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 ;) .