Norway To Pressure Apple To Change iTunes EULA?

[Ugg]

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]

Why doesn't itms have a online "my songs" or something like that?

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

 

[Hattig]

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]

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]

.... 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…

Jeez, I feel dumb.

 

[Catt]

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]

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]

In a nutshell.

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

Apple wins.

 

[Timepass]

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]

-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Poppy Cock I say my Good Man

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!

 

[munti]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don't let Apple fool you - DRM is evil no matter what

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.