able to get off the hook by saying things to the effect of "no one outside of Slashdot really cares" (also a deliberate half-truth, I should add; no consumer who knows about DRM likes it). The more exposure this gets from the right people, the better. The best thing about this is that any consumer organization with a clue is not going to take WMA for an answer.

I think Apple only gets 9 cents IIRC

[cmiller173]

IIRC Apple gets like 9 cents and the recording label gets the rest. And that is before the cost of running ITMS.

Service vs Product

[dupont54]

Yes, it is perfectly reasonnable to alter terms of service. Generally, you pay recurrent fees for a service, so if the terms change and you are not happy with the service, you stop using AND stop paying.
Now look at iTMS/Steam/whatever-digital-buying-thing.
When you buy a track or game, you are paying a one-time fee. You may think you have bought a product, although being digital. Nothing really warn you that, actually, you are not buying a product, not even a classic licence (which is a form of intangible product), but you do pay SERVICE fees, the service being giving you access to some data on some online site and letting you do some things with them. Quietly, we move from a "product" paradigm to a "service" paradigm, but without any vendor telling you clearly and yet taking full advantage of this transition (no second-hand sale, change of terms at any time, added fees, unjustified revocation, ...).
Imagine that, in a few years, when you will buy a car, you will pay the full-price but not for the car, just for the ability to use it. And if the saler want to take it back, he will be able and allowed to do it, with no compensation for you and without needing a particular reason. That's how those digital distribution services work according to their legalese, at least until the first big blackout of one of those service and the following class-action lawsuit...

Re:Service vs Product

[init100]

Yes, it is perfectly reasonnable to alter terms of service. Generally, you pay recurrent fees for a service, so if the terms change and you are not happy with the service, you stop using AND stop paying.

I don't know about you, but here in Sweden many ISP:s require subscribers to agree to certain lock-in periods, where you agree to use the service for at least six or twelve months. During this period, it isn't possible to walk away, even if they change the TOS to something you think is unreasonable. You can stop using the service, but you would still have to pay for it until the lock-in period has expired.

Re:Service vs Product

[dupont54]

In France, they are also lock-in periods or opt-ou fees, but if they want to change the terms of the contract, basically you can walk away with no penalty or they have to keep the previous terms (article L. 121-84 of "code de la consommation").

Re:Service vs Product

[LeneJ]

I bet if the ISP or whomever decided that although you both agreed to have a deal for 6 months, you are now forced to be with them for 12, or you agreed to pay 100SEK for 6 months, but now had to pay 400SEK, the Swedish law would let you bail out of the agreement without penalty, or to continue on the original terms for the 6 months YOU BOTH AGREED TO BEFOREHAND, and at the end of the term, you were free to go with someone else. Am I wrong?

As a proud EU citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to denounce this ruling as a barbarian act of anti-Americanism. Norway and America have long been in conflict and it is time we solve this situation for once and for all. I hereby like to ask the US for their support for the upcoming EU invasion of norway, so we can liberate the innocent Norwegian people into the EU!

Re:As a proud EU citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how asking a company serving the Norwegian market to abide Norwegian law can be considered an act of anti-Americanism.

Re:Foreign Laws For US Companies?

[Wooster_UK]

But no contract can over-ride the laws of a country with jurisdiction. Norway has jurisdiction, since Apple is operating in Norway, from Norway, and for Norwegian customers. In fact, I can't see how any other country has jurisdiction. So in fact, the Norwegian courts are perfectly competent to strike down unreasonable or unlawful clauses in Apple-NO's contracts. Frankly, I half-suspect an English court would refuse to handle any such case on the grounds that they didn't have jurisdiction. They do it every so often; we have very lazy judges. : )

no kidding

[r00t]

There are a LOT of things which shouldn't be legal in contracts.

* the consumer gets stuck with changing terms

* the producer is not liable, even for intentional faults

* the consumer waives privacy rights (like HIPPA - do you want health insurance?)

It's all more of the same, with the consumer getting screwed. Consider a DSL service contract or a car rental contract. Normal people are unable to comprehend these at all. I struggle through them, knowing that certain terms that appear obvious will have different meaning to a lawyer. Why do we allow this?

Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha ha ha ha

[hector66]

Xenolon killed those facts pretty quickly. But the real problem with your post is blaming Apple for the royalties that artists get from their song sales. That is between the record company and the artist, and doesn't involve Apple one bit. I think the big thing that is being ignored so far is the focus has been on iTunes and the iPod. Neither work without a computer. There is complaints that there is no choice. If you want to use iTune Music Store you have to have an iPod to play your purchased music. But, if I wanted to use another service such as Napster I would be forced to use Windows, because Microsoft's Plays For Sure DRM does not work on Macintosh, or Linux. If a government forces a company to open their DRM to multiple MP3 devices, then they also have to open up the OS platform that they will run on. It can't be only one way or the other.

I just want to add

[JonJ]

That it's not only iTMS that the ombudsmann wants to have a word about, Microsofts playforsure is also under fire.

Burn to CD? - for now

[dupont54]

can't you burn your song to a CD and reimport them? For now, yes. That's an acceptable, yet inconvenient, escape course.
But for how long? By allowing change of terms after a purchase, this feature can disappear at any time. I hope you have backup your whole collection in a non-DRM format, just in case. And what proportion of less legalese-savy users are aware of this risk?

And regarding the fact that everyone is going against Apple, it's not because they are Apple, but just because they are the biggest, are global and are both the DRM and content vendor. Nobody is against Apple, but against DRM and the surreal legaleses around them.

Chuckle

[Tibor the Hun]

Leave it to Norwegians to come up with a crazy title like Ombudsman!

Re:Chuckle

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia:

An ombudsman is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens. In some jurisdictions, the Ombudsman is referred to, at least officially, as the 'Parliamentary Commissioner' (e.g., the West Australian state Ombudsman). The term arose from its use in Sweden, with the Parliamentary ombudsman instituted in 1809, to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch. The word ombudsman and its specific meaning has since been adopted in to English as well as other languages, and ombudsmen have been instituted by other governments and organizations such as the European Union.

Re:Chuckle

[Squirrelgirl]

I believe its actually swedish?

Simple.. [Re:Supported by others in Scandinavia]

[Anonymous Coward]

We have laws that protect us against such silly things as shrinkwrapped EULAs and other post-sale Change of Conditions

Re:Why is this so complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS can't you learn how to spell 'ridiculous' already?

Don't see a real problem here...

[mpaque]

Apple can just license FairPlay for use on any music player to be sold in the Norwegian market, at going market rates, say:

    0.20 USD per final unit sold, with an 800,000 USD a year maximum, licensed for resale in Norway only.

That's the going rate for Windows Media DRM 10 for portable devices. Since, as we see in this case, each country wants to assert sovereign control over what is or is not permitted, and has it's own terms regarding the nature of the license, the exact nature of the DRM must be adjusted to meet local legal restrictions. Each third party player would need a special Norwegian version of its product that meets the terms of the agreements and licenses.

Apple can make the same requirements as Microsoft does for portable device DRM licenses, including the requirement that preproduction samples be made available for compliance testing and review, and that licensees agree not to litigate against the licensor on intellectual property issues such as patents. (No Creative nuisance suits)

A properly constructed license would both comply with Norwegian law, and ensure that no company in it's right mind would want to obtain a license. The Norwegian Ombudsman gets to claim victory, and Apple doesn't have to actually do anything real.

Re:Don't see a real problem here...

[stripe42]

Interseting. And with the lawyers wining too, I bet you have prognosticated correctly.

Cheers.

Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha ha ha ha

[cannuck]

"Spurious"! Wow. Let me get my dictionary. Spurious:

"spurious |spyors| |sp(j)ris| |spjuris| |spjrs|
adjective not being what it purports to be; false or fake : separating authentic and spurious claims.
  (of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid : this spurious reasoning results in nonsense."

"Disguise them as facts". Facts? My comments are my comments.

Where's my info coming from? I have likely read 200 to 300 articles on money and iTunes and iPods. Likely my figures came from Pogue or was it The Woz or was it Cringley - probably Cringely. Did I make them up ..... no.

Talking about spurious - quoting Time as a source of reliable information......Ha Ha Ha. Get me Apple's internal financial statements... if you are serious about accuracy.

Notice ... everyone knows Apple uses iTunes to sell iPods. Notice.... Apple is riding on the back of musical artists in order to sell billions and billions of dollars of Ipods - which in turn drove Apple's stock up ... and the artists got absolutely zero out of those billions ...So in the end Apple has made a lot, lot, lot, lot more than 50 cents per tune

Your comments about Apple are absolutely correct: "They're certainly not the kings of interoperability". I couldn't agree with you more; because, that's really what I am talking about here.

Not only Apple. Microsoft DRM is up next

[Been on TV]

Apple has been picked to test the waters of the Norwegian legislation due to iTMS's popularity, but the original filing also includes Microsoft and its DRM which will be challenged against the 2005 Marketing Control Act.

The most interesting part of this legislation is the definition of the term "relevant equipment". See above link for more.

Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha

[cannuck]

Blaming the victim - again and again and again and again!

Yes you are right.. all musicians are absolutely stupid, ignorant, jerk-offs who deserve everything they don't get.

Talking about accuracy - you might want to read up on a little history about artists and the creeps running the music industry. For example, Bob Marley, one of the kingpins in the industry did not get one red cent from the record company who sold billions of Marley's albums.

Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

That Bob Marley story has nothing to do with Apple/iTunes. That is the music industry.

But then again how do we know that Marley story is true, seeing how you blatantly lied about how much Apple makes per song, just to try and prove your point...

What's the difference between Norway and Sweden?

[otis wildflower]

Norwegians have good neighbors...

Seriously though, Apple should take its marbles and go home.

Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha ha ha ha

[cannuck]

"Xenolon killed those facts pretty quickly." Really?!

I stated that the artist gets 3 cents per iTune sale and that Apple got 50 cents

.

Xelolon,(spuriously?) claimed that Apple ONLY got 34 cents (NOT 50 cents). Which means Apple gets over 1100 percent more than the artists. Again Apple uses these artists to sell the iPod which makes billions for Apple (no artists = no music = no Ipod = no Apple.)

Re:English Law = England MOD parent UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of how slashdot likes to stick to popular memes no matter how many times they have been proven wrong.

iTunes doesn't force you to do anything.

[Viewsonic]

If you want to move the engine from your Corvette to a Civic, you can. Likewise, if you want to put your iTunes music on another player, you can. Simply burn the music to an unprotected audio CD which iTunes does built-in (And they even suggest you do this as soon as you buy your music), and then rerip the music onto the other player.

I fail to see the problem. iTunes doesn't lock any music from being played on other players or devices at all. It allows you to burn anything you buy to an audio CD for fair use and backup purposes.

Re:iTunes doesn't force you to do anything.

[RalphSleigh]

Lets burn some kama extending that analogy too far, as burning and reripping results in a quality loss, so prehaps once you transfer the engine you cant drive the car above 50 mph?

iTunes/iPod are irrelevant in this discussion

[sbjordal]

You can really insert any sort brand name here because the fact that this complaint deals with Apple and it's products is highly irrelevant. The real problem can be summed us as following: Company x does business in Norway and has to comply with Norwegian laws. The consumer law states that once a product is sold, you can not alter the terms under which the product was sold. There. That is the problem in a nutshell. Apple comes under fire in this scenario because song x was sold on the music store and when you bought it you were informed at you could burn it x many times, share it out in iTunes to for people to listen to etc. Apple then retroactively (and without telling anyone to boot) changes the terms (the contract) and this change then affects a product that was already purchased under a different pretense.

missing info above

[Been on TV]

ooops, some information fell out of the posting above:

The most interesting part of the Norwegian legislation is the definition of the term "relevant equipment" where the lawmakers have allowed consumers to break copy protection mechanisms to enable playback of content on relevant equipment. More information here

EU consumer protection to the rescue

[andersh]

I'm sorry but you seem to forget that Norway is subject to the same laws as EU member states due to the extensive EEA agreement. Of course you can agree to resolve issues in a foreign court of law. The issue is not simply a matter of EU membership or not. The real issue is one of consumer protection not commercial contracts. In fact according to a European Union directive consumers can actually choose to invoke their local legislation when shopping from a European website. Yes, this directive is also valid in Norway. And under Norwegian law when a website is reachable and targes Norwegian citizens it's also subject to local law.

Indie labels on iTunes without DRM?

[Midnight Thunder]

We often blame the RIAA for Apple putting DRM on its music and say they leave it there out of fear of losing their contracts. The question is, that I have seen asked before, is whether an independent label or artist whether can have my music on iTunes without DRM and ask for automatic global distribution. eMusic already hosts indie labels without DRM, so there is little reason that Apple should refuse, unless they are as greedy as big media - thus making them no better.

Re:Indie labels on iTunes without DRM?

[argent]

The question is, that I have seen asked before, is whether an independent label or artist whether can have my music on iTunes without DRM and ask for automatic global distribution.

Remember that Apple has managed to get the big labels to all accept exactly the same terms for their distribution, the famous "99c a track" across the board. I can't imagine that these contracts leave much more room for alternate terms on Apple's side than they do on the label's side. Otherwise the labels would just use that as leverage in their current attempt to dump the flat rate for songs.

Have you investigated this possibility?

Shrink-wrap EULA

[Sulka]

IANAL, AFAIK (and a couple other acronyms later) an EULA is not valid in most countries of the world unless it's a signed piece of paper or digitally signed in a manner equivalent to a real signature. I have no idea if a shrink-wrap or a web checkbox EULA has been put to trial in US but I wouldn't be surprised that even there the courts didn't think the EULA practices of most companies are somewhat fishy. I know for a fact the Finnish ombudsman and the law considers EULAs of practically no worth.

What I've found particularly odd about EULAs is that most of the time they're repeating things already in the law. It's useless to repeat piracy and hacking is illegal in the EULA if it's already illegal. If it's not, it's not like the EULA is going to make a difference, in or out of the court.

Wrong

[MisterSquid]

Do you not know when you go to buy iTunes that they only work on iPods?

Music bought from the iTunes Music Service work on computers running iTunes software. So, unless you want to call a computer running iTunes an iPod, you are mistaken. Getting that music from iTunes into an mp3 player that is not an iPod is inconvenient, but not impossible. There will be a slight loss in quality.

Why doesn't the USA have an ombudsman?

[spun]

Mark you, this is not our ombudsmann, which is someone appointed to help us against the goverment, but our consumer-ombudsmann who helps against corporations :).

I'll take one of each, thanks. Now, how to convince our congresscritters to appoint someone to watch over them and their major campaign contributors and help the public out when either screws up?

To quote Susie Derkins from Calvin and Hobbes, "Might as well wish for a pony while I'm at it." :(

Re:Why doesn't the USA have an ombudsman?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the matter? Can't afford your own Congressman? I hear there is one down in Louisana that needs some cold cash.

norway?

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't apple just buy the whole stupid country? can't be too expensive, just eskimos there..

Round 4 of Cartel vs. Monopoly!

[Anonymous Coward]

The BPI (Britain's RIAA equivalent) has also called upon Apple to license Fairplay

Bing!

Sorry, Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American of Norwegian ancestry, I apologize to Norwegians for the rudeness and stupidity of the previous post. What a jerk.

Re:Sorry, Norway

[Squirrelgirl]

It's taken in good humour. :) We may not always be eloquent and nice about americans either in informal situations, without actually meaning something with it. And his/her line was kind of funny. ;)

its not that unreasonable

[Azeron]

Its not entirely unreasonable that apple can "alter the terms" ofthe sale after the sale. I work in the music business, and one of the problems we have to deal with is when soemone comes to us and says they have the rights to sell a song, and in the ned they don't. iTunes can be forced to revoke your license if the copyright holder is unreasonable.

Yah I know it sucks, but if apple didn;t have loopsided terms it would be impossible to sell a bilion songs to every people around the world, it would be a nightmare legalistically, and too costly. Norway should shut up and let their citizens decide if the contract is unfair buy voting with thier feet. You don't like the terms, click "decline" and just use your ipod with a store like Emusic, www.emusic.com, which has no drm on thier music. Alternatively, you can buy cd's and rip them DRM free onto your ipod.

Re:its not that unreasonable

[Squirrelgirl]

First of all. I will not accept a statement that we should just "shut up". We voted for these consumer laws to begin with. There's no reason we should just "shut up" if we disagree with how things are run. If they won't follow our laws, they can pack up and leave.

I fail to see how you can't make terms of transfer of song rights or similar part of the initial agreement the customer goes into buying the song? Why do you need to reserve the right to potentially declare that the customer cannot enjoy the product in the future? And isn't there already copyright regulations in place that prohibit people from using artistic work inappropriately that already cover this?

The concern isn't really about people using the songs in a "bad way" (or I might be completely misunderstanding what you meant here, if so I apologise), but what we are actually concerned about is that Apple reserve the right to say "As of this moment, you now owe us $1 for each of the songs you already purchased" or "We decided its no longer interesting to be in norway so we'll turn our server off. Your music won't work anymore as of now, whether you made backups of it or not."

10,000 Steves ran through the weeds. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . chased by one Norwegian.

I just couldn't resist!

Re:10,000 Steves ran through the weeds. . .

[belg67]

Suppose I'm gonna to do business in the states and bring my 'namibian' laws with me...You think i can get away with that? If Apple wants to stay in Norway they simply have to comply, don't they?! Easy as that. Things change if the ITMS is just based in the states and everybody is just directed to a US site, when wanting to buy a song.... Djeez, Americans should be happy that around the world governmentpeople are actually questioning businessmodels. Seems to me that that's a thing the US is lacking of.... This is said by a Dutchman by the way. Remember that XP is now being sold in the EC with the possibility of bying it without mediaplayer. Thanks to EC laws that state that selling bundled software on an operatingsystem is not legal and that people should have a choice!!! This is good actually for the economy for choice among consumers promotes competition.

BPI Wants FairPlay Opened Up?

[GaryPatterson]

Why on Earth would the music industry want Apple to licence FairPlay?

Maybe it would loosen Apple's control on the online industry, making it easier for the industry to force deals through.

Apple recently resisted industry efforts to allow variable pricing (looked a lot like min 99c, max ++$) and they could only do that because of their strength online. A billion songs sold is a good negotiating point, and Jobs is apparently an excellent negotiator.

If the online distribution industry fractures (as it inevitably will) the ability to resist price increases will weaken.

Maybe I'm way off, but as soon as I see the music industry wanting something, I get *very* suspicious of their motives.

Re:BPI Wants FairPlay Opened Up?

[argent]

Why on Earth would the music industry want Apple to licence FairPlay?

Because a balkanized DRM "marketplace" is good for consumers, and bad for the Intellectual Property Misers that run the labels. So since Apple's not caving in to Microsoft they want to see Apple "win" in the DRM wars. Luckily, Apple doesn't want to "win", because they know the only way to win is not to play.

I wish Sony's DRM and Real's DRM were still seriously fighting it out with Microsoft's Trusted Computing software.

But I'll take what I can get.

The $5,000 iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple complied with the letter of the law in every country where it does business, they'd have so many lawyers on the payroll that the cost of iPods would be prohibitive. Yes, consumer protection and the ombudsman are good, but maybe a bit idealistic?

Richest country in the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway is actually the world's richest country (non-GDP) and rated the best country to live in by the OECD. Considering it's the world's third largest exporter of oil I think Apple would have a hard time buying this nation. Oh, and we don't have any eskimos or inuits. Don't people know where all the blondes live? It's Scandinavia for G**s sake!

Sorry

[Descalzo]

I really like your post, but I disagree with it, and I'm going to try to explain why.

I think that the consumer holds all the power. I think that if we arrive at a situation in which it appears that the producer or seller (ITMS in this case) holds all the cards, it's really an illusion. WE, the CONSUMERS are holding all the cards. If Apple holds all the cards it's because we have allowed them to convince us that we NEED this product. We don't. We walk away with money in our pocket and Apple loses a sale. A long-term sale, because I don't know anyone who only buys one song from ITMS. If no one offers a contract that suits me, then no one gets my business, and I save money. I can always buy the dadgum CD and rip it to my old Clie.

One of the examples of this that shows up regularly on slashdot is the example of leaving Windows. Windows is famous for having the most draconian EULA and being generally devious jerks, but they have us, because it's HARD to switch from Windows. I just tried to install Ubuntu and SuSE on my lappy, and I thought I knew a lot about computers. I have installed Linux like a finity times, and tried about a finity different distros. It was still hard for me. Sound didn't work, then wifi didn't work, then I had to flash the BIOS, and it was a pain. Then Gaim didn't work, then I had to disable IPv6. It was hard. So that's how Windows gets us: we're wusses. That's not Windows' fault, it's our fault. You see it's the illusion that we're trapped in Windows, but it isn't Windows that traps us, it's us that traps ourselves.

The fact that Windows has to resort to such devious methods to keep us trapped is evidence that it's us who holds the power to leave them and never come back.

Now my arguments sound good to me, but I feel I have missed something. If you know what it is I've missed, let me know.

Johnny Tremain

[Descalzo]

The difference here is that Johnny Tremain was used to illustrate historical facts, not establish them.

I don't know if The Jungle is total fiction or not, but it sounds like the burden of proof is on those who support it as fact. I, personally, would like to hear real evidence from either side on this one.

Nice points.

[Descalzo]

One important point I liked about your post: the model assumes total information, while reality doesn't supply total information. In other words, we don't always have all the facts.

I think there's a problem here though, that runs deeper than just economics: when governments impose controls on us, they also suffer from the same lack of information that we do. So if they foist their controls on us, and the controls are based (as they often are) on faulty information or irrational goals, the citizens bear the brunt. It's like the citizens no longer get the responsibility of making the decisions, but they still reap the consequences of bad ones.

That's why I guess I would prefer to live without controls: let me bear the responsibility.

Disclaimer: I don't support the abolition of government. I just want it to start backing off. Way off. I believe that a balance can be struck somewhere.