Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's Terms No Longer Allow ITMS Purchases Outside of US

Posted by timothy on from the just-a-test-to-see-if-you're-reading-the-terms dept.

JasonDT writes "I just accepted the new terms of service for iTunes and found that I will no longer be allowed to access US iTunes outside of the United States. This may seem like no big deal but, I am a US citizen living abroad and I regularly purchase and view TV and movies from AppleTV. Not to mention US citizens just traveling abroad. Does anyone know if this has been enforced or have themselves been affected by this?"

6 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. You are subject to laws of where you live by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not where you were born. When I was an American living and working in Germany, I was subject to the laws of Germany. I couldn't download a browser with more than 40-bit encryption at the time due to export regulations. Yes I was an American citizen, but I wasn't in the united states.
    Now, if you are working on behalf of the US government at a diplomatic consulate/mission or in the military, then you may have a gripe, and I believe Apple should do something to work with you. Especially if your billing is to an APO address.

    Just because I'm american and we are allowed the freedom of speech inside the US doesn't mean I can have a copy of Mein Kampf in Germany.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:You are subject to laws of where you live by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think the submitter is complaining that what iTunes is doing is illegal (or that he should be subject to US law while abroad). I think he is complaining that what iTunes is doing is stupid.

      He wants to be a customer. He wants to give them money. But they (iTunes, or whichever content providers require this rule) want to restrict things regionally. These regional restrictions are inconvenient, arbitrary, and illogical in an age of ubiquitous global network connectivity, and easy trans-national travel. Someone abroad can circumvent the restrictions easily with a proxy. Conversely a US citizen on a trip abroad is denied access (whereas it would have been fine if they had downloaded it while in the US and carried it on their computer on the plane). Thus it doesn't seem that the rule accomplishes its nominal goal. Actually for the most part the nominal goal isn't even clear. In short, the restrictions are silly.

      Of course it is within iTune's ability (technical and legal) to impose such restrictions. But it just seems illogical, since anywhere that the content is not available through a legitimate source (or available but only after a substantial delay) will simply increase the amount of circumvention (proxy, file sharing, etc.). So why don't these companies want the money being offered to them?

    2. Re:You are subject to laws of where you live by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He wants to be a customer. He wants to give them money. But they (iTunes, or whichever content providers require this rule) want to restrict things regionally.

      In some cases yes, in many cases its not that they WANT to restrict things, its that they HAVE to.

      If Warner owns song X in the US, and Sony owns it Brazil, then no matter how much Warner wants to sell you the song in Brazil they CAN'T. And if Sony owns it but doesn't want to sell it, or wants to sell it but charge more than Warner, that's life. Warner can't do squat about it except say, hey, come to the US and buy a copy while you are actually here.

      In the case I describe Warner isn't trying to restrict things regionally, but don't own the rights to distribute the song in Brazil, and someone else does, so they just can't.

  2. Deployed by donaggie03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a deployed American soldier (Afghanistan) who has downloaded many songs from Itunes over the last year, I just have to say this change is ridiculous! That is all.

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  3. Completely out of control by paulthomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The last time I was presented with the "agreement" for the iTunes store, I pulled up a terminal and ran wc on it. It was 4,931 words long, not including referenced agreements. You can go buy a CD at a store with out signing a contract, much less one nearly 5,000 words long.

    It contained all manor of claims of how Apple could unilaterally change the terms for purchased music and required that you "agree to agree" to future terms.

    Having taken some contract law courses ( but IANAHPAADL - I am not a highly paid Apple attack dog lawyer), much of it seemed unconscionable. Specifically, consideration from Apple (ability to play already purchased songs, access the store, etc.) seems weak-to-non-existent in light of the fact that it can be arbitrarily revoked according to the terms.

    Also, I am generally an Apple fan, but this is one area where I think they are really out of control.

  4. "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    he apple apologists need to seriously STFU with this "it isn't apple's fault!" nonsense. They're partners. Apple is not some holy child that hath cometh down from the mountain to bestow upon the unwashed masses all that is holy and good.

    I'd tell you to a heaping spoonful of STFU yourself, but I think you've done Apple enthusiasts everywhere a service by serving as a quintessential example of knee-jerk Apple Critic. You certainly don't know what you're talking about with regards to how the DRM works, you seem to be ignorant of Apple's actions and stated intentions with regard to said DRM, you seem to have reflexively confused licensing issues with DRM issues, and you seem generally confused about the value and state of other players in the marketplace.

    Exhibit A:

    "Bought that song on your computer at work? Want to listen to it on your computer at home? Well guess what, charlie, unless you find some obscure bullshit setting in some hidden window in some far off corner of some far off menu in iTunes, $1 more shall go to the Steve."

    Anyone who's ever used iTunes on more than a single computer knows there's a simple solution to this problem. It doesn't involve an obscure menu, in fact, iTunes will *prompt* you for the necessary information as soon as you try to play the song.

    Exhibit B:

    A moments of thought would reveal that the geographic restrictions on purchases have little to do with DRM and everything to do with licensing, since DRM (on music anyway) isn't tied to a region, and isn't the technology used in restricting the purchase at any rate.

    Exhibit C:

    "Why do you think people don't use amazon?"

    They do, actually. Their MP3 store launched a year and a half ago and sell about 10% of what iTunes does. Some estimates place them as the #2 digital retailer:

    http://mashable.com/2008/03/26/amazon-mp3-takes-2/

    Furthermore, that figure almost certainly represents sales mostly taken from iTunes. Almost every iPod/iTunes user I know has switched.

    Exhibit D:

    "Or why microsoft's VASTLY superior subscription model is ignored?"

    I can see value in a subscription model, I've participated in Rhapsody and Satellite Radio before. But at the end of the day, many people -- apparently more people -- happily choose ownership of their selection of media rather than ongoing rent to access to a broader selection, so it's not particularly clear that it's a vastly superior model.

    Overall, it appears that the purpose of your post is really to express some ill-defined anger at Apple as a company or to project a straw-man image of people who buy and enjoy their products.

    It certainly isn't to express well-considered criticism of some of the company's practices.

    --
    Tweet, tweet.