iTunes MusicStore breaks norwegian law according to Ombudsman for consumer protection
 

"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."
http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index...032467&subid=0

"According to the ruling, iTunes breaks section 9a of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act. The regulator said it was not reasonable that the consumer must sign up to a contract regulated by English law, rather than Norwegian law. It also said iTunes must accept responsibility for damage its software may do, and said it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold."
full story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...air/print.html

First move in january by forbrukerportalen:
"“iTunes is able to alter your rights to music that you have already bought. This is breach of fundamental principles of contract law. iTunes also blocks consumers from breaking the copy protection, or DRM, if they want to use other MP3 players than Apple’s iPod. This is a clear breach of the Copyright Act,” says Waterhouse."
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71

Commenting the ruling of the Ombudsman:

"”We are very satisfied with the decision. There is a general tendency for consumers to meet grossly unreasonable agreements when they download files with cultural content. It is therefore positive that the Ombudsman gets a grip on this so that consumer interests are also protected when such material is downloaded,” senior advisor Torgeir Waterhouse says.
... iTunes must now alter their terms and conditions to comply with Norwegian law by the 21.of June."
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1149587055.44

Re: Norwegian Ombudsman
 

..
Glad to see your post. I posted about this in another thread, but yours is far more complete and explanatory. It’s all very interesting and I’ve been watching the story unfold in Norwegian news media.

Wonder what will happen now. This is probably just noise without consequence -- but it is important noise. While I’m positive to Apple and iTMS, I’m totally against DRM; so this is music in my ears.

I believe this will go nowhere. Where there's money there's power, and the media lobbies have proven they're willing to throw a lot of money at problems like this.

Lets wait and see.

The Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman is not an empty shirt and has the authority to fine Apple in case of non compliance after the 21. June and other scandinavian countries are very seriously thinking about similar action.

Hopefully this is the tipping point:
After the Sony rootkit and the french DRM debate even the well-funded brain-washing-efforts of the content mafia have a hard time to maintain the illusion that their "lets sue our customers" efforts are a Good Idea.

The Sony debacle certainly was good for consumers (other than those immediately affected). The industry can no longer pretend to be innocent and just caring for the best interests of the community at large.

Do you think though, that if anything came from this, it would reach any further than Norway?

We certainly own a big thank you to both Sony and the guy who actually published the rootkit thing while all the anti-virus vendors didn't move. No amount of money could have bought a more convincing demonstration of the complete disregard for the security, privacy and integrity of their clients computers.

Norway may be an out-of-the-way country when you look at it from the US, but the precedent that said out-of-the-way country actually might actually enforce sensible national law contradicting the usual "we so 0wn you"-licenses would be a huge win way beyond Norway.

I was thinking about this last night for no apparent reason, and came to an opinion that is likely to be unpopular and possibly offensive.

Apple should tell Norway to stuff it.

First off, are they "doing business in" that country, or are the Norwegians initianting an international transaction? If I sell a Norwegian my old Mac, am I doing business in Norway? Am I bound by Norwegian law? What nexus does Norway have for holding jurisdiction over Apple, and how would they enforce any sort of penalty? Would they start blocking Apple IP addresses?

Secondly, other than the liability issue, this isn't really an Apple problem. The DRM and most of the licensing is demanded by the entertainment industry.

And third, as always, I take the free market approach. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract. Adults should be free to enter into contract, no matter how distasteful, for products which aren't necessary to life. Obviously basic necessities like water are another story, but nobody needs an iPod or iTunes. Don't like it, go buy another player and software.

And finally...is the Norwegian market significant enough to matter? What if Apple just pulls out?

When Olav wakes up, he may have a few words for me... :D

Glad you noticed ;) .

That's probably not an option.
Apple will either have to fix the contracts or be fined until they comply, unless of course, they decide to pull out.

"
• iTunes.no can only be used by Norwegian consumers
• the domain name is Norwegian
• the language used is Norwegian
• prices are stated in Norwegian kroner
• iTunes.no has a support line with a Norwegian number

On the basis of the above, it is the view of the Consumer Council of Norway
that Norwegian rules protecting consumers are applicable to the terms and
conditions." full text here: http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearch...ic%20Store.pdf

I am not aware of the remedies they contemplate, but Apple certainly is not in a position to simply ignore the laws of a country they do business in.

May I gently submit that Apple is free not to accept DRM-requirements and instead decline to do business with those who insist ?
And if Apple was really all peace and love about it, wouldn't they license FairPlay to the competition ?

You may not agree, but there are consumer protection laws in many countries considering that some protection against abusive clauses must exist.

That's indeed Apples call.
That would open up the norwegian market for non-DRMed music, looks like some really free market to me with no DMCA-like laws to artificially favor big players rather than competition on merit.

I was not aware of the Norway-specific ITMS. That does somewhat change things, though physically, they probably are not "in" Norway. I still wonder how the laws would work on that.

A corollary is the Russian music download sites that operate legally under Russian law, but are in English with dollar prices. The RIAA has been unable to find any legal ground to use US law against them, because they are not doing business in the US. Under this standard, Apple likewise can't be touched by Norway, unless indeed they have a physical presence there.

It's all very interesting.

Significant move in "insignificant" Norway
 

.
Voldenuit is right on the mark here; by any standard (and he actually gives 5 criteria), Apple is doing business in Norway. Apple has a distinct, dedicated Norwegian version of iTMS.

Sure, Carlos, Apple is free to pull out; and you may well argue that Norway is insignificant enough to ignore. I don’t think the real world works that way. By way of example, Norway has more influence than its modest population of 4.6 million would suggest.

In my opinion, the Ombudsman’s decision is one small step on a long path -- but it is a very significant step. I am not holding my breath, but this is postive news.

Although I would rather have iTMS the dominant market player than Sony & Similar, I am very much opposed to DRM. I would like to see Apple as a major force to change things for the better. Changing their own business philosophy just a tad would be a welcome move in the right direction.


PS. On a different issue: I would like to see Apple move full speed ahead in expanding Indy label representation in the iTMS catalogue, accept music directly from artists themselves -- and move to give artists a fairer cut.
After all, the distribution costs are close to zilch, and yet the artists still receive a paltry 8-11%.

Oh, not to forget: To truly enjoy quality listening, we need the option of lossless download and 320 kbps from Apple’s iTMS.

now this is exactly what i am waiting for, it would be revelutionary, and a complete democratisation of the music industry and its future, it will be a can of worms sure, but podcasting seems to be working well in this sense.

currently working on a new record label with some friends, and we were starting to question, how on earth we were going to get onto itunes.

it is only a matter of time, however, the minute apple can start doing this, then they totally will be infringing on the whole apple corps agreement, and this time wouldnt have a leg to stand on, however saying that, i'm sure mr jobs & co will find a way round it. well here's hoping anyway.

A brighter tomorrow -- based on a better business model
 

.
missbeehive, please explain how they would be infringing on any agreement. I am, of course, not suggesting that they go directly to artists who are under contract with record labels. Doing that would immediately open them to lawsuits.

But is there any agreement that prevents Apple from doing more extensive business with Indy labels? Or with artists who choose, shall we say, a more "radical" business model, foregoing record labels altogether?

Oh, my, I get tears of joy in my eyes at the very thought of such a brighter tomorrow!

well surely, if apple were hosting tunes directly from each artist, bypassing any traditional label, apple itself would then pretty much be regarded as a label?

apart from its bitchy nature, the winning part of the apple vs apple lawsuit,
was basically, the fact that apple weren't acting as a label but merely as a distributer selling a product on behalf of labels.

without labels, surely it puts a new slant on the original aggreement, even though it will be deemed as selling on the behalf of artists, wouldn't it be the death knell for for conventional labels, and the need for bands to have one?

maybe i'm totally wrong, however, if apple were to do this, and i was representing apple corp. i'd be looking for the loopholes in this one.

Of course I agree that DRM should go away, and I agree that high quality files are the only thing worth buying. Where I disagree is using government force to make an independent company do our bidding. I vote for DRM-free and higher-quality files with my dollars, not force.

Music is not an essential service or need. Using government force to ensure we get music files in the format we desire seems very wrong to me. Also remember that historically, most government control ends up also being protection. For example, the telcos. Government regulation also helps ensure their monopoly status. There are many examples of that from the airlines to the postal service and many more.

"...uhm...i'm gonna have to go butt on in and disagree with you there"

You're joking, right? If not, why?

.
There are concerts and music experiences that I would gladly go without food for three days to be able to enjoy. Essential? You bet!

I'm surprised that Apple doesn't have more confidence in its itms model and its near total domination of the legitimate music market.

If they had, then the appropriate response would be to close their doors in any country that took Norway's path, essentially proclaiming that no country could tell them how to run their business, so the options are "as it is" or "no service in your language". They could then sit back and wait for any howls their satisfied users might raise.

I would guess, assuming a significant market in the Kingdom of Norge, that there would be some howls, but an immediate secondary effect would be that a large portion of the internet music crowd would simply turn to the Russian sites and there would be no Norwegian site.

this was on the bbc website today


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5053658.stm

Or the Norwegians would buy from the other ITMS stores? The literacy rate in Norway is very high and I believe most speak at least basic English, no?

I think in the realm of RIAA/MPAA vs. the public, anarchy is the best solution.

DRM a temporary lunacy ?
 

For the click-lazy, here's the part of the BBC piece relating to the iTMS:

"Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Phonographic Industry ... whose organisation represents the UK's record labels ... [addressing] the Commons select committee for culture, media and sport ... called for Apple - which makes the popular iPod portable music player - to open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers.

Apple applies a digital protection system to its downloads, which means they are not usually compatible with other companies' devices.

He said iTunes' dominant market share in downloads was "not particularly healthy" and said he "would advocate that Apple opts for interoperability"."


And concerning Carlos' suggestion, even those not in favor of anarchy would probably agree

"
1. That DRM systems don't work

2. That DRM systems are bad for society

3. That DRM systems are bad for business

4. That DRM systems are bad for artists ... "

You can read the detailed, brilliantly written argument made by Cory Doctorow in 2004 while he was European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation here:
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt


And Carlos, I think you've got your story backwards when you're saying:
"Of course I agree that DRM should go away, and I agree that high quality files are the only thing worth buying. Where I disagree is using government force to make an independent company do our bidding. I vote for DRM-free and higher-quality files with my dollars, not force."

We've already had this argument here:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=55219

To reduce the scope of the debate to the most preposterous part, lets start at the point where copyright for music exists, but no digital distribution of it, legal or otherwise. I think we're both old enough to have known that time not so far back in the past after all. Then imagine the government hadn't enacted any further law to mess with the market of digital music. What would have happened ?

Allow me to repeat one of my arguments from the other thread:

"In a truly free market one of two things would happen:

Internet.
Content Mafia snoozes gently.
Napster.

1
Content Mafia gets it, starts services such as the iTMS minus DRM, everybody is happy. --> no extra laws required.

2
Content Mafia insists on outdated business model and goes broke. People with a clue buy the content and get to do 1

What really happened is this:

Internet.
Content Mafia snoozes gently.
Napster.
Content Mafia cries bloody murder, gets heavy-handed laws encacted, sues the hell out of potential customers yet fails to offer attractive online products.

So even if I accepted your political point of view (which, respectfully, I don't), you'd probably agree that an entirely free market would favor agents working towards the interest of the customers who want hassle-free content."

You replied:
"The point is that a free market would be free of the DMCA and other heavy-handed laws. How we get there, and the benefits/drawbacks of it, are probably more political than what is allowed here. However, you can't compare today's situation to a free market; it's not. I do agree that a totally free market would favor the customers."

So it looks like we might disagree on the political utopy we wish to come true and we should probably not get too far into that. But here and now, I think the signals from France, Norway, canadian musicians organising themselves to protest abusive labels, and even the british music industry against DRM (maybe for the wrong reasons, but still) are interesting indicators.

Victor Hugo said:
"Rien n'arrête une idée dont le temps est venu."

( "No one can resist an idea whose time has come." )

History might retain the period we've been suffering through for a couple of years now as some temporary lunacy similar to the McCarthy era or prohibition...

The reason I'm against government force are two-fold. One, a matter of principle. I don't believe that initiating force against anyone is morally right. While certainly an argument can be made that a water company, electric company, or even a phone company must provide service reasonably, the same cannot be said for music. There is no societal imperative that justifies using force.

Second, historically, government controls have turned out to benefit the incumbents in the areas that have been "controlled." I think that any legislation will only appear to benefit the consumer, or will do so temporarily.

But in light of the moral issue, I really don't care about number two. I feel it's just wrong to force someone to do business with me on my terms.

I still don't understand how pro-DRM legislation does not qualify as government forcing customers to do business on the terms of the content mafia and keep smaller actors out of the market, while attempts to get back to less constraints and fairer competition, according to you, is problematic interference with the market.

What am I missing ?

You've lost me. I'm not advocating any pro-DRM laws, just Apple's ability to offer their wares as they see fit, and the consumers' ability to take it or leave it.

European vs American legislative philosophy
 

Carlos, it seems to me that Microsoft has used a similar argument with great success, breaking the backs of many competitors. Many of us would argue that Microsoft’s strategy has been unfair, and in fact bordered on the grotesque.

Interestingly, they are encountering substantial resistance from European Union legislators. The punitive fines they are facing are considerable even for Microsoft.

“Take it or leave it” is not the answer – not for Microsoft, not for Apple – and it is, in my opinion, a shoddy response to legitimate consumer concerns.

Clearly many of us Europeans, Voldenuit and myself included, do believe it is the government’s job to ensure “fair business practices”, and protect consumers from having to enter into unreasonable contracts. Signing an agreement with Apple before purchasing music on iTMS – which essentially allows Apple to change agreement after the fact! – is one such unreasonable demand. And I, for one, am wholeheartedly with our Consumer Ombudsman when he takes issue with this practice, amongst others. (These judicially retroactive agreements have also been questioned on this Forum.)

Europeans, by and large, do not believe in laissez-faire government to the extent that Americans do. (You will never get a European government, or the EU itself, taking a libertarian approach to the business community.) This is one of the key differences between our two continents, which at times seem more than an ocean apart.

There was a time when the USA had an effective anti-trust law, and even practiced it. Not many years ago, Microsoft itself was in danger of being split into different companies – something that I believe would have changed things for the better. Now, however, it seems that the monopolies and multinationals are not only fully in charge of their respective markets, but have even better friends than ever amongst the "people’s (sic) elected representatives".
Some are even going so far as to claim that everyone is getting the government that they have bought and paid for – but that’s a tangent...

Some could argue that operating systems are a key and essential service for economic survival. Nobody could argue that music and videos are an essential service.

Some could argue that Microsoft used unethical tactics to force competitors out of business. Nobody has said that about iTunes that I know of.

The contract issue already falls under US contract law in probably being "unconscionable." That is, a contract provision that is completely one-sided is not enforceable. The courts have ruled many times that "we can change the contract at will" is such an unconscionable provision.

There was a time before that when the USA had an effective free market and didn't need to engage in "anti-trust" control of non-essential services where there is no intrinsic monopoly. If MS violated other laws, use those. The desire for people to slay giants for merely being giants is a very strange thing. Don't mix up unethical actions with size or market share.

You "have to" enter into a contract to get water, electricity, and other such life necessities. You don't "have to" enter into a contract to get music. I've never purchased from ITMS and won't as long as the current practices stand. Do you think I'm unable to otherwise obtain music and other material? And even if not, would my life be greatly negatively impacted?

I refuse to do business with a number of companies because they have practices or political positions that I dislike. I don't go asking for them to be legally chastised; I just move along to the other options. There ARE other options to ITMS, and you don't need what it offers.

Arctics brilliant contribution contains a lot of material furthering the debate, especially the international perspective.

Carlos, I submit that your argument is inconsistent and falls apart by simply looking at it:

You say "I feel it's just wrong to force someone to do business with me on my terms."

The swedish government tries to force their law on Apple.
Many governments, including the US, try to force DRM-anticircumvention laws on their citizens.

I don't see the fundamental difference.
Either you stand by your argument and reject both attempts to force terms on the markets or you don't.
But you can't have it both ways.

I certainly reject both, I don't know why that is not clear. I reject all government attempts to regulate free enterprise. I make no exception for the US government, if anything, I'm constantly fighting it.

A friend of mine used to say "I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's", and I think that fits here.

What we're observing is just that - government responses to inappropriate action that are themselves inappropriate. As Voldenuit pointed out, what happened was this:

But what was Napster, really? Wasn't it out-and-out theft of copyrighted material? So who's responsible for all this heavy handedness? Whose actions started this? It wasn't the "content Mafia".

Now, because DRM and the Content Mafia's heavy-handed response was so competely inappropriate and closed-minded - over the top vis-a-vis the "action" that the response targetted - other countries are responding with their own particular political slant on who can do what to whom.

I'm with Carlos; I abhor the tendancy of the "nanny" state to respond to every vociferous special interest with heavy-handed regulation. On the other hand, let's recall that it wasn't the Content Mafia that started this cycle; it was the theft of intellectual property. The nanny state has struck again, and what's being debated here is the response to an action that subverted reasonable copyright laws (as they then stood).

Legitimate intervention – to ensure fair practice
 

I totally agree! But that was before monopolies and multinationals (including entertainment multinationals) in practice changed the rules of the game to their own advantage. (Video zones is but a modes example.)

Do I believe all monopolies are bad? True "Free Enterprise" disallows unreasonable monopoly. So, as a matter of principle, yes – but in practice, no.
The USA had one of the best phone systems in the world before anti-trust measures shattered Ma Bell into pieces. That was a grave mistake, in my opinion; things worked far, far better before.

At the outset, size and ethics have nothing to do with each other. In practice, they do. In most mulitinationals and in large national corporations you basically get a cybernetic process that removes the human element from decision making. From pharmaceuticals and oil, from IT to entertainment, from fashions to the food industry, we see a decision-making process where there seems to be a very direct relationship between size and the lack of ethics.

By and large, CEOs and Chairmen that place human (or environmental) factors before immediate shareholder interests don’t last long in the job. In fact, they’re not likely to become CEOs or Chairmen.

Can you find unethical small corporations? Of course you can; plenty of them! But they don’t have the same negative impact.

Such conscious choices are commendable. I try my utmost to make similarly informed decisions about who I do business with.

But for every one of us who may do so, there are hundreds who do not make similar choices – and thus companies can carry on with questionable practices. And they can do so based on a simple cost-benefit analyses. Relatively speaking, most of the time, the static they receive is marginal.

Hence I firmly believe that there are instances when government measures designed to protect consumers, or reinstate fairer business practices, are called for.

Carlos, I have great respect for your libertarian outlook, which is very consistent and well-founded. I just happen to disagree, that’s all; I don’t embrace that philosophy as ideal or practice. (And I’m not alone. There is a vast difference in approach between Europe and North America.)

DRM/DMCA is one such area of legitimate intervention. So would a repeal of laws that confuse copyright protection with video/DVD zones, whose only objective is market segmentation and profit maximisation.

Respectfully,
ArcticStones

PS. On a tangent: I think the recent US "thumbs down" to insistence on a one-tier Internet was tragic. And I fear we will soon see the ill effects of the telecoms’ victory.

.
NovaScotian makes two important points:

1.) The last thing we need is ill-founded regulation – there is too much of that. We don’t want measures that make the cure worse than the disease. Agreed; but that calls for wisdom, not laissez-faire abstention.

2.) The "nanny mentality" is abhorrent. The State is not a surrogate mother. Agreed; so intervention and regulation should be carefully considered and used only as a last resort.

Intervention as a last resort: I guess I apply that to critical services. If you can't get water because the water company decided to say that you have to sign a horribly restrictive contract, I'd support regulation. Part of the intrinsic monopoly of laying pipes under streets means you accept regulation. Again, I simply don't see any moral or ethical NEED to regulate a non-essential industry, and therefore don't believe it's a last resort. When Apple starts bombing the headquarters of competitors, maybe it's time...

Without deregulation where would we be now? Would we have VoIP? Would long distance calls cost 40 cents a minute? Deregulation had a small destabilizing effect, but it also opened the door to innovation and price competition. What if only AT&T could develop VoIP?

The destabilization was temporary and it was OPTIONAL. You could choose to stay with your legacy company or try a new, maybe less reliable carrier. Right now I gotta tell you, VoIP is nowhere near the five nines of reliability the legacy PSTN has, but it comes down to money. Is the cost of unreliability less than the cost of the reliable service? Yes. If you don't want that compromise, you can still buy legacy service.

For the record, I did not assume bad faith or nationalistic bias.

Unless you reject the proposition that no government intervention beyond existing, reasonable copyright law (which is an interesting debate on its own) will result in a market driving DRM-based solutions out of business by providing DRM-circumvention and better value for the customer, the problems with french and norwegian opposition to unreasonable and retroactive contract conditions instantly goes away.

NovaScotian, like Arctic alread pointed out, it is a question of appropriate reaction. If you seriously want to stand up to proclaim that lobby-driven restriction of basic liberties is reasonable while laws protecting John Doe from abusive retroactive changes in contracts are not, go for it.
You'll probably have a hard time to defend such a point of view.

Consider this (hypothetical) situation:
Suppose someone invents a mechanism for a soccer ball (football for non-North Americans) that can detect player behaviour that is against the rules (e.g. use of hands) and report it (via wireless) to a central computer system. The communications are encrypted not only to ensure security. A company starts marketing this mechanism together with the software that runs at the referee station. They sell a kit that includes several balls and the software. Additional replacement balls are available at a reasonable price.

The system is well-liked and is started to be used at the better-off clubs, but the price of the whole kit is prohibitive for smaller clubs.
Since the balls (with mechanism) are available separately at a reasonable price, some people start to work on cracking the encryption so that an open-source computer program can be used with those balls.
This is successful and the program is made widely available.
The original company finds that its sales of kits are starting to slip. They are selling lots of replacement balls but few kits - and the pricing is such that they really only make money by selling the kits (i.e. the software is the real money-maker).

Should the government step in and protect the business model of this company by enacting laws that prohibit decryption or other means of using the balls without buying the whole kit?
Or should the government enact laws that prohibit the use of encryption in outdoor game equipment?
Or should it just leave things alone and let the market (and the company) sort things out?

For this analogy to work, we'd have to assume that there are no patent or copyright protections in place. We also have to assume that the encryption was bad to start with, since it was hacked. And we have to assume that the company built a poor business model since it can't make money from all its products.

We also already went through this. Gillette used to basically give away razors that only used its own blades. So third-party blades came on the market, Gillette sued, and lost.

No government needed.

And to answer your question, I would always vote for the free market working it out with possible use of the civil courts.

meanwhile all the soccer players are left without trust and set to become obediant drones, taking the soul out of the game...

This assumption might not even be needed, item 1 in post #21 of this thread most probably applies:

"DRM systems don't work"

See the document linked there for detailed discussion.

There's a difference between the encryption used to transcode a signal, and that used within a communications system where both ends are fully controlled.

DRM is easily hacked because you have access to the source and the result, so you can mathematically deduce the intermediate step. With a communication channel between two closed systems you would not have that benefit, if done right.

New technology combined with amputation of culprit’s limbs? :cool:

Did I just see a one-armed Maradona wander offstage, or was that God missing one hand?

Enoug for now! I’m off to watch Brazil-Croatia. :)

True, and I believe I made that point. The reaction was ill-considered, over the top, and aimed at their own customers.

I don't want to stand up for any of the regulations or reaction. I merely pointed out (as in Hayne's example) that in this instance, the customer started it. The appropriate response was to change the model and join the fray. To some extent ITMS did that, and DRM isn't their idea.

iTMS was quite a few steps in the right direction. But I really would like to see it evolve further. Apple has the option of doing just that -- in time, I hope they will. If so, I’ll be purchasing tons of music from them.

On that we can certainly agree. Where we disagree is on the use of market force or government force to achieve change.

I predict it will be a blend of both, for governments just can't let a "problem" go unmeddled.

.
I have a question, playing devil’s advocate for a moment:

Why can’t Apple argue: "You can put music purchased from iTMS on any music player you want, so these accusations are groundless. All you have to do is convert AAC to MP3 format, which you can do in iTunes."

I'd have to agree, and surely they'd think of that argument if pressed into it.

Go for it, after all you're one of the norwegian consumers he has to protect, send Bjørn Erik a mail and ask him.

He'll probably enjoy quite a bit that his cause is being discussed here as well...

While you're at it, you might also want to ask what will be his next step now that the ultimatum has expired and what Apples reactions have been so far.

I'm really looking forward to some exclusive coverage on that topic right here in the forum.

Brilliant idea! I’ll do that as soon as I get back from France. Flying down there next week to attend the film festival in La Rochelle.

Involvement in films (narrative) is a first for me, so I’m greatly looking forward to how these projects will be received – one is a documentary on the plight of the Wichi Indians of Argentina, the other a documentary on the white-tailed sea eagles of Europe.

Hope you had a great time in La Rochelle !

The ombudsman has put out two more statements after the initial one here:

http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467

but they're in norwegian. It looks like he's got his swedish and danish counterparts in the boat with him and extended the date for Apple to fix it to the first of August, but I could be terribly wrong.

If you can find a moment, it would be really great to shed some more light on the current state of affairs.

Growing European pressure on Apple
 

In a newspaper article linked to today, Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon underscores French support for his position. Here is my summarised translation:

The French law is in accordance with demands made to Apple by the Norwegian Ombudsman, and his Swedish and Danish counterparts, this spring.

“The French law entails that Apple must remove technical barriers in iTunes,” says the Ombudsman. “The French position is that it is up to the artists and record companies to decide how their music is to be sold. I would think that artist want as wide a distribution as possible – not just to iPod owners,” says Thon.

The article points out that the only way for owners of other portable players than iPod to play music purchased from iTMS is to “break” the protection on the files, a practice which became illegal in Norway when Parliament (Stortinget) enacted the new Copyright Law last year.

However, the Ombudsman rejects the notion that the Norwegian Copyright Law gives Apple the right to block its iTMS music files for non-iPod owners.

“The intention of that law was to prevent illegal downloading of music files. To use technical barriers (i.e. DRM) so that music files can only be played on an iPod is an entirely different matter. That is why we are questioning the legality of Apple’s technical barriers. There are many indications that iTunes’ DRM is in conflict with the law, says Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon.

He has yet to receive a reply from Apple.

Should Apple fail to open iTunes in Norway, then the Customer Ombudsman will report the computer giant to the Marketing Council.

Seems to me they decided that it is to be sold through the iTunes music store and they know (or should know) how it works. What a ridiculous statement that is; it's not like the artists and record companies woke up one day and the music was on ITMS without their knowledge.

Sounds so scary.
</sarcasm>

Apple has stood up against the music industry. Now it's time for them to stand against governments that wish to dictate to businesses how they must do business.

Multinational companies can just pick up and leave if they don't like the laws in a given country. Citizens can't leave (so easily) - hence clearly it would be more efficient if the Norwegian government simply made it illegal for citizens to own iPods.
:)

Umm, I know some of you are most bemused by what you consider to be a hopeless roar from a Lilliputian state – nevertheless I think that is missing the point by half a mile.

Hayne, I choose to take your post as a sophisticated expression of Canadian humour. Or are you just jealous of our political system and well-defined consumer rights? ;)

(Do note that the very word Ombudsman is of Scandinavian origin; the concept didn’t even exist in English!)

Suppose that someone invents a new kind of battery that will power an electric car. This new battery is very light and efficient - but can't be recharged in the car. In fact the only way to recharge it is to send it back to the factory. A car company starts producing cars that make use of this battery and they set up a distribution system to make it easy for the car owners to exchange their empty batteries for refilled ones.

These new electrical cars soon become much more popular than all other types - that one car company now has 75% of the electrical car market.
People who had bought one of the competing brands of electrical car wish their car could use these new types of batteries.
The other car manufacturers would like to redesign their cars so that they could take advantage of the now widely available and superior batteries.
But the original car company refuses to license the technology to its competitors (since they have calculated that they can make more money by continuing to dominate the market).

Does it seem reasonable for the government to force the original company to license the technology to competitors?
Does it seem reasonable for the government to force the original company to provide modified versions of its batteries that will be compatible with the competitor's cars?

You got it in one, Hayne. I was struggling with a search for such a nice analog. The problem is that, to be fair, Norway cannot insist that Apple reveal anything; they can only insist that devices that do not meet a general set of specifications applicable to everyone are illegal.

Of course the punchline was:

Or is it more reasonable for the government to leave the market alone but to nullify the current law prohibiting any modifications to batteries (so that some ingenious entrepreneur could sell a modification kit to owners of the competitors' cars)?

The rights of battery purchasers
 

.
Touché! A pointed analogy. :) But let’s extend it a bit further...

Let us say a consumer makes a “hack” whereby they can put their battery in their other car. Do I think that “hacker” should be arrested, fined or imprisoned? Certainly not!

Let’s say they take it a step further and post free construction drawings on the net, enabling any battery owner to use them as they please? Should they be put in the slammer or have their wages seized by the battery manufacturer’s lawyers?

Certainly not! If they paid good money for the battery, no one has the right ot tell them how to use it!!


I am well aware that there are three parties to the iTunes/DRM discussion: Apple, consumers, and Apple’s competitors. The competitors, desperate to strengthen their own market position, are certainly going to claim to be “speaking on behalf of consumers”. That was the case during the French debate, and it is an issue in the Norwegian debate as well.


Personally, I am glad that the dominant force is Apple, and not someone else. To Apple’s credit, they have provided some corrective to the recording industry – I would just like to see things evolve further. And they will, with or without Apple’s willing help.

I guess you didn't see my above "punchline" post before writing the above.

Hahahahaha, nullify a law...that's a good one. When has any government decreased its power and control rather than pile on more laws to compensate for the past bad laws it has created?

A truly free market would of course solve the entire problem. What we need is removal of the bad laws, not the addition of more laws.

Nope, I posted just before I received notification of your punchline.

Carlos, government lawyers and politicians should, in my opinion, have to pass a "competence test" before being allowed to suggest laws or writing anything of consequence. But I suppose that would just add a new Directorate...

Many years ago now, Frank Herbert (author better known for the Dune series of SciFi stories) published one or two stories about a character named McKie and a wonderful agency in which he was an operative called BuSab:

The idea was that all governments and other bureaucracies tend to snowball over time, finally becoming juggernauts that crush mere humans unthinkingly. This became an increasing problem as communications improved because then legislators and bureaucrats "knew" what was happening as soon as it happened and could spring into action to "fix" it without really understanding it or seeing whether it would fix itself.

The Bureau of Sabotage was founded with a legal right to throw wrenches into the gears of all bureaucracies, but sabotaging the BuSab itself was verboten. Further, the BuSab is kept from turning into a juggernaut itself by its promotion policy — the only way to get promoted is to successfully sabotage your boss.

That's an interesting idea.

Parkinsons law, full text here:

http://lib.novgorod.net/DPEOPLE/PARKINSON/parkinson.txt

is a very british take on bureaucracy with lot of historical evidence. It is both exceedingly funny to read and yet a very worthwhile excursion into the good, the bad and the ugly of public service ;) .

Another great idea I've heard is a requirement for all laws to have an expiration time. This means on renewal you'd be forced to analyze the results/effects of the law and fight for/against it based on reality, not conjecture. This happened recently here in the US with a law that had a 10 year expiration. Turns out it did NONE of what it was purported to do, so it was not renewed.

Another good benefit of this would be keeping the legislators busy so they'd have to work on the most important laws, not trivia. "Oh damn, we forgot to make murder illegal again???"

A word limit on the Law of the Land
 

.
There is an old Yiddish joke that when you’re born, God grants you a certain number of words – you never know how many. When you have used them up, you die.

Proposal: Perhaps legislators should be forced to keep within a limited number of total words for the Law of their Land, thus forcing simplification in one area if something new is needed? What would be even more ideal is if this number actually decreased a bit, say every three years...

It is said that in the European Union, no bill is passes until it reaches the ideal standard of ambiguity – that it is phrased in such a way that each country can claim it means something that their home electorate and national politicians will find acceptable. :D

I was once asked to partake in a group that was to translate 3000–5000 pages of addenda to the EEA Agreement, a comprehensive agreement between EU member nations and the associated EFTA countries (European Free Trade Association). Now, the EEA Agreement itself is a two–three inch thick tome (I have a copy), but the addenda were absolutely unreadable, with a ridiculous level om ambiguity. I declined that job.

John Adams (second President of the US) had it right:

If "pro" is the opposite of "con," what is the opposite of "progress?"

Now that we're done with our lecture on good gouvernance and all that, back on topic:

"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own,"

sounds good, doesn't it ?
Indeed it does, for it was the Turtleneckedone himself who said it, just four years ago: http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/

So quite frankly, I don't understand what the fuss is all about.

Or should it really make a difference whether you argue against an abusive music industry trying to strangle Apples innovative ideas or, now proud owner of the iTMS and a dominant marketshare in the online music businees, you somehow end up with a surprisingly different perspective ?

Hardly quaint or misguided...
 

And that, as far as I can see, is the crux of the matter! That should really be a universal, one-sentence law, to which all other legislation must explicitly be made secondary.

This is why I have a hard time seeing the Ombudsman’s efforts as quaint, misguided, provincial or laughable. And I have an equally hard time taking seriously the various suggestions voiced here, albeit phrased more politely, that essentialy suggest the Norwegian authorities “shove it”.

We’re far too obstinate to acquiesce.

Best regards,
ArcticStones

In my view, however, Steve's statement was directed to the music industry. The music industry doesn't see it that way, so they insisted that Apple use DRM and Apple thought up a way to satisfy that demand. If you apply the statement instead to devices, then it's equivalent to applying it to media those devices support.

One of the joys of the web is that it does have the feature Norway espouses; namely that, with few exceptions, you can view web content on any device that supports any of the browsers available for it. What fee-based websites do is deny access if you don't care to subscribe (the New York Times, etc.) and the contents of those sites, though easily pirated, are not, I suppose because folks don't want to read the news twice.

But Norway wants to extend the import of Steve's statement to devices as well. I applaud the principle in Steve's statement, but cringe at the notion that if I sell your countrymen a better battery (as Hayne argued) for hybrid Volvos, you'll insist that I make it available for Saabs as well.

I think it hinges on this detail: Apple both sells the music AND sells a device on which you can play it outside of iTunes. Somehow, Norway doesn't complain that iTunes is required to play iTMS music, but objects that an iPod is the only device that will play that music for you away from your computer.

It's a confusing ethical question, isn't it; but it strikes me that Norway is attacking the messenger in a way. Apple just delivers music and devices for playing it. The music industry makes the rules.

Not so confusing
 

There is no doubt in my mind that Apple has sought a balance between the music industry and the music-buying public. And they have made lots of good money in the process. They are to be commended for both. :)

Well, Steve Jobs said devices and he meant devices – at least at the time. :rolleyes: Yes, my position is that’s exactly how it should be taken, and that is how the law should be.

I don’t think DRM techology that limits my use of the battery I have purchased is legitimate. That’s all.

iTunes is available free of charge to multiple platforms, so on this front Apple is a door-opener and there is no reason for complaint. The problem is they’re telling me what I can do with the music I purchase.

I don’t think it is confusing at all. Apple, not the music industry, has made some of the rules that are being criticised by the Ombudsman. Do you think record companies would object to iTMS music being playable on other MP3-players? I very much doubt it!

The music industry definitely has mixed feelings about Apple’s power as the dominant Web-based music seller. Now the record companies are no longer, for instance, able to insist on selling their new/old releases at variable prices. Nor are they able to dictate the marketing exposure on iTMS.

Apple is a major force and has changed many rules of the game. I hope they continue to do so – and in the right direction: in the interest of musicians and music purchasers.

But you are also saying that they should be limits on Apple's opportunities to make money from their contributions. I'm afraid that compels me to be a member of the crowd who think that Apple should simply withdraw the service rather than be compelled to offer it on another nation's terms. Going along with your Ombudsman would set a precedent that would radiate outward for eons.

Please understand that I am not favourably disposed to the Music Industry, whom I think have very blindly missed the boat. I just think that Apple has the right to control the use of devices they invented and sell to make use of a service they also provide. I don't see them as separable. There are market alternatives, after all, and if you don't like Apple's rules, buy one of them. My last word - this thread is getting long in the tooth.

Don't take it personally, as I would suggest that ALL authorities "shove it." I don't believe any government body has the ethical right to dictate what a company can do with its products, short of outright fraud or when essential services are in question. I also think that's just as bad for consumers as the DRM itself. Historically, most government controls have also turned into government protection. Government control often ends up raising the cost of entry into a market by making it harder/more expensive to meet regulations.

.
I have the utmost respect for your well-argued opinions! :)

Will keep you posted on developments here. I may well try to give the Ombudsman a call to get a direct update on the situation, and the prospects as he sees them. If you have any questions that you would like me to ask him, please send me a PM.

With best regards,
ArcticStones

The Federation of German Consumer Organisations, as part of their effort to weigh in against another round of even more restrictive copyright law debated by the Bundestag these days, has issued "Abmahnungen" against big online music services, including the iTMS for pretty much the same reasons already discussed here.

"vzbv geht gegen Anbieter vor
Der befürchteten Klagewelle von Rechteinhabern setzt der vzbv seinerseits rechtliche Maßnahmen gegen die Nutzungs- und Lizenzbedingungen ausgewählter Anbieter entgegen. An folgende Unternehmen wurden gestern unter anderem wegen folgender Klauseln Abmahnungen versandt:
iTunes: 1) Songs dürfen nicht auf mp3-Playern der Konkurrenz, sondern nur auf dem iPod abgespielt werden. 2) Weitergabe oder Wiederverkauf von Dateien wird nicht gestattet. 3) Technische Maßnahmen dürfen nicht umgangen oder entfernt werden. 4) Bedingungen können jederzeit einseitig zu Lasten des Nutzers geändert werden."

http://www.vzbv.de/start/index.php?p...d=749&task=mit (german)

They'll probably come up with an english translation here:
http://www.vzbv.de/start/index.php?page=english

After some behind-closed-doors back and forth between Apple and the Ombudsman, the latter is not happy with the results:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08..._apple_itunes/

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08...unes_response/

Original article (in norwegian) here:
http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11033307