Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
...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?
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?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
sudo ergo sum
IANAL, but from my understanding, EULAs are not legally binding contracts under Norwegian law.
http://virtuelvis.com/
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
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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.
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?