PDA

View Full Version : Norway To Pressure Apple To Change iTunes EULA?


MacRumors
Jun 6, 2006, 07:38 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Norwegian consumer advocacy group The Consumer Council has announced (http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1149587055.44) that the Consumer Ombudsman (CO) in Norway (an independent Norwegian administrative body tasked with enforcing the Marketing Control Act and supervising consumer issues) has given its support to many of the complaints that were brought in the Consumer Council's January 25th complaint against Apple's Norwegian iTunes Music Store.

Highlights of the decision
-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.

The decision appears to not agree with the Consumer Council's attempt to force Apple to allow customers to circumvent Fairplay. The original complaint (http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearchive/Complaint%20against%20iTunes%20Music%20Store.pdf) (pdf) listed the fact that consumers were prevented under the license agreement from circumventing Apple's Fairplay DRM.

The Consumer Council is now waiting for Apple's response before proceeding. While it is still voluntary for Apple to comply with the CO's decision, the CO can forward the case to the Market Council (the Norwegian court of law in the field). The CO and the Market Council have the authority to ban unlawful contract terms and conditions.

The iTunes Music Store has come under attack in recent months by France, who originally proposed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060313154218.shtml) to demand that Apple open up its music store to allow other competing media players to play music downloaded from the iTunes Music Store. The bill was later gutted in committee (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060511122105.shtml) and no longer issued those specific requirements.

Background Information: Background Information on Norwegian Consumer Groups (http://www.econsumer.gov/english/contentfiles/country/norway/handle.html)

Update: A local Norwegian news site (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1342991.ece) reports that iTunes interoperability does seem to be at issue. In addition, corresponding groups in Sweden and Denmark appear to also be following suit.

Update 2: CO Statement (http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467&subid=0) (Raw Data)

iGary
Jun 6, 2006, 07:42 PM
Most Norwegians don't seem to care. Gekko?

ChrisA
Jun 6, 2006, 07:49 PM
-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.

Here in the US I think the same might apply. Can a contract say that it is enforced by the laws of some other contry. For example can a contract here in the US state that in case of dispute it will be settled by some court in Russia or Mexico. Can you disclain all product liability?

Steven1621
Jun 6, 2006, 07:57 PM
This will go the same way was the French case...

nsjoker
Jun 6, 2006, 08:03 PM
i hope they win the case. maybe iTMS will change for the better in the future. for example, downloading a track and accidentally deleting it and having to pay for it again stinks. a subscription service ala apple style would be very nice, and lossless aac downloads over the current crappy 128 aac. i'm no audiophile but i can tell the difference easily.

Neuro
Jun 6, 2006, 08:11 PM
I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Seems fair enough.

The fact that Apple can change the terms of the license at any point, kind of makes the ITMS a subscription model anyway. The main difference being that the 'bought' content is hosted on customer's machines and iPods....

whatever
Jun 6, 2006, 08:17 PM
i hope they win the case. maybe iTMS will change for the better in the future. for example, downloading a track and accidentally deleting it and having to pay for it again stinks. a subscription service ala apple style would be very nice, and lossless aac downloads over the current crappy 128 aac. i'm no audiophile but i can tell the difference easily.
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever

Hunts121
Jun 6, 2006, 08:23 PM
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever

Napster used to allow this....not saying I like it as I use iTunes myself but for the brief period that I used the napster paid system (before I got an iPod...and a mac for that matter) I know that was a feature.

SeaFox
Jun 6, 2006, 08:23 PM
I don't thnak Apple should be able to change the terms of the iTunes DRM after you buy it, either. That would be like the dealer revising the terms of the warranty on your new car after you bought it.

They're welcome to extend it, and Apple did in the "number of computers you can simultaneously play songs on way", but they lowered the number of burns from 10 to 7.

WorldMage
Jun 6, 2006, 08:23 PM
So all this talk about users should be able to circumvent FairPlay
has always seems fairly silly to me, after all can't you burn any
song you want to a CD without any DRM of any sort?

I do this about once a year with the new songs I've bought.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 6, 2006, 08:30 PM
I know that the powers that be won't let things like this pass, even when it's not any of their damn business, but it's reassuring that somewhere on the planet societies are smart enough to actually debate these sorts of things.. debate anything for that matter.. cept for American Idol, but I digress.

EULA's are sinister. Clicking "agree" to actually see that body of the EULA? That's ridiculous, but it happens all the time. I hope the EU as a whole does something to stem the tide of media as a pure rental model so at least I have some place inviting to move eventually :-)

swingerofbirch
Jun 6, 2006, 08:31 PM
I don't thnak Apple should be able to change the terms of the iTunes DRM after you buy it, either. That would be like the dealer revising the terms of the warranty on your new car after you bought it.

They're welcome to extend it, and Apple did in the "number of computers you can simultaneously play songs on way", but they lowered the number of burns from 10 to 7.


I don't agree it's right either, but the difference is that with iTunes you buy music, but you never actually own it as property. It would be more comparable to say you are leasing music from iTunes for limited, personal use.

Neuro
Jun 6, 2006, 08:34 PM
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever

Well, just the same as software - you are buying a license to access the music/software (record companies make a big thing about this) - not the physical medium. So yes, the shop/provider that sold you the data should provide a replacement if the data can no longer be read. Otherwise, buying a license is meaningless. Obviously you need to prove you bought it via a receipt.

You seriously think that's unreasonable?

It's no big deal at all for Apple to provide this. Whenever I've 'lost' digital data from other music download stores, they have been happy to provide me with a replacement. As someone who buys their product, I'm hardly likely to try to con them.

Surely a product should be about customer satisfaction?

mcarnes
Jun 6, 2006, 08:40 PM
Crazy Swedes. (in kurt russel voice)

theBB
Jun 6, 2006, 08:43 PM
-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.

I don't know what they mean by the first line exactly, but second line is standard disclaimer in all software. I don't think it is reasonable, but if there was major damage and if you can show that software company had known about it and could have fixed it with reasonable effort, you might still be able to sue them. Kind of like all these liability release forms filled before participating in any sporting activities, I am pretty sure you could still sue in egregious cases. There are a few lawyers on this site, anyone with more expertise care to comment?

The third one is definitely unreasonable. What if they just say you need to pay us 5cents each time you play the songs you have paid for already? Need more competition in music to keep Apple in check.

Makosuke
Jun 6, 2006, 08:43 PM
Doubt it'll get anywhere, but it's sure nice to see SOMETHING resembling a government body standing up to ridiculous licencing rules. And the sad part is, Apple is probably the most reasonable of these services (well, except for the subscription services--I don't like them based on how I listen to music, but you get exactly what you pay for).

This isn't to say that I don't buy stuff off the iTMS--I do, because it's often cheap and incredibly convienent--but really the RIAA and its international counterparts are like a plague on basic use rights. I somehow think they'd be happiest if we just paid them a monthly fee and they let us listen to whatever musc they thought those slimy would-be-pirate "consumers" deserve to hear.

And I only half blame Apple for the iTMS restrictions--since they're not really making any money off it they don't have a huge interest in restricting your rights, but no restriction, no sale from the RIAA et al. I'm sure Apple would have been quite happy to leave in that feature in early versions of iTunes that didn't restrict sharing to your local subnet--it would have made iTunes just that much more popular. But they were forced--quietly, no doubt--to shut it down. Not unreasonable, but unfortunate.

Anyway, go Norway!

theBB
Jun 6, 2006, 08:48 PM
Well, just the same as software - you are buying a license to access the music/software (record companies make a big thing about this) - not the physical medium. So yes, the shop/provider that sold you the data should provide a replacement if the data can no longer be read. Otherwise, buying a license is meaningless.
I agree. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I'd understand it if they charge you for bandwidth costs, but that should be almost negligible.

Anyways, eMusic lets you do it, but it is somewhere between a store and a subscription service.

theBB
Jun 6, 2006, 08:50 PM
I don't agree it's right either, but the difference is that with iTunes you buy music, but you never actually own it as property. It would be more comparable to say you are leasing music from iTunes for limited, personal use.
Still, when I lease a car they cannot change the terms of the lease without my approval, can they? In this case, I am supposed to be leasing for perpetuity.

50548
Jun 6, 2006, 09:10 PM
I don't know what they mean by the first line exactly, but second line is standard disclaimer in all software. I don't think it is reasonable, but if there was major damage and if you can show that software company had known about it and could have fixed it with reasonable effort, you might still be able to sue them. Kind of like all these liability release forms filled before participating in any sporting activities, I am pretty sure you could still sue in egregious cases. There are a few lawyers on this site, anyone with more expertise care to comment?

The third one is definitely unreasonable. What if they just say you need to pay us 5cents each time you play the songs you have paid for already? Need more competition in music to keep Apple in check.

You seem to forget that the Norwegian analysis is made from the perspective of consumer law, not standard civil or commercial law.

In many jurisdictions (notably in most of Europe, Brazil and other Roman Law systems) there are specific codes enacted to protect consumer's rights, so the norwegian claim is not that far-fetched.

The iTMS, as well as most online services, may be equated with adhesion contracts where the consumer has much less bargaining power (or none at all) than the offeror/supplier of a service.

Consequently, considering that the Norwegian iTMS is served in Norwegian and supposedly bound by Norwegian laws, one may infer that any consumer-related adhesion contract must use Norwegian courts as well.

In the second case, I agree with you that such contractual provisions may be easily nullified in case of, again, adhesion contracts and egregious situations. Most reasonable judges would rule in favor of a lawsuit that can prove the "causality nexus" between the service and the damage.

In the third point, it's definitely unreasonable from a consumer's point of view, especially since you agreed to specific DRM rights in the first place. Any contract is formed by price, object and mutual consent at a given time. These elements cannot be unilaterally changed by one party, particularly when the service/good has been already delivered in its final form, be it just a license or not.

I hope this clarifies some of your doubts...

Fiveos22
Jun 6, 2006, 09:14 PM
Never underestimate the power of neutrality.

Norwegian muscle, or apathy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_security) Personally, I don't think this is anything more than a buzzing fly.

shigzeo
Jun 6, 2006, 09:24 PM
This will go the same way was the French case...

i reckon not, because this time, the argument is for the consumer rather than making available music to DRM'less sourcing. the france fiasco was about opening up the source songs to be able to play on other machines while this one just gives the user more proper rights. but, then im wrong about 70% of the time!:confused:

081440
Jun 6, 2006, 09:44 PM
Apple doesn't have to be liable for iTunes software do they!? I mean if they say it is at your own risk, then well the consumer is doing it at their own risk, they already agreed to the terms. (And don't give me any crap about how people don't read the contract, it's their own fault if they don't! (yes I do skim them before agreeing, but take responsibility if I miss something))

And the point about only 7 burns, well just change the playlist you burn from and WOW you have another 7 burns, or if your making a huge number of copies (which your not allowed to) then invest in an external CD/DVD duplicator, takes the ware and tare off your Mac and they are very reliable.

bretm
Jun 6, 2006, 09:49 PM
Napster used to allow this....not saying I like it as I use iTunes myself but for the brief period that I used the napster paid system (before I got an iPod...and a mac for that matter) I know that was a feature.

Yeah, and how's Napster doing these days? They keep trying different stuff. Most of it bait and switch tactics like their current FREE concept. Their ploys just get you hyped and excited until you find out they're screwing you. THAT's the way to win customers!

We have brought Norway iTunes. What has Norway done for us lately? EVER?

bretm
Jun 6, 2006, 09:54 PM
Still, when I lease a car they cannot change the terms of the lease without my approval, can they? In this case, I am supposed to be leasing for perpetuity.

I have a mortgage. It does change without my consent. Of course, I consented to it changing without my consent, so I guess it doesn't.

Your cell phone contract can change without your consent. But it is then breach of contract and you can then remove yourself from the contract. Of course, that's all in the contract, so it's not a breach of contract... :eek:

shigzeo
Jun 6, 2006, 09:58 PM
Yeah, and how's Napster doing these days? They keep trying different stuff. Most of it bait and switch tactics like their current FREE concept. Their ploys just get you hyped and excited until you find out they're screwing you. THAT's the way to win customers!

We have brought Norway iTunes. What has Norway done for us lately? EVER?

well, let me assume that by 'we' you mean that you live, love and were born south of the longest friendly border in the world. meaning that you eat hamburgers and cheeseburgers morning, noon and night. well, if not for the norwegians, the americans would be less dependent on the one meal that is probably causing obeisity in their population since the 1940's or 1950's. if there were no obeise americans then there would be no need for itunes since you could still walk to the music store and carry the records home. in effect, itunes owes norway much more than it thinks.

the bestower of this american propensity? the norwegian cheese slicer (and we swedes took the idea as well and used metal!)
http://www.cyberclip.com/Katrine/NorwayInfo/Inv/slicer.html

VCH
Jun 6, 2006, 10:37 PM
I always laugh at the I.T.M.S. I mean it's cool that it exsists, and great for people who are scared. But really, Limewire people! Music is Free! I use I.T.M.S. to browse for tracks that I'll later download with Limewire. :eek:

theBB
Jun 6, 2006, 10:45 PM
Consequently, considering that the Norwegian iTMS is served in Norwegian and supposedly bound by Norwegian laws, one may infer that any consumer-related adhesion contract must use Norwegian courts as well.

Well, I am not sure what "adhesion contract" exactly means, but thanks for your response. A lot of countries allow international binding arbitration to attract foreign investors who do not trust or want to deal with different judical systems. I wonder if Norway is one of those. If so, it could be hard for them to complain about iTunes contract that utilizes such an option unless "arbitration" is only restricted to B2B conflicts by law.

theBB
Jun 6, 2006, 10:50 PM
well, let me assume that by 'we' you mean that you live, love and were born south of the longest friendly border in the world. meaning that you eat hamburgers and cheeseburgers morning, noon and night...

the bestower of this american propensity? the norwegian cheese slicer
Funny. :)

On a bit more serious note, I don't think you need a cheese slicer for hamburgers. Even if cheeseburgers did not exist at all, hamburgers themselves would be enough to get fat fast.

Doctor Q
Jun 6, 2006, 11:53 PM
Is Norway a small enough market that Apple would consider saying no thanks to the Norwegian market entirely if Apple can't negotiate terms it finds acceptable, or if Apple refuses to make any accommodations at all?

guerro
Jun 7, 2006, 12:02 AM
Seems to me that the Norweigens (sp) are trying to force Apple to change the terms under which it offers its product for sale. However, they are doing it in the wrong way. Instead of trying to use law and threats of lawsuits to get Apple to change, they should use something more powerful. Their wallets. Same goes for any other country where consumers disagree with the way products are being offered. Don't buy the damn thing and when the seller sees no sales he/she will investigate and adapt in order to make a sale.

Simple economics folks.

The prospective buyer using the law to force a company to sell a product under the specific conditions the buyer demands is totally wrong. Telling Apple,"Hey, I am not going to buy your product and here is why" is the way it should be done. If Apple sees the benifit of the sale by changing its terms then so be it. But Apple will just as soon close the Norwegen iTMS as change the terms just so a few more Norwegiens might consider buying a song or two.

Pokeon
Jun 7, 2006, 12:11 AM
Seriously Norway if you dont like the EULA dont agree to it. No one is forcing you to.

mambodancer
Jun 7, 2006, 12:46 AM
First, Apple clearly states it is up to the person downloading the music to make back ups of it. I do, and all my data on my computer is backed up and archived on a regular basis.

Second, as a Macintosh consultant I've dealt with 2 clients who accidentally erased their iTunes music folder thus deleting all music they've uploaded from CD's and downloaded from iTMS. I recommended that they contact Apple and explain the situation in a civil way. Apple customer service allowed both customers to redownload all purchased music with the admonition that they were responsible for backing up their music. The customers were able to download their music within 24 hours of Apples response.

Anyone who has ever lost data on a computer once, becomes an instant convert to a backup regime.

Finally, no retail store I know of is going to replace a lost CD or DVD you've purchased. Some will allow you to exchange defective discs within a given time frame.

gekko513
Jun 7, 2006, 01:25 AM
Most Norwegians don't seem to care. Gekko?
I'm not sure. I don't feel comfortable accepting a user agreement that isn't regulated by Norwegian law. We have a very good law regarding consumer protection. I also don't like that Apple can change the rights I have to the music I've licensed after I paid for it.

I know that some of the most conscious buyers avoid the iTMS because of this, but then again I also think they avoid it because of the DRM.

I don't care enough to let it stop me using the iTMS, but I would be happy if Apple obliged by the ombudsman's recommendations.

Is Norway a small enough market that Apple would consider saying no thanks to the Norwegian market entirely if Apple can't negotiate terms it finds acceptable, or if Apple refuses to make any accommodations at all?
I'd say, yes, it's small enough. The average Norwegian has enough money to spend, but the population is only 4.6 million people after all.


Edit: I don't like polls that puts words in my mouth. My poll vote with that wording is "none of the above".

lorien
Jun 7, 2006, 01:39 AM
well, let me assume that by 'we' you mean that you live, love and were born south of the longest friendly border in the world. meaning that you eat hamburgers and cheeseburgers morning, noon and night. well, if not for the norwegians, the americans would be less dependent on the one meal that is probably causing obeisity in their population since the 1940's or 1950's. if there were no obeise americans then there would be no need for itunes since you could still walk to the music store and carry the records home. in effect, itunes owes norway much more than it thinks.

the bestower of this american propensity? the norwegian cheese slicer (and we swedes took the idea as well and used metal!)
http://www.cyberclip.com/Katrine/NorwayInfo/Inv/slicer.html

And we Danes took the idea as well and used silver, added some more rounded corners, and sold it to millions of fat American tourists as "exclusive Danish design"!

polyesterlester
Jun 7, 2006, 01:54 AM
I would be happy if Apple allowed you to re-download already purchased songs for a small fee (say $0.15), to cover bandwidth.

twilson
Jun 7, 2006, 02:37 AM
Most of their complaints are against DRM in general (which is all the fault of the music industry, and this one won't be destroyed anytime soon).

As for the "liability clause", this is standard practice for all software licence agreements as not EVERY possible avenue of attack can be predicted. Microsoft should definitely be the first to be pulled up on this, as their Windows OS helps cause the most damage of any piece of software available.

As for governing by "English law", I assume that the music content is transferred from England, if this is the case then "the service" is being provided from England. iTunes, is not the service, the music itself is.

All in all, this stinks. It will die a quick death, mainly because the Recording industry we use it's power to make it go away.

twilson
Jun 7, 2006, 02:53 AM
I always laugh at the I.T.M.S. I mean it's cool that it exsists, and great for people who are scared. But really, Limewire people! Music is Free! I use I.T.M.S. to browse for tracks that I'll later download with Limewire. :eek:

Music is NOT free, and there is no right to free music either. I myself write music, while I don't do it for profit (its a hobby to me) the time I invest in creating the music could quite easily have a monetary value attached to it.

If it was my sole source of income I'd be very annoyed at people ripping me off.

As the old saying goes, "there's no such thing as a free lunch", or free anything for that matter.

Open-source software okay is FREE, technically, but often there are some other obligations (non-monetary) which must be adhered to.

Just because you don't have to pay for something, doesn't necessarily make it free. The real definition of free here would be "no strings attached".

iJaz
Jun 7, 2006, 03:24 AM
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.


I have actually reacted on this before, I have always thought it seemed VERY strange! Good I am not alone.

polyesterlester
Jun 7, 2006, 03:28 AM
I know this is off-topic, but another change I wish Apple would make to the iTunes system is the ability to change the email address your account is attached to.

My iTunes account is attached to a .Mac email address, and if I ever cancel that email account, I'd like to be able to change my iTunes account.

Am I missing something? Do I already have that ability and not know it?

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jun 7, 2006, 05:18 AM
What a great day to be Norwegian... :rolleyes:

But, seriously, I think this is a better case than the French "whining about Fairplay":
-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.I agree 100% with the concern for these points, but I think - and remember I'm not a lawyer - that Norwegian law stands over any EULAs. So the only point that's really an issue is the last one. Can Apple suddenly "deauthorize" all computers in a market, because they change their policy? That's a bit scary.

On a general note, I'm actually happy that consumer authorities are looking in to EULAs, because they have developed into abominations of legal language, and needs to be examined, and - if possible - made simpler and in more in accordance with consumer laws (for those areas that have such ;)).
Is Norway a small enough market that Apple would consider saying no thanks to the Norwegian market entirely if Apple can't negotiate terms it finds acceptable, or if Apple refuses to make any accommodations at all?Norway is a small market. And there was an article on a Norwegian news site a couple of days ago claiming that sales in the Norwegian iTMS was very slow. But... Norway is also a very rich marked, which even if it's small can be very profitable, and it sends the wrong signal to (potential) Mac buyers to close iTMS, even if they don't sell much. And it would also be very bad publicity-wise for the rest of the world if they had to shut down one of the iTMS stores. (And this could also trigger similar situations in several other European countries.)

Oh, and I'm with Gekko on the poll: None of the above even remotely fits...

bigandy
Jun 7, 2006, 05:47 AM
I always laugh at the I.T.M.S. I mean it's cool that it exsists, and great for people who are scared. But really, Limewire people! Music is Free! I use I.T.M.S. to browse for tracks that I'll later download with Limewire. :eek:

no, what you're doing is breaking the law. plain and simple illegal activity.

Catt
Jun 7, 2006, 06:25 AM
As has been stated Norway is a small market in terms of the numbers of people but Norway has several things that make it an attractive marketplace for hi-tech consumer goods (bar its high taxes):

1) Norway has the best quality of life in the world as measured by the UN's Human Development Index (HDI), and is one of the most developed. The market exists there in terms of consumers that are educated and interested in products and services such as iTMS and Apple/Computer products in general.

2) It is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per Capita (more so than the USA [just], ranking 5th over USA's 6th, comparing to the UK at 25), effectively meaning that its population are generally affluent (although this is complicated a little by higher taxation than most other countries, but, still, the basic point is that Norway is affluent).

So Apple wouldn't want to pull out of Norway because it would cost money to do so and it would obviously loose the money it gains from sales.

The interesting question to ask is how much would it cost Apple to enact the changes that are being asked for in this proposal?

I also read somewhere than simply clicking a box labelled 'accept' in a EULA agreement doesn't actually demonstrate legal understanding and can therefore be later challenged on these lines. Is this true?

Also it needs to be pointed out that Norway is not in the EU and therefore certain legislation doesn't apply, for example the single market idea, and if this is taken down a legal route and eventually passes then the consequence for EU iTMS might not be as great as if Norway was an EU country (if you see what I mean)

johantj
Jun 7, 2006, 06:34 AM
There are a few other claims by the Consumer Ombudsman that have not been discussed here.

A company that market products on the Internet is required to have a clause, giving the consumer the right to void the purchase within a limited period of time. The rationale for this is that the customer does not have the same ability to inspect a product as if it were offered in a store. Although current law is designed for goods, purcase of online content is not explicitly excluded.

The Ombudsman claims that territorial limitations may be in violation with EU open markets regulations. These limitations blocks effective competition on the EU market. (By the EEA treaty Norway is required to follow EU-regulations in that area.) Apple is required to respond to why only people with a norwegian address and a credit card from a norwegian bank may purchase from the norwegian store.

The Ombudsman is not convinced that Apple's arguments for DRM is valid, since it is easy to circumvent the copyright protection. The Ombudsman is concerned that DRM instead is used to block other digital music players.

Apple is required to respond to these concerns in two weeks from now.

The Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has been joined by its counterparts in Sweden and Denmark as well.

Leoff
Jun 7, 2006, 06:40 AM
I always laugh at the I.T.M.S. I mean it's cool that it exsists, and great for people who are scared. But really, Limewire people! Music is Free! I use I.T.M.S. to browse for tracks that I'll later download with Limewire. :eek:

Hey! What a great idea! Free stuff!

You know, I hear there are these places with all this free stuff just sitting on shelves, rows upon rows of them. I think you should go and take some of this stuff because, you know, it's FREE!

crees!
Jun 7, 2006, 06:53 AM
for example, downloading a track and accidentally deleting it and having to pay for it again stinks.
I heard if you lose you entire library Apple will just once (or once a year) let you redownload every song you bought without repurchasing them.

Temujin
Jun 7, 2006, 06:54 AM
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever
You can't use that as a comparison. When you buy a CD you not only get he music, but you get a media that contains the music. When you buy of the internet you only get the music. Two totally different things.

When Apple are restricting the use of the music, they should give some back IMO.

longofest
Jun 7, 2006, 07:01 AM
I always laugh at the I.T.M.S. I mean it's cool that it exsists, and great for people who are scared. But really, Limewire people! Music is Free! I use I.T.M.S. to browse for tracks that I'll later download with Limewire.
no, what you're doing is breaking the law. plain and simple illegal activity.

bigandy, it's people like him that I don't mind the RIAA going after :)

asphalt-proof
Jun 7, 2006, 07:17 AM
I have a mortgage. It does change without my consent. Of course, I consented to it changing without my consent, so I guess it doesn't.

Your cell phone contract can change without your consent. But it is then breach of contract and you can then remove yourself from the contract. Of course, that's all in the contract, so it's not a breach of contract... :eek:


No your mortgage does NOT change without your consent. Your PMI may go up or the city/county taxes may go up or down but the terms you agreed to DO NOT change (if you have a fixed rate). If you have a ARM then you agreed to the changes in the interests rates before signing the contract. Your cell phone analogy is where the Norwegians are heading. They are saying that Apple is breaching the contract when they unilaterally change terms of the contract by changing the number of times you can burn to disc etc.

Belly-laughs
Jun 7, 2006, 07:27 AM
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.

If I remember correctly iTunes adds DRM after the file download. To avoid DRM change don´t upgrade to future version of iTunes that may limit your original rights. Perhaps markets like the Norwegian will have their own versions of iTunes that never change the DRM, nor for better or worse.

hakala01
Jun 7, 2006, 07:34 AM
I don't thnak Apple should be able to change the terms of the iTunes DRM after you buy it, either. That would be like the dealer revising the terms of the warranty on your new car after you bought it.

They're welcome to extend it, and Apple did in the "number of computers you can simultaneously play songs on way", but they lowered the number of burns from 10 to 7.

The number of burns per playlist is hardly restrictive. If, for some reason, you had a need to burn more than 7 copies of whatever music you've purchased, you could just make a copy or copies of the already burnt disc(s).

CanadaRAM
Jun 7, 2006, 07:42 AM
THe territorial restrictions are governed by the license agreements with the music copyright holders. Apple has to contract with each publisher for rights to sell in each individual country. If Norway wants to impose a legal override on a commercial contract, Apple may be forced to drop all the artists from the Norwegian iTMS whose license agreements are incompatible with Norwegian law.

59031
Jun 7, 2006, 07:55 AM
Well, just the same as software - you are buying a license to access the music/software (record companies make a big thing about this) - not the physical medium. So yes, the shop/provider that sold you the data should provide a replacement if the data can no longer be read. Otherwise, buying a license is meaningless. Obviously you need to prove you bought it via a receipt.

You seriously think that's unreasonable?

It's no big deal at all for Apple to provide this. Whenever I've 'lost' digital data from other music download stores, they have been happy to provide me with a replacement. As someone who buys their product, I'm hardly likely to try to con them.

Surely a product should be about customer satisfaction?

You're totally off.

If I buy a digital file and then I lose it, that's MY problem and the company that sold it to me is in no way responsible for replacing it. If I want it again then I have to buy it again and that is the way it should be.

Does Virgin replace a CD that I lost? NO.

longofest
Jun 7, 2006, 07:57 AM
Is Norway a small enough market that Apple would consider saying no thanks to the Norwegian market entirely if Apple can't negotiate terms it finds acceptable, or if Apple refuses to make any accommodations at all?

Norway + Sweden + Denmark + France begins to pile up...

2ndPath
Jun 7, 2006, 08:09 AM
The number of burns per playlist is hardly restrictive. If, for some reason, you had a need to burn more than 7 copies of whatever music you've purchased, you could just make a copy or copies of the already burnt disc(s).

So I should get started burning my iTunes tracks to CD now. Because already tomorrow Apple could reduce the numer of allowed burns per playlist to 0. Or even forbid to listen to the tracks at all. And it's all agreed upon in the contract.

gekko513
Jun 7, 2006, 08:18 AM
THe territorial restrictions are governed by the license agreements with the music copyright holders. Apple has to contract with each publisher for rights to sell in each individual country. If Norway wants to impose a legal override on a commercial contract, Apple may be forced to drop all the artists from the Norwegian iTMS whose license agreements are incompatible with Norwegian law.
But all those music copyright holders already do business in Norway through retail and through other online channels.

Gasu E.
Jun 7, 2006, 08:36 AM
This will go the same way was the French case...

I don't think so. The French effort was an attempt by the government to micromanage contract terms in a particular commercial situation. The Norwegian action is just trying to evaluate the ITunes terms and conditions against very basic, near-universal principles of contract law. My initial take is that the French were wrong, the Norwegians are right.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jun 7, 2006, 08:46 AM
Another press release on the subject, this time directly from the Ombudsmann's site (http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467&subid=0):

iTunes violates Norwegian law

07.06.2006

The Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman is highly critical of the contracts Norwegian iTunes-customers have to enter into in order to download music from the internet. To become iTunes customers, Norwegian consumers have to relinquish fundamental consumer rights such as the right to freely use legally purchased products. "Being an international company does not entitle iTunes to disregard the laws of the countries in which it operates. The company´s standard customer contract violates Norwegian law," says Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon.

iTunes goes to great lengths to ensure that its standard customer contract protects the company´s own interest. The consumers on the other hand are burdened with much responsibility but is given little clarification of what is actually is expected of them. "The contracts are both vague and hard to understand for the customers, and they´re clearly unbalanced to disfavor the customer. The consumers are clearly the inferior partner in the contract, and this in itself is illegal," says Consumer Ombudsman Thon.

One major concern for the Consumer Ombudsman is that iTunes limits its customers´ right to freely use legally purchased products. By implementing so-called DRM-technology - software and technology meant to protect downloaded files from illegal copying and distribution - iTunes can dictate which technology must be used to play music files, and also the number of times a customer can save and copy files. As of today, the only portable players able to play files downloaded form iTunes are Apple´s own iPods.

Furthermore, iTunes´ contract also entitles the company to at any time change the terms of the contract without notice, including the selection of players or software that must be used for iTunes-files, and also the number of times a customer can change or copy already purchased files. iTunes claims it is the customers´ responsibility to be updated on these changes in the company´s policy or contract terms.

"I understand that a company feels the need to protect its products from piracy. However, this should not negatively affect customers who through lawful means have obtained downloaded files. Today, iTunes´ use of DRM-technology renders the customers without rights in dealing with a company which on a whim can dictate what kind of access customers will have to products they have already paid for," says Thon.

iTunes´ contract also states that the legal relationship between the company and customers is regulated by English contract law. "It is clearly unreasonable to expect Norwegian consumers to have comprehensive knowledge of English law. Products marketed to Norwegian consumers in Norway are subject to Norwegian law - a right that cannot be waived by a clause in a company´s standard customer contract," Thon states.

The Scandiavian Consumer Ombudsmen jointly believe that iTunes violates fundamental Nordic consumer protection principles and laws. The Ombudsmen have joined forces in an effort to change iTunes´ illegal contract terms. Initially, the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman is first in addressing problematic clauses in iTunes´ customer contract. The other Scandinavian ombudsmen have also contacted iTunes, hoping to establish a joint and constructive dialogue with to rectify the situation.

The Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has given iTunes until June 21 to proceed with necessary changes in its customer contracts.

Gasu E.
Jun 7, 2006, 08:47 AM
well, let me assume that by 'we' you mean that you live, love and were born south of the longest friendly border in the world. meaning that you eat hamburgers and cheeseburgers morning, noon and night. well, if not for the norwegians, the americans would be less dependent on the one meal that is probably causing obeisity in their population since the 1940's or 1950's. if there were no obeise americans then there would be no need for itunes since you could still walk to the music store and carry the records home. in effect, itunes owes norway much more than it thinks.

the bestower of this american propensity? the norwegian cheese slicer (and we swedes took the idea as well and used metal!)
http://www.cyberclip.com/Katrine/NorwayInfo/Inv/slicer.html

Sorry, Norway! Americans use commercial pre-sliced American cheese on our burgers. These are machine-sliced out of blocks. Yumm!
Your slicers didn't make it over here until the 70's and are used mainly by effete yuppies on their fancy imported fromage, kase, formaggio and queso. :(

gekko513
Jun 7, 2006, 08:51 AM
My translation and summary of this (http://digi.no/php/art.php?id=306597) Norwegian tech news article:

- MSN Music and others (CDON.com, Music Online.no and Prefueled.com) were also included in the initial complaint to the Consumer Ombudsman. Their terms will also be considered, says Torgeir Waterhouse senior advisor in the Norwegian Consumer Council to digi.no.

Even if iTunes is the first service under consideration, other services will not be given any advantages in the market when it comes to terms. When a decision has been made in the iTunes case the decision will apply to other servcies, too.

MSN Music ble eksplisitt nevnt i vår opprinnelige klage sammen med CDON.com, Music Online.no og Prefueled.com og vi ber om at deres vilkår også blir vurdert. Det har vi hatt med helt fra starten, sier Torgeir Waterhouse seniorrådgiver i Forbrukerrådet til digi.no.

morespce54
Jun 7, 2006, 09:33 AM
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever

Maybe, but it's harder to "accidentally drop a CD in the garbage bin" than it is for a song from a library of 4K songs... :rolleyes: ;)

Altought, you're right for the "break it" part. But then again, isn't why I'm buying a digital version over a CD...

orbital
Jun 7, 2006, 09:46 AM
If Apple actually gets presured to address this issue in legal terms rather than this issuence (which is no more than a BBB in that contry) I think they will just withdraw totally. The Music and Video industries would not want the Norwegian store to have free reign on thier music. All be it I agree with them, Apple will sooner leave then give in.

Neuro
Jun 7, 2006, 09:47 AM
You're totally off.

If I buy a digital file and then I lose it, that's MY problem and the company that sold it to me is in no way responsible for replacing it. If I want it again then I have to buy it again and that is the way it should be.

Does Virgin replace a CD that I lost? NO.

So, all the software companies that sell products digitaly (ie there's no physical media you can restore from), should stop allowing their customers to re-download their software again if they re-install their pc or their program gets corrupted etc "because that's the way it should be" ?

Hmm...personally I find this level of service attractive!

If you scratch a software installation CD, you can return it to the manufacturer and get a replacement. If I buy digital music from other stores, I can download it multiple times. So why not with iTunes music?

How can you possibly think providing your customer with good service / useful fetaures is a bad thing?

50548
Jun 7, 2006, 09:49 AM
Well, I am not sure what "adhesion contract" exactly means, but thanks for your response. A lot of countries allow international binding arbitration to attract foreign investors who do not trust or want to deal with different judical systems. I wonder if Norway is one of those. If so, it could be hard for them to complain about iTunes contract that utilizes such an option unless "arbitration" is only restricted to B2B conflicts by law.

BB, adhesion contract is the kind of contract where one party (normally the consumer) cannot discuss its terms against the supplier of a service. These contracts are often treated under consumer law in many jurisdictions, and occur in most regulated services, such as telecom, insurance, energy etc.

For more basic info (beware, though, of the Common Law bias in such article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

Although arbitration is commonly accepted among countries, it's only applied after careful analysis and express acceptance by both parties. It is also a very expensive type of solution for individuals, being used mostly by large corporations that feel like avoiding even costlier litigation or protracted disputes.

MrCrowbar
Jun 7, 2006, 09:52 AM
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever

If you break it or it simply is too scratched for proper playing, you can send it in to get a new one for free. I did that once, worked.

Billy Boo Bob
Jun 7, 2006, 10:02 AM
iTunes can dictate which technology must be used to play music files,
Oh man. I bought this CD, but I can't play it in my WalkMan Cassette deck. This is wrong.
and also the number of times a customer can save and copy files.
I do hope this is something that got mixed up in translation to English. As it reads, it doesn't make sense. I assume the copy part has to do with playlists burning to CD, which is not a restriction on how many times a song can be burnt to CD.
And, ummm… How many times you can save it???
and also the number of times a customer can change or copy already purchased files.
Huh? You mean I can change the music I download, but only a limited number of times?

Now, I'm not a fan of DRM, and I get what they're trying to do here, but I can see why the labels insist on DRM (This reads like's it's all Apple's idea and fault). Without it, you'd just have reliable (even if not perfect sounding) copies of tunes showing up on LimeWire and BitTorrent sites, instead of hit-and-miss quality tunes at the same places.

whatever
Jun 7, 2006, 10:05 AM
If I remember correctly iTunes adds DRM after the file download. To avoid DRM change don´t upgrade to future version of iTunes that may limit your original rights. Perhaps markets like the Norwegian will have their own versions of iTunes that never change the DRM, nor for better or worse.
If I recall correctly, Apple only changed their music policy once. And at the time how many countries were a part of the iTunes community?

And I do believe that the changes were in iTunes also, not in their DRM (you had to download the latest version of iTunes).

All of this talk is just foolish. It's just a big waste of Tax Payers money. If Apple wanted to they would just close down the iTunes stores of those countries that are complaining and open up the US store to those regions.

whatever
Jun 7, 2006, 10:08 AM
So I should get started burning my iTunes tracks to CD now. Because already tomorrow Apple could reduce the numer of allowed burns per playlist to 0. Or even forbid to listen to the tracks at all. And it's all agreed upon in the contract.

Or you could have a million songs from Napster and when they go out of business all of your songs will disappear, never to be seen again.

sam10685
Jun 7, 2006, 10:16 AM
my uncle lives in norwegianville.

weitzner
Jun 7, 2006, 10:27 AM
i think this is a good thing. the user should be assured that software will work- apple claiming liability will do this. and it IS unreasonable that the rights to something i already own may change later- i.e. the number of computers i can play a song on is decreased or something of that nature, expanding rights is ok, but taking them away should be impermissable. yeah thats right.. impermissable.

xDANx
Jun 7, 2006, 10:36 AM
bigandy, it's people like him that I don't mind the RIAA going after :)

i'm tired of overly simplistic opinions on this all around (including the original poster's limewire comments). whether or not illegal filesharing hurts or harms an artist entirely depends on their position in the music industry. a small indie band will benefit greatly from having their album thrown all around the internet because they make next to nothing on album sales and live off of ticket sales for shows and merch. if buzz is generated on the internet, illegally or not, their touring is likely to be much more successful. a band like metallica gets all freaked out about filesharing because their careers have gotten to a point where album sales are a huge source of income (in spite of major label highway robbery).

i don't use the iTMS because of the DRM...but i do use a site called downloadpunk.com...they have a great catalog of indie labels that specialize in punk/hardcore/indie/emo/etc...and there's no DRM because the small labels don't require it. i realize it's more of a specialized site but i think getting rid of DRM would greatly help the whole online music sales business...because it's the only way for legal sales and illegal downloading to meet halfway (i've spent money that i otherwise wouldn't have at downloadpunk.com)...and i think that halfway is the best it will ever get. DRM doesn't actually stop people from filesharing, it just restricts the size of the legal market. too bad that the RIAA would rather drown in its own blood than figure that out.

[edited for spelling + grammar]

xDANx
Jun 7, 2006, 10:42 AM
Now, I'm not a fan of DRM, and I get what they're trying to do here, but I can see why the labels insist on DRM (This reads like's it's all Apple's idea and fault). Without it, you'd just have reliable (even if not perfect sounding) copies of tunes showing up on LimeWire and BitTorrent sites, instead of hit-and-miss quality tunes at the same places.

with limewire, sure. but with bittorrent there are plenty of member driven music specific trackers that have strict policies about the quality of the files that can be posted. hit or miss quality is not an issue. at the risk of repeating myself... DRM is shortsighted business practice and ultimately restricts growth of online music sales.

ITR 81
Jun 7, 2006, 10:52 AM
Seems like a stupid lawsuit.

Without DRM I doubt iTunes would exist.

The music industry would see to that.

Why not go after the music companies?

Stupid lawsuit is aimed at the wrong person.

Timepass
Jun 7, 2006, 10:53 AM
Highlights of the decision
-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.
[/URL] (Raw Data)


I dont see how any person could see how these demand are unreasonable demands. It not like the french law that would of required change.

Lets see they are asking for the consent for music bought in Norway to conform and honor the local laws. Very reasonable. Apple knew going in what those laws where and should really run by them. I of the opinan if you want to do buniness in another country you play by there rules. Just basicly change you regulation to match theres. Very reasonible.

the 2nd one is basicly stating that is unreasonble to stated that apple is not reasonible for damages that was cause by negegtion on apple part. In layman terms apple makes a huge big mistake in some of the code take cause everything on the computer to be earsed. That is clearly apple fault and they should held liable for it. It not stated if something goes everything that goes wrong damage wise to the computer cause by apple software is apple fault but it basicly requiring apple to make sure there stuff does not do unreasonable damage and holds them accountble for negleted. very reasonable again.

3rd one is a big one and I agree with it. It preventing apple from changing the EULA on music already paid for by apple. Very reasonable. Yeah all new music can change at any time but stuff already on the computer is fine. Right now apple could basicly deside change that stats all music you bought from iTMS now requires you to buy it again everymonth. So all of a sudden 1k work of music is not worthless and you have to rebuy it. All it is doing is not allowing apple to retroactively change the EULA on people.

It just like cell phone contracts. They can not change your contract with out you permission. A good example is my cell phone contract. Sprint messed up in my favor. I have moble web on my cell phone for free. I talk with them since then when I was replacing a phone underwarrenty when the guy noticed it. He just stated well enjoy it we can not take it off because you contract states it. Even though they messed up they can not change it with out my permission. They would rather just have me and my brother stay on sprint paying them almost 100 a month. They would rather loose the extra 15 a month than risk losing the 100 a month. It that simple.

Even if when a contract is changed in your favor they are require to tell you and yes you have the right to refuse it. Same goes here.

Some who saying the demand are stupid please explain to me how they are unreasible. At least on the french one there was a argument. here all they are asking is Apple to conform to the local laws already in place and a asking apple not to be able to retroactively change the EULA.

Cobrien
Jun 7, 2006, 11:17 AM
I see absolutely no problem with iTunes the way that it is.

If I broke a CD I would not take it back, I make a backup as soon as I buy it anyway.

However, I recently bought the second series of the Ricky Gervais podcast (classed as an audiobook) which you had to pay for. I did not back this up but I had to restore my PC as a virus had gotten into it.

I lost all of my music however I emailed Apple and they made it as not yet bought in my purchase history. I could then buy them again free of charge, so they're not all that bad.

Jedi128
Jun 7, 2006, 11:18 AM
maybe iTMS will change for the better in the future. for example, downloading a track and accidentally deleting it and having to pay for it again stinks.

.... please..... dont you know that you can go to the check for purchases option and re-download music that you have purchased?

Maybe the problem here is stupid people and not Apple.

My opinion is that in Norway, the iTunes contract does sound unfair with the whole English language thing and everything, but as far as the Fairplay thing is concerned I dont know why everyone is making such a big deal over it. Yea, Apple is kinda looking after their own interests, so if you dont like that go buy your music from someplace else. Stop complaining when no one is forcing you to buy music from iTunes. Go to a physical store... or another online music store if you're unhappy.

Ugg
Jun 7, 2006, 11:36 AM
I wonder if Apple's contract with the music companies states that Apple can only sell music that can be played on iPods and not other players. In the beginning the music companies were very nervous and very restrictive. Obviously, if Norway goes ahead with this, the music companies will have no option but to go along.

All music should be playable on all players.

Klut
Jun 7, 2006, 12:00 PM
Why doesn't itms have a online "my songs" or something like that?

Anyway, I'm norwegian, but I don't really care :P

Hattig
Jun 7, 2006, 12:11 PM
If Apple actually gets presured to address this issue in legal terms rather than this issuence (which is no more than a BBB in that contry) I think they will just withdraw totally. The Music and Video industries would not want the Norwegian store to have free reign on thier music. All be it I agree with them, Apple will sooner leave then give in.

The laws are the same all across Europe though. Norway, sure, no problem. Sweden, Denmark, UK, Germany, ... no.

The only thing that I think they've got wrong is the sales of goods over the internet issue - iTMS allows you to preview the song, therefore it isn't in the same classification as buying clothes/furniture/pencils online.

Also I suspect that the Norwegian entity is more powerful than a US style BBB, if it is on the same level as the UK Trading Standards.

2ndPath
Jun 7, 2006, 12:36 PM
Or you could have a million songs from Napster and when they go out of business all of your songs will disappear, never to be seen again.

Well, at least Napster doesn't say that you buy the songs and has priced them accordingly (I don't know exactly, what their present offer is, but one or two years ago it was like that).

And otherwise, even if iTunes it the best, it still doesn't mean that it is perfect.

Billy Boo Bob
Jun 7, 2006, 01:07 PM
.... please..... dont you know that you can go to the check for purchases option and re-download music that you have purchased?

Maybe the problem here is stupid people and not Apple.

Well, this stupid person checked it out in iTunes and got the following message…

http://www.cityofpaducah.com/iTunesMessage.gif
Jeez, I feel dumb.

Catt
Jun 7, 2006, 01:21 PM
Oh man. I bought this CD, but I can't play it in my WalkMan Cassette deck. This is wrong.

Actually it is much more like saying my Sony CD won't work in my Philips CD player, which is of course a ridiculous situation to be in.

I think a music track that I have purchased should be playable in any digital music player I care to use (that supports AAC of course ;) )

This restriction, in essence, has nothing to do with DRM per se, merely its implementation. Getting rid of this restriction (but keeping the other aspects) would promote the AAC codec (which is much better than MP3 to my ears) and open up the music download market and give the other 50% of digital music player owners who don't own iPods access to iTunes - plus increase Apple's potential market by 50%.

I know Apple wants to get consumers to buy iPods to access the iTMS but the fact is they don't adequately promote the terms of their DRM technology when you purchase music. It should state that this will not play on non-iPod/iTunes compatible hardware.

jagolden
Jun 7, 2006, 01:26 PM
So I should get started burning my iTunes tracks to CD now. Because already tomorrow Apple could reduce the numer of allowed burns per playlist to 0. Or even forbid to listen to the tracks at all. And it's all agreed upon in the contract.


Right! Now people are getting it.
Burn a back up of newly purchased songs at least every other week. Protection from Apple and protection from crashes.

This whole thing is just another case of people not wanting to be self responsible. "I din't read the EULA", "didn't back up my songs", "can't do anything for myself"! etc.

I was puzzled when the ITMS forst came on-line and found you couldn't re-download lost files. But I think the reasoning at Apples end is to keep re-download traffic at a minimum.
Through many online groups I've found people to be very lazy about backing up their files and the ability to redownload the ITMS files willy-nilly would encourage more of the same and tie up a huge amount of bandwidth.

Bluemojo2fly
Jun 7, 2006, 01:47 PM
In a nutshell.

It's a "Non-Tariff-Barrier to trade."

Apple wins.

Timepass
Jun 7, 2006, 01:52 PM
Right! Now people are getting it.
Burn a back up of newly purchased songs at least every other week. Protection from Apple and protection from crashes.

This whole thing is just another case of people not wanting to be self responsible. "I din't read the EULA", "didn't back up my songs", "can't do anything for myself"! etc.

I was puzzled when the ITMS forst came on-line and found you couldn't re-download lost files. But I think the reasoning at Apples end is to keep re-download traffic at a minimum.
Through many online groups I've found people to be very lazy about backing up their files and the ability to redownload the ITMS files willy-nilly would encourage more of the same and tie up a huge amount of bandwidth.

personly I think it stupid that that apple is allowed to change the ELUA with out consent of the people who agree to the orginal one. Even if it contains we are allow to change this an anytime part in it. In court that little claus doesnt really hold up. Because it basicly like saying Apple has freedom to change that a moment noticed.

I really do think apple should redo the ELUA for Norway just to follow there laws. You dont go visist another country expecting to follow the laws of your home country. No when you go to another country you have to follow the laws of that country. Your home country laws DO NOT APPLY. Same goes for it here.

Some please give tell me how the 3 highlight are unreasonable and apple should not half to follow them. I think they are very reasonable request.

wyrmintheapple
Jun 7, 2006, 01:53 PM
-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.


WHAT??? Have these people even read the EULA for any other software, or is this just more iTunes focussed Apple bashing.

Seriously, I don't know of many pieces of software lacking a no liability, backup your data, we aren't responsible, yada yada yada clause.

I believe the only way we will see a resolution to this is when we see an open source type DRM standard, an open format that allows media publishers to customise how they limit the media, but ensuring that even in its DRM'ed, limited form the media is compatible across all playback devices/software.

I know the Linux/OSS community is largely against DRM, which is a shame. DRM IS happening, and the only way to ensure a open standard is adopted is to develop it before MS/Apple makes their DRM the de-facto standard.

In recent years, mp3, mp4, AAC, h.264, OpenDocument have all been increasing in popularity, while proprietary formats like Realmedia and Sorenson have largely disappeared. The time for standardising the DRM industry with a universal, OSS solution is NOW.......

Its a shame all the linux hackers are busy fighting an impossible war against DRM outright.

Catt
Jun 7, 2006, 02:00 PM
WHAT??? Have these people even read the EULA for any other software, or is this just more iTunes focussed Apple bashing.

Seriously, I don't know of many pieces of software lacking a no liability, backup your data, we aren't responsible, yada yada yada clause.

Any changes that Apple are forced to make will also apply to all other download music services as appropriate. iTunes is the test case as it were, the other services aren't going to get away with anything if they are also found to be in breach of Norwiegian law.

jagolden
Jun 7, 2006, 02:57 PM
Some please give tell me how the 3 highlight are unreasonable and apple should not half to follow them. I think they are very reasonable request.

First, someone please tell me how the 3 highlights are reasonable. It's Apple's property and they can sell, lease, allow use as they see fit. No one is forced to use ITMS-Even if they own an iPod. They can just load it up with mp3's.

>>-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.<<

Why? Apple is not physically in the Netherlands. They are sellig from another country. More importantly, I have yet to see a EULA, guarantee, Warranty etc. that doesn't state that the rules it imposes may be superceded by local laws rgarding same.


>>-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.<<

Again, why? Standard software liabilty clause. Even the simplest shareware and freeware generally include this sort of clause. Certainly all professionally published software does.


>>-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.<<

It's completely reasonable, if someone agrees to it. If someone agrees, it's a contract. Someone doesn't like the terms-they shouldn't agree! Simple.

What's so hard to understand?

Timepass
Jun 7, 2006, 03:23 PM
First, someone please tell me how the 3 highlights are reasonable. It's Apple's property and they can sell, lease, allow use as they see fit. No one is forced to use ITMS-Even if they own an iPod. They can just load it up with mp3's.

>>-It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.<<

Why? Apple is not physically in the Netherlands. They are sellig from another country. More importantly, I have yet to see a EULA, guarantee, Warranty etc. that doesn't state that the rules it imposes may be superceded by local laws rgarding same.


>>-It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.<<

Again, why? Standard software liabilty clause. Even the simplest shareware and freeware generally include this sort of clause. Certainly all professionally published software does.


>>-It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase.<<

It's completely reasonable, if someone agrees to it. If someone agrees, it's a contract. Someone doesn't like the terms-they shouldn't agree! Simple.

What's so hard to understand?


Ok the first one shows you lack of understanding of how bussiness opporate and how they laws are supposed to work.

To do bussinuess in someplace you have to follow that county,state, City laws and regulations. That be over the internet or not you have to play the rules set up by the place you are doing bussinuss end that simple. And it right being regulated by another country laws that do not apply there dont work. They need to follow Norways laws to do any buniness in norway. That is how the rules work. It would be like saling cars in the US that do not meet US standards because the country the place is based out of dont have them.

It is unreasible to expect people in Norway to know engish contract law or any engish law at all. It very reasonble for them to understand Norway law and expect that of such.

2nd one I can understand. You download it once lose data it is your fault. but apple should not be free from any damages that there software causes. If apple software is what cause damages to the computer it is apple fault and they should be liable for it.

3rd one umm yeah apple should not be allowed to change the EULA retroactively. If it affect prevouslly boughten music apple should offer a refund for it or not have it effect it. Right now apple has the power to change their EULA to state that all music is only good for 30days or something like that and retroactivlye act it. Oh dang you paid $1000 for all that music of yours. Looks like you have to pay $1000 again every 30 days.

No contracts are not allowed to be change with out the consent of the users. That clause apple put in there to allow them to change EULA at any moment in time I know would not hold up in the courts of Texas. Much less anywhere else. That is a very reasonible one. It keeps apple from being retroactive in there EULA. Are they allow to change it at a whim for all future stuff yes. But only from stuff paid for from that day on.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 7, 2006, 03:59 PM
The US BBB, Better Business Bureau, is a toothless non-factor in laws and standards. It has little resources to investigate complaints, let along bring offenders to "justice". The BBB used to be a seal of approval of good business practices, but is now little more than a distant afterthought when considering choosing a business.

The intarweb has become a far more useful tool in researching and taking companies to task for their behavior.

The powers that be here in the US live by the free market mantra, or that nothing should stand in the way of (big) businesses making profits. Manifest Destiny and all that jazz. The EU's proportional representation system of government allows for smaller interests to have a voice, hence things like this coming to a head instead of being quashed by lobbists in the halls of the capitol building.

Also I suspect that the Norwegian entity is more powerful than a US style BBB, if it is on the same level as the UK Trading Standards.

jagolden
Jun 7, 2006, 04:39 PM
Ok the first one shows you lack of understanding of how bussiness opporate and how they laws are supposed to work.

To do bussinuess in someplace you have to follow that county,state, City laws and regulations. That be over the internet or not you have to play the rules set up by the place you are doing bussinuss end that simple. And it right being regulated by another country laws that do not apply there dont work. They need to follow Norways laws to do any buniness in norway. That is how the rules work. It would be like saling cars in the US that do not meet US standards because the country the place is based out of dont have them.

It is unreasible to expect people in Norway to know engish contract law or any engish law at all. It very reasonble for them to understand Norway law and expect that of such.

2nd one I can understand. You download it once lose data it is your fault. but apple should not be free from any damages that there software causes. If apple software is what cause damages to the computer it is apple fault and they should be liable for it.

3rd one umm yeah apple should not be allowed to change the EULA retroactively. If it affect prevouslly boughten music apple should offer a refund for it or not have it effect it. Right now apple has the power to change their EULA to state that all music is only good for 30days or something like that and retroactivlye act it. Oh dang you paid $1000 for all that music of yours. Looks like you have to pay $1000 again every 30 days.

No contracts are not allowed to be change with out the consent of the users. That clause apple put in there to allow them to change EULA at any moment in time I know would not hold up in the courts of Texas. Much less anywhere else. That is a very reasonible one. It keeps apple from being retroactive in there EULA. Are they allow to change it at a whim for all future stuff yes. But only from stuff paid for from that day on.

I do understand, clearly. Do you? Could you not read what I wrote that local laws can supercede the contract or was it too complicated?
Apples lawyers probably have some experience with international business law. I bet they took the big bus to school. Don't forget, Apple is not selling a product in their country-people are buying it from another country.
Either way, the way the internet has changed worldwide purchasing, and the rules that need to be hashed out for all countries are in the infancy of being addressed.
The imported cars argument is groundless as we are talking about an intangible product (the file).

As to retroactively changing how many times I can burn a tune I've purchased? The DRM doen't come over the connection second by second. As someone already said it probably comes in the iTines upadates. Again, burn those cd's regularly!

Next, the user gives consent to the contract being changed at any time without their consent by aggreeing to the ITMS EULA. Apparently it is spelled out as such.

Lasty, I state again that even agreeing to the ITMS EULA doesn't mean it is iron-clad. Local laws superceding it can take precedent if those laws exist.

Timepass
Jun 7, 2006, 04:43 PM
I do understand, clearly. Do you? Could you not read what I wrote that local laws can supercede the contract or was it too complicated?
Apples lawyers probably have some experience with international business law. I bet they took the big bus to school. Don't forget, Apple is not selling a product in their country-people are buying it from another country.
Either way, the way the internet has changed worldwide purchasing, and the rules that need to be hashed out for all countries are in the infancy of being addressed.
The imported cars argument is groundless as we are talking about an intangible product (the file).

As to retroactively changing how many times I can burn a tune I've purchased? The DRM doen't come over the connection second by second. As someone already said it probably comes in the iTines upadates. Again, burn those cd's regularly!

Next, the user gives consent to the contract being changed at any time without their consent by aggreeing to the ITMS EULA. Apparently it is spelled out as such.

Lasty, I state again that even agreeing to the ITMS EULA doesn't mean it is iron-clad. Local laws superceding it can take precedent if those laws exist.

What people dont always know is the ablity to change the EULA with out concent even if stated in the EULA does not hold up in court very well.

I know the zero liablity one does not hold up in courts. In the stated of texas when you sign that waver saying that some place is not liable does not hold up in court.

rish
Jun 7, 2006, 04:46 PM
About the consumer. What rubbish. Never been about the consumer and it never will be. Think about the big losers in all this, other download services, Microsoft and its partners and lest we forget the ingenious music industry who sell you trash as the next big thing who are no longer making an absolute killing because Jobs has told them 79p for a song is a fair price.


Too many organisations throughout the world with vested interests of their own or their hands in the pockets of the very corporates who are incensed by Apple's success.

Oh how I can't wait to see the device that works with seamless integration of an Apple product on a Windows PC. That won't happen anytime soon.

I also can't wait for the losers in the music download industry to throw subscriptions at me as the next best thing, only for me to lose all my music when I stop paying £15.99 per month. Imagine the glee on the faces of the music industry executives who are again making an absolute killing.

The horror, the horror. Now imagine your music store crashing like a Windows PC and you lose everything, all of a sudden the so called consumer rights issue seems more like a diversion than anything else.

Come back Apple I hear you say, I wish I never turned on my iPod video and iTunes, but then it could be too late.

Arrrrrgh!

What a terrible nightmare I've had!:cool:

munti
Jun 7, 2006, 04:50 PM
Seriously Norway if you dont like the EULA dont agree to it. No one is forcing you to.

You're completely missing the point! If Apple chooses to do business in Norway, it should follow the laws of that country.

VCH
Jun 7, 2006, 04:59 PM
Music is NOT free, and there is no right to free music either. I myself write music, while I don't do it for profit (its a hobby to me) the time I invest in creating the music could quite easily have a monetary value attached to it.

If it was my sole source of income I'd be very annoyed at people ripping me off.

As the old saying goes, "there's no such thing as a free lunch", or free anything for that matter.

Open-source software okay is FREE, technically, but often there are some other obligations (non-monetary) which must be adhered to.

Just because you don't have to pay for something, doesn't necessarily make it free. The real definition of free here would be "no strings attached".

Well sure it isn't really free. But it's as free as seeing three movies for the price of one, or having a few chocolate bars off the rack while you're on shift, or reading the magazines in a store without purchasing them. Or photocpying books in a library or taking images off of Google image search, or, or, or . . . BTW what strings are attached?

munti
Jun 7, 2006, 05:11 PM
If Apple actually gets presured to address this issue in legal terms rather than this issuence (which is no more than a BBB in that contry) I think they will just withdraw totally. The Music and Video industries would not want the Norwegian store to have free reign on thier music. All be it I agree with them, Apple will sooner leave then give in.

Nobody is talking about free reign. The CC just want to make sure that the there is a balance regarding rights. It’s this balance that is tested here. The CC says that the EULA only works in favour of ITMS without considering the rights of the consumer.

ChrisA
Jun 7, 2006, 05:19 PM
Apple doesn't have to be liable for iTunes software do they!? I mean if they say it is at your own risk, then well the consumer is doing it at their own risk, they already agreed to the terms.

No, not true. A basic point about contracts is that you can not agree to somthing that is prohibited by law. Or, OK, of course you can agree to anyhting but if you do agree to something that is prohibited by law the contract in invalid.

For example here i the USA you could not sign a contract to sell yourself and become a slave. Likewise you can't sign away any other basic rights.

So if Norway if they happen to have a law that requires a seller to always have to pay for damages his product causes then in Norway two partys can not sign a contract and in effect cancel the law.

If not for this all so called victmless crimes could be made legal by contracts. and what about fraud what if some place inside my contract to sell you a Bridge I insert a paragraph saying how you agree not to sue my if the sale does not go through?

ChrisA
Jun 7, 2006, 05:37 PM
The US BBB, Better Business Bureau, is a toothless non-factor in laws and standards. It has little resources to investigate complaints, let along bring offenders to "justice".

No, it's worse than that. BBB is a private corporation which is funded by member dues. The members are the bussiness that the BBB pretends to protect consummers from. The BBB hates to put up bad reports because it would mean that one of their dues paying memebers would likely quit. Actually BBB is a marketing tool for it's members, allowing them, for a fee to use the BBB logo.

VCH
Jun 7, 2006, 05:53 PM
no, what you're doing is breaking the law. plain and simple illegal activity.


Just noticed this. Sorry it is not illegal :) well maybe for you. :(

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 7, 2006, 06:44 PM
Ugh, you're right.. It's even wors than I wrote! Better go get my tinfoil hat and 8-Track player.

No, it's worse than that. BBB is a private corporation which is funded by member dues. The members are the bussiness that the BBB pretends to protect consummers from. The BBB hates to put up bad reports because it would mean that one of their dues paying memebers would likely quit. Actually BBB is a marketing tool for it's members, allowing them, for a fee to use the BBB logo.

thirdhand
Jun 7, 2006, 06:48 PM
Hello, new poster on Macrumors' forum, although I've been reading it for a while...

Let me start by saying that I've recently become a Mac user - I just bought a MacBook. I've been using Ubuntu Linux on my desktop PC, but I wanted to try OS X, and I really like it. I've not so far found any major reason for complaint. So I like Macs, and I like Apple - certainly far more than I like Microsoft.

However (let's get on-topic)... I don't like DRM. No matter if it's "good" Apple who does it versus "evil" Microsoft. Even though Apple's DRM is not as restrictive as it could be. DRM is still DRM. It's a system that's artificially put in place to restrict me, the user/consumer. I'm not doubting that Apple profits from having a popular music store that sells music that can only be played on the iPod. Sure you could burn it to a CD and rerip it. But it adds an extra inconvenince - as well as reducing the sound quality on an already compressed file.

So, you can burn to CD as many times as 7(?), and copy it to 3(?) computers. Wow, I'm impressed... not! Why should we have to put up with this on music we *bought and paid for*? It's not about that 7 burns or 3 computers should be more than enough to not run into the limitations, it's about why are people willing to accept *at all* these kind of stupid restrictions on what we buy.

Since I'm Norwegian, these news are of interest to me. As far as I know, Norway has some of the strongest consumer rights in the world. We'll see if it will continue to be so, or if the far-reaching hands of the **AAs are allowed to do as they please. We got at least some DRM protection into law recently, because of the EU directives (although Norway isn't part of the EU, we're required to implement their laws because of being part of the EEA). It caused some stir, when people complained. It seems like the politicians mostly sided with the people, so they made the law as lax as possible.

At least I'm not going to buy from iTMS. I might (maybe) accept DRM on free (or dirt cheap) samples of albums, like if I was allowed to listen once or twice to an album before deciding to buy, but I won't accept DRM on music I buy. I'm sticking to CDs. Even there I'm not safe. I keep discovering that what I thought was a CD, simply is a "CD-like" disc with stupid, non-working copy protection. There should be big warning stickers on those.

The **AAs have long forgotten the adage: "The customer is always right." They've become to powerful and greedy. I wish they would disappear. I'm not for copyright infringement - I want to obtain my music legally (buying, or sometimes copying from friends, which I see as fair use), but DRM is solving none of the problems, only annoying the buying customers.

Please do not take this as Apple bashing. Of course Microsoft's DRM is just as bad, or worse, but the thing is that Apple iTMS and iPod is very popular, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're targeted. This will set a precedent for others too.

obeygiant
Jun 7, 2006, 08:14 PM
This thread wins for the most boring.

Doctor Q
Jun 7, 2006, 08:27 PM
This thread wins for the most boring.I find it quite interesting, not becaue of legal issues or politics but because of the technical and business questions.

Apple made compromises to get the record labels to play ball without totally alienating most of the music-buying public. They also made technical moves to favor their own iPod business.

Even though nobody is forced to buy their products, they are the 500-pound gorilla in this business and for some of us it's interesting to see who complaints about their business model and licensing for what reasons, and how Apple handles the challenges.

And the outcome could affect all of us who buy iTunes music.

kaneda
Jun 8, 2006, 12:36 AM
Mycrosoft is behind this...:D

Lollypop
Jun 8, 2006, 01:41 AM
Im behind Norway all the way ;) If a company chooses to do business in a country they have to play fair and operate by that coutries laws. Apple chose to do business in Norway, when the decided to open international stores they had to know that this kind fo thing will happen. Apple shouldnt be surprised that they are now expected to do business they way other companies have to do business.

All apple needs to do is amend the EULA, make the user agree to apple changing the DRM, I hope that doesnt happen, but thats the most likely workaround in my mind.

pianojoe
Jun 8, 2006, 06:52 AM
Let's see, if I buy a CD in the store and lose it or break it, then the store I bought it from should replace it?

I don't think so.

Whatever

There's a very fine point involved. When you buy a CD, you get the physical merchandise, and also the right to listen to it — in private. You may not, for example, lend it (professionally, as in a library), or "perform" it to a public audience. You may not resell the CD abroad.

This is, obviously, a license contract.

How can the license be void when the CD becomes unplayable? Shouldn't you be able to replace the media at a reduced price because you'd only want the media since you already paid for the license?

ts1973
Jun 8, 2006, 07:52 AM
Especially the 3rd point is in my opinion spot on - and one of the reasons I've never purchased any songs through iTMS.

I think I'll stick to CD's for a couple more years ;)

longofest
Jun 8, 2006, 08:47 AM
This thread wins for the most boring.

Hey... we DO have a poll in the thread :cool:

Highland
Jun 8, 2006, 09:49 AM
Actually it is much more like saying my Sony CD won't work in my Philips CD player, which is of course a ridiculous situation to be in.
Totally ridiculous. There is no technical reason why the files won't play--it's a designed intervention. It's impossible to imagine how anyone could think that this is a good thing for the music industry. It's certainly not good for the people buying the music.

...but I won't accept DRM on music I buy. I'm sticking to CDs. Even there I'm not safe. I keep discovering that what I thought was a CD, simply is a "CD-like" disc with stupid, non-working copy protection. There should be big warning stickers on those.
In some countries these are not considered to be "CDs" and can be returned as they are faulty (they don't comply to the CD red book standard).

Apple made compromises to get the record labels to play ball without totally alienating most of the music-buying public. They also made technical moves to favor their own iPod business.

Even though nobody is forced to buy their products, they are the 500-pound gorilla in this business and for some of us it's interesting to see who complaints about their business model and licensing for what reasons, and how Apple handles the challenges.
Very interesting. Apple has done well to find a good middle ground solution. I'd have to say that I think no DRM is the best way to move forward though.

And for those saying "we're not forced to buy music from iTMS" or "vote with your wallet" etc, fast forward a few years... Imagine record labels ditching CDs (they will) and only distributing via online stores (again, this will happen). Your choice will be to buy music with DRM or not buy music, meaning if you don't like DRM, then you can either not listen to it or you can download it illegally. That's not a good situation to be in. This is something that needs to be sorted out very soon. Globally.

It's also worth noting that iTunes really isn't being singled out... it's just being used as a test case because it is the market leader. Once the battle has been fought and won (or lost), then the other online music stores will have to follow suit.

morespce54
Jun 8, 2006, 10:09 AM
.... please..... dont you know that you can go to the check for purchases option and re-download music that you have purchased?

Maybe the problem here is stupid people and not Apple.


Well, this stupid person checked it out in iTunes and got the following message…

http://www.cityofpaducah.com/iTunesMessage.gif
Jeez, I feel dumb.

exactly what I was about to post... ;) :D

itguy06
Jun 8, 2006, 11:53 AM
So, you can burn to CD as many times as 7(?), and copy it to 3(?) computers. Wow, I'm impressed... not! Why should we have to put up with this on music we *bought and paid for*? It's not about that 7 burns or 3 computers should be more than enough to not run into the limitations, it's about why are people willing to accept *at all* these kind of stupid restrictions on what we buy.


For the last time:

YOU CAN ONLY BURN THE SAME EXACT PLAYLIST 7 TIMES. Delete the playlist and create another with the same order and the same songs and you get 7 more burns. Copy that burn in, say Toast, as many times as you want.

That "issue" is a non issue.....

F/reW/re
Jun 8, 2006, 11:55 AM
Norwegian newssites reports:
The next music store to hear from the Consumer Ombudsman is MSN Music with their "Play for Sure" technology. And other online music services after that..

Norway i love you!

btw:
Oslo (the capital of Norway) is the city in the whole world with the highest % iPods per inhabitant.

Timepass
Jun 8, 2006, 12:21 PM
Very interesting. Apple has done well to find a good middle ground solution. I'd have to say that I think no DRM is the best way to move forward though.

And for those saying "we're not forced to buy music from iTMS" or "vote with your wallet" etc, fast forward a few years... Imagine record labels ditching CDs (they will) and only distributing via online stores (again, this will happen). Your choice will be to buy music with DRM or not buy music, meaning if you don't like DRM, then you can either not listen to it or you can download it illegally. That's not a good situation to be in. This is something that needs to be sorted out very soon. Globally.

It's also worth noting that iTunes really isn't being singled out... it's just being used as a test case because it is the market leader. Once the battle has been fought and won (or lost), then the other online music stores will have to follow suit.


Some how I dont buy it that Apple had to make the agreement with the Music industry that stuff from the iTMS only will work on the iPod. It completely BS to say that apple had to agree to that. It that way only so they can sell more iPods and it hurts the music industry. They want to sell more music and by limiting to iPod only they cut into a lot of there sells since people with mp3 players that are not an ipod can not play the music from the iTMS so why buy from them if you cannt play it.

081440
Jun 8, 2006, 02:34 PM
There's a very fine point involved. When you buy a CD, you get the physical merchandise, and also the right to listen to it — in private. You may not, for example, lend it (professionally, as in a library), or "perform" it to a public audience. You may not resell the CD abroad.

This is, obviously, a license contract.

How can the license be void when the CD becomes unplayable? Shouldn't you be able to replace the media at a reduced price because you'd only want the media since you already paid for the license?

OMG!!

How about we actually encourage some self responsibility here!!!

You think a business wants to have to sell special CDs at a reduced cost for the idiots that loose or break one and don't want to have to buy a new one?!

Added to that the thoughts that Apple should not be allowed to change the contract even after you agree to allowing them to change it are bogus!!

Look if you don't like the rules or can't stand the thought of Apple having this control then don't buy the songs!
All businesses (except for utilities, i.e. power, water, and gas) should have the right to charge what ever they please for the goods and ask their costumers to sign any type of contract they want before a consumer can buy something. If you object to this then go somewhere else, that's the way to convince a company to change, just boycott them. But don't go around suing and complaining and wanting the government to do something because you want to burn those extra 3 CDs. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY:mad:

prewwii
Jun 8, 2006, 02:43 PM
I don't know what they mean by the first line exactly, but second line is standard disclaimer in all software. I don't think it is reasonable, but if there was major damage and if you can show that software company had known about it and could have fixed it with reasonable effort, you might still be able to sue them....... snip

I am sure there are some who have managed software or hardware projects that encountered a problem and every group involved pointed to another group saying its their problem, followed by wonderful logic supporting their conclusion. Can you imagine taking a unstable operating system like Windows submitting it to the wrath of browsing the web and then without the aid of source code trying to determine who caused the problem so a court can understand the conclusion? That should bring back the Keystone Cops kind of antics.

Jim

prewwii
Jun 8, 2006, 02:47 PM
.....snip..... What has Norway done for us lately? EVER?

Sven, Tina and Ole jokes

F/reW/re
Jun 8, 2006, 03:43 PM
Sven, Tina and Ole jokes
The browser Opera.
The hack to remove the iTMS drm.
The hack to ripp DVD's..

USA keeps making drm's, norwegians keep cracking them.. I guess norwegians are just alot smarter than Americans.. :p

During the New Orleans tragedy Norway provided USA with tents, medic personell and blankets for 5 million NOK.

Norway also provides USA with oil.. but I guess USA could manage without oil..? haha

F/reW/re
Jun 8, 2006, 03:55 PM
How on earth can someone justify this? :confused:

Apple give themself the right to change the rights of the music you have already bought. That means, eks; Apple can say, every song that has ever been bought on iTMS can only be used on 1 computer, can not be transfered to anything and can not be burned to a CD. How on earh can they give themself the rights to do whatever they want to a product you have already bought? Thats just sick!

NickFalk
Jun 9, 2006, 03:43 AM
We have brought Norway iTunes. What has Norway done for us lately? EVER?
I dunno. The paper-clip perhaps.

Oh and a little something called Object Oriented Programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#History).

Kelmon
Jun 9, 2006, 06:32 AM
As far as I am concerned I see 2 issues that I want to have addressed:


Listen from anywhere: I want to be able to listen to music that I've bought from the iTunes music store using any device that I want, i.e. license FairPlay to non-Apple devices. I really like the iPod and I hope I always will, but should Apple either stop innovating or the competition catches up then I want to be able to buy the best device to listen to my music on. Additionally, I'd also like to be able to pipe music around my house without having to base such a system on Airport Express stations.
Buy from anywhere: I want to be able to buy music from any music store (assuming a Mac-friendly interface) and listen to it on my iPod, i.e. license Windows DRM on the iPod. If Music Store A has a sale then I want to be able to buy from them rather than being locked-in to the iTMS.


This case hopefully will be a step in the right direction as the current situation is not good for the market.

yoak
Jun 9, 2006, 10:25 AM
Yeah, and how's Napster doing these days? They keep trying different stuff. Most of it bait and switch tactics like their current FREE concept. Their ploys just get you hyped and excited until you find out they're screwing you. THAT's the way to win customers!

We have brought Norway iTunes. What has Norway done for us lately? EVER?

Who are we?:confused:

Doctor Q
Jun 9, 2006, 12:14 PM
I dunno. The paper-clip perhaps.

Oh and a little something called Object Oriented Programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#History).I've been to Norway and I've written a program in Simula 67. Does that make me fully qualified to make proclamations about Norwegian consumer and legal issues?

If so, I hereby rule that Norway should continue making Apple defend their licensing rules, to keep them on their toes, but then agree to accept the status quo so Apple can sell lots of iPods, which gives them more money they can use for R&D, which helps me when I buy my next Apple product. :D

It's all about ME, isn't it?

Dr_Maybe
Jun 11, 2006, 09:21 AM
I'm not convinced that IP rights are valid.

But when I buy music, I prefer CDs. DRM free, and I can rip those in whatever format I want.

Highland
Jun 11, 2006, 10:34 PM
Some how I dont buy it that Apple had to make the agreement with the Music industry that stuff from the iTMS only will work on the iPod. It completely BS to say that apple had to agree to that. It that way only so they can sell more iPods and it hurts the music industry. They want to sell more music and by limiting to iPod only they cut into a lot of there sells since people with mp3 players that are not an ipod can not play the music from the iTMS so why buy from them if you cannt play it.
Sorry, I wasn't saying that Apple had to agree to that.

Labels : "We want DRM!!! We want DRM!!!"
Apple : "Ok, we have our very own DRM here. It's great"
Labels : "That sounds great."
Apple : *and now we're not going to license it MMMWWWAAHAHAHAH*

You're right though, not being able to play all music on all players is bad for the music industry as a whole.