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