Norway To Pressure Apple To Change iTunes EULA?

What do you think of recent consumer-oriented lawsuits against iTunes?

  • Less control to them and more control to me can't be a bad thing: I'm all for it!

    Votes: 106 54.6%
  • Hey, give them a break! After all, iTunes IS a lot less restrictive than other online services...

    Votes: 66 34.0%
  • Lawsuits are for lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, so I could care less.

    Votes: 22 11.3%

  • Total voters
    194
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.
 
Neuro said:
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.
 
Doctor Q said:
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...
 
hakala01 said:
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.
 
CanadaRAM said:
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.
 
Steven1621 said:
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.
 
Another press release on the subject, this time directly from the Ombudsmann's site:

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.
 
shigzeo said:
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. :(
 
Microsoft's MSN music next in line

My translation and summary of this 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.


 
whatever said:
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...
 
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.
 
NickCharles said:
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?
 
theBB said:
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.
 
whatever said:
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.
 
Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman said:
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.
Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman said:
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???
Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman said:
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.
 
Belly-laughs said:
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.
 
2ndPath said:
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.
 
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.
 
longofest said:
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]
 
Billy Boo Bob said:
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.
 
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.
 
Macrumors said:
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.
 
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.
 
nsjoker said:
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top