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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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"

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:Foriegn Laws For US Companies?

[zxSpectrum]

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

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?