ITMS Faces Complaint From Norwegian Ombudsman 270
Whiney Mac Fanboy writes "Following the French Bill that threatened Apple's iTunes service in France, the iTunes music store is facing more uncertainty in Scandinavia. According to a report in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Norway's Consumer Ombudsman has filed a complaint with Apple's music download sales service iTunes, arguing that the transaction terms violate Norwegian law. The Register is also reporting this story:, saying a contract cannot be regulated by English law, rather than Norwegian law, so 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. Consumer Council told the Reg: 'The Consumer Council has asked Apple to respond as to whether iTunes should work on other platforms - they have until 21 June to respond. After that the Ombudsman is likely to set another deadline and then start fining the company.' The BPI (Britain's RIAA equivalent) has also called upon Apple to license Fairplay."
Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Notions of fair use / legal exchange of copyrighted materials vary all over the world. Apple's DRM ignores all these difference (limitting legal use of content in some countries) and relies on the whip of the US-only DMCA for enforcement.
Its pretty obvious that this isn't really an Apple/Norway problem, but a DRM/Worldwide problem - Apple is just the most successful DRM pusher (the first try is free!) at the moment.
PS. FP on my own story submission?
Re:Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:3, Informative)
>U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract.
Yes, but if someone in, say, Norway buys from a shop in Norway, norwegian laws applies, period. In this case, it is about Apple's Norwegian store, not if someone from Norway goes to some site in another country and buys from there. Still, at most you will end up with the possibility of the country you buy from having its law app
Re:Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:2)
That's not really true, which should be obvious because, if were true, which laws applied would depend on which party to a contract was considered "you". The interaction of various national laws and treaty regimes (like the CISG) to contracts that span multiple countries is not nearly as straightforward as "you make a contract with a citizen in another country, the contract is coverned by the othe
Re:Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:2)
Not only Apple. Microsoft DRM is up next (Score:3)
Apple has been picked to test the waters of the Norwegian legislation due to iTMS's popularity, but the original filing also includes Microsoft and its DRM which will be challenged [andwest.com] against the 2005 Marketing Control Act.
The most interesting part of this legislation is the definition of the term "relevant equipment". See above link for more.
missing info above (Score:2)
ooops, some information fell out of the posting above:
The most interesting part of the Norwegian legislation is the definition of the term "relevant equipment" where the lawmakers have allowed consumers to break copy protection mechanisms to enable playback of content on relevant equipment. More information here [andwest.com]
Re:Symptom of a wider problem. (Score:2)
This is a symptom of a wider problem. US companies do tend to assume that US Law is applicable everywhere, and indeed, this view is not restricted to companies. USians do often think that everyone, everywhere is subject to penalties for infractions on the
English Law = England, not US (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, if Norway was part of the EU this would not be a problem for Apple as I think that they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to apply, but since Norway is not AND apple got a Norwegian TLD for ITMS Norway AND nicely translated the site into Norwegian a Norwegian using the site would likely assume they are dealing
EU consumer protection to the rescue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:English Law = England, not US (Score:3, Informative)
>they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to
>apply
Not completely true, you can't chose law at will inside EU, especially if both the seller and buyer is in the same country. Even if you are buying from another country than your own inside EU, the seller can't chose arbitrary laws of a country of choise, at most you can end up with the laws of the country in w
Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
But this kind of raises an interesting question. When a company operates accross many countries, which country's law do they uphold?
We saw both Google & Yahoo! run into a bit of a jam with their services in China. They pretty much violated what would be considered ethical duties in the United States overseas. Is this wrong? Do they face legal implications in one country or the other?
With iTMS operating in the UK, the US & Norway, what are they to do? Fairplay seems to be violating laws in the UK & Norway while in the United States it seems to be law to have some form of DRM (and with lobbyist Herr RIAA in charge, that's not going to change anytime soon). Do they alter the way their service works in each country? If so, sign me up for some musikk!
Perhaps Apple will license Fairplay so that other devices can play the MP4 music
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:5, Funny)
In the case of Google, MS & Cisco - they should pull the hell out of China - their laws are unreasonable, and no company with a conscience should operate there.
Norway on the other hand has perfectly reasonable laws - Apple should change their world wide operations to comply with Norwegian law
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Yeah, and we shouldn't buy any goods from China since nobody with a concience would do that. Have fun buying...just about anything. Holding Google to a standard different than your own is called hypocracy.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
I don't operate in China, so am not holding them to a different standard!
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Oh wait....
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Every contract I've ever signed stated which jurisdiction's laws applied ("shall be governed by the laws of the state of California"). I don't understand how Norway can say that if one of the parties is Norwegian (or in Norway) that only the laws of Norway can control.
Hell, IANAL, maybe someone can explain this.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Because they make the law in their country? I'm sure Apple can say the US law applies but it doesn't mean that Norway has to honor it....
This is a problem that has become widespread in part due to the internet.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:5, Informative)
They don't. They say that when a business which has a norwegia branch operates a norwegian-language e-shop explicitly directed at the norwegian market, distributed through a
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
13.GOVERNING LAW. Any action related to this
Agreement will be governed by California law and
controlling U.S. federal law. No choice of law
rules of any jurisdiction will apply.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thus the problem here...
Norway has basically said that a Norwegian company selling to Norwegians can't cherry-pick a jurisdiction outside Norway. Simple as that.
If Sun's Java license instead said "Any action related to this Agreement will be governed by Saudi law and controlling Sharia law", would you still feel inclined to just accept that their words make it so? Even though it would make you, (probably) a US citizen, downloading a product in the US from a US company, subject to execution for using it to denounce Islam?
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:4, Informative)
If the customers were dealing directly with Apple in the US, things would of course be different.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:5, Informative)
In the U.S., if a company has a significant business presence* in a State, then they are subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.
If some cookie cutter EULA says "State of New York"... well, that doesn't mean shit, unless that company has no significant business presence in your state.
The second Apple opened a branch in Norway, their product became subject to the laws of that country.
Apple can either comply, change the laws of Norway, or take their shiny white iBall and go home.
*A significant business presence doesn't actually require significant business, it just requires a significant presence. Like a company store or corporate offices etc.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Because laws are not a "choose any you like" concept. You have to follow the US speed limit on US highways, even if you are a foreigner driving a japanese car, you know?
Same thing here. Norwegian law applies if you sell to norwegian customers, even if you're an american company.
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
Their own.
It is frequently the case nowadays that Multi-national companies are larger and more powerful than nation states. They act accordingly. Local laws are, by and large, adjusted to meet the needs of the company via lobbying, threats of withdrawal, etc. Fines and repayments are similarly dodged. About the only things multinationals are subject to nowadays are corporation
Re:Foriegn Laws For US Companies? (Score:2)
"iTunes must accept responsibility... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"iTunes must accept responsibility... (Score:5, Interesting)
First and foremost; the whole problem here is that iTunes is specifically targetting the Norwegian market, as only Norwegians are allowed to use the Norwegian version of iTunes. This clearly sets it apart from most other net-stores which counts as *imports*. There is no doubt whatsoever that Norwegian laws apply here and this is probably a large reason why iTunes is being singled out. Forbrukerombudet (ombudsmann as you wrongly named him:)) did however note that several other services would be targetted soon (he lists a couple of music stores, but I can't find it now)
Complaint 1:
In order for a contract to be valid under Norwegian contract law it has to be two-sided; that is outline both responsibilties and priviligies. The iTunes EULA is completely one-sided completely failing to provide you with any benefits whatsoever. They do not accept any responsibilities nor guarantee anything.
Complaint 2:
The language itself is unclear. It does not define what 'service' as so far non-liability concerning downtime means. Does it means the store, the player, the DRM, etc? Added to this, all the terms are not available in Norwegian (which frankly, is pretty much the only point he makes I think is a non-issue).
Complaint 3:
Their attempts at disallowing non-Norwegian credits-cards for use at Norwegian iTunes is against the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA).
Complaint 4:
Their attempt at having the right to change the contract/terms at any time whatsoever is clearly not allowed by Norwegian law. At the most extreme, if the iTunes EULA was valid they could instantly revoke your music without you having any say.
Complaint 5:
No return-policy. This is required by Norwegian law; however this is one of several points he makes where he does not demand change *yet*, but ask them to share their views on this, due the technical issues involved.
Complaint 6.
DRM; he goes on a bit of rant here, and then lists a few laws they may be violating, and asks them for feedback.
Mark you, this is not our ombudsmann, which is someone appointed to help us against the goverment, but our consumer-ombudsmann who helps against corporations :). If you're Norwegian, I really do recommend reading it here (pdf) [forbrukerombudet.no]. It's very well written and extremely insightfull. The main-stream press coverage does not do it justice at all.
Don't like Apples DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is an "opt in" monopoly, they force not one person to start using iTunes and their DRM. I use them because I don't really feel like searching the net for MP3's, it is all in one place. I would assume 99% of other apple iTune users do the same. Don't like Apples DRM, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't shop there. This forcing everyone to do something because you don't like it is getting out of hand.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
MS is an "opt in" monopoly, they force not one person to start using Word and their file format. I use them because I don't really feel like converting to PDF before I send to someone. I would assume 99% of other MS Word users do the same. Don't like MS Word, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't shop there. This forcin
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
- Jackson's Law of Slashdot Karma Trolling
Actually, your MS argument sounded perfectly fair to me. Don't like Word? Use OO.o.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
But GM don't actively try to prevent you from putting it into a Civic if you want to.
I would thinkA pple need to be a bit careful thoyugh because with the possible imminent demine of their nearets competitor (allofmp3) how far are they from being a monopoly on the sales of online music? And if they do get decalred a monopoly, would they then be forced to open up their format?
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
No - there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a monopoly, just some restrictions on what you can & can't do.
I suspect Apple is a tad worried about being accused of unfairly using a monopoly in one market (mp3 players) to extend into another market (online music sales).
But thats a little Offtopic for this story - which has little to nothing to do with monopolism & everything to do with fair use & DRM.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes doesn't force you to do anything. (Score:2)
I fail to see the problem. iTunes doesn't lock any music from being played on other players or devices at all. It allows you to burn anything you buy to an audio CD for fair u
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company wants to do business in a country, it must follow the laws of said country or not do business there, that is the simple issue. Saying "but it's legal where we come from" is not a defence. To put it this way, would you want to allow (say) Chinese cars to be sold in the US without the safety features US law requires, simply because they aren't required in their country of origin?
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
I think you need a better example to get through to the average american. How about this:
Would you want to allow some c
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
I can't remember a German trying to dry his cat in the microwave, no.
Please.. your own generalizations show the world that you are indeed retarded.\
Your reply shows that you are unable to spot slight sarcasm.
But... since we were talking about Norway, you might find it interesting that Norway happens to be the #1 nation in the UN Human Development Index [wikipedia.org], while the US ranks in at #10...
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem, in Europe, has nothing to do with licensing MP3s.
It has everything to do with licensing FairPlay.
Eurpean laws are setup to protect competition.
By not licensing FairPlay, Apple is running afoul of those laws.
Blaming the RIAA or their Euro counterpart is completely irrelevant.
hsmith meet kettle, he says your black. (Score:3, Insightful)
The european countries have different rules about consumer protection. They actually think that companies that become to influential should be put under controls to ensure that the consumer doesn't come under the control of a companies whims.
Silly stuff like m
Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black. (Score:2)
Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black. (Score:2, Insightful)
You are funny. Europe is very much not socialistic. Just because americans like to label everything left of "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" as "socialist" doesn't make it so.
Europe still believes in a balance between human rights and corporate rights. The balance swings a little here and there depending on government, mood and whatever lobbyist group is offering the best entertainment program this year, but it is far from soc
Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black. (Score:2)
The problem with that argument is that selling out to corporations damages our long term choices. If we allow companies to lock us in to their DRM schemes or whatever else they feel like and stitch up the market between them, they will quickly eliminate choi
Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black. (Score:2)
European laws focus more on protection for competitors than consumers.
That's probably why this is a big deal, since Apple's non-licensed FairPlay locks out other competition from using DRM on the iPod.
Re:hsmith meet kettle, he says your black. (Score:2)
In this particular case, yes, making FairPlay available to manufacturers of other digital music players is beneficial to Apple's competitors. But it also allows consumers a choice of what player they wish to use with FairPlay-DRMed files, which is to their benefit - some people may not be able to afford an iPod, others may hate
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I agree with you, I think you're missing the point. This isn't about a group of consumers saying they want iTunes songs to work on player x. Nor is it about company y, which makes player x, saying Apple should license FairPlay because they want protected AAC to work on their players. This is about Norway saying that to operate in Norway, you have to follow Norwegian law. And that means having licenses that are regulated by Norwegian law, including the inability to disclaim damage liabilities.
The issue of whether Norwegian law requires the songs to be playable on other devices still hasn't been decided. If the ruling goes against Apple, then Apple will have to license FairPlay in order to continue operating iTMS in Norway. The only thing they would be forced to do would be to comply with the law if they choose to operate in Norway. Hardly unreasonable, especially given that every online music retailer would be subject to those same laws.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Don't like Norways laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
Norway is an "opt in" legal system, they force not one person to enter the country & operate under their laws. I would assume 99% of other companies that operate from Norway do the same. Don't like Norway's legal system, fine. Vote with your pocket book and don't set up shop there. This forcing everyone to do something because you like it is getting out of hand.
Re:Don't like Norways laws? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't like Norways laws? (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. Apple divides the market up. Try buing from the US itunes with a British Credit Card.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't like Norways laws? (Score:2)
Errr, yes I do. I think allofmp3 shouldn't operate in Norway without obeying their laws.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Monopoly is monopoly no matter how nicely you call it.
All you "free market" drones overlook that the antitrust laws are in place to protect the free market, because one thing that the market can not sort out is if it is itself broken - you need a working market to "sort things out" the free market way, so when the market itself is broken, you are lacking the very self-regulation force that could fix it.
M
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
The gov't doesn't protect you from business, they are bought off by other businesses for state sponsored protectionism.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
You ignore that "free market" as you laud it exists only in the theoretic world of the textbooks. This theoretical free market does indeed work as advertised. But it requires a few things that simply do not exist in the real world - total information being one of the critical components.
With limited information available to one side of the market (usually the customers), the game shifts from "whoever can make the best offer" to "whoever can seemingly make the best offer" - an important shift that gives rise not only to marketing, but also to shady business practices and outright fraud.
This is where some simple government regulations comes in and supports the market. Through warrenty requirements, for example, these regulations ensure a certain amount of information being available and allow customers to make informed choices. For example, if I know that by law the claims on the outside of the package have to be true or I can return the item, then I have more information than I would have without that law - because without it I would have to research the truth value of each and every claim instead of being able to rely on them.
In so far as regulations create a reasonable lower margin, they support the free market by bringing reality more in line with theory.
I do agree that a lot of regulations are not reasonable, and quite a few should be abolished and were almost certainly the work of lobbyists.
However, this fear of any and all regulations some people exhibit is just insane. The solution to tyranny is not anarchy.
Re:Don't like Apples DRM (Score:2)
The Cold Market War (Score:3, Funny)
So here is what I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2)
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2)
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2)
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2)
This particular issue is about the terms of use for the software, not the DRM on the music. Basically, the legalese says they won't certify it won't break other things on your computer, which is a violation on the law there. As
Do they? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is stopping you from making it possible to run MS games on say Linux or Macs. In fact several projects are doing just that, legally.
Yes this is stretching things but that is because this is a very difficult subject. Laws are ancient and mostly written down before the idea of media containers. With thi
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sony is not selling games that only play on the Playstation. Sony is selling a development kit for the Playstation hardware. If I wa
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2)
Re:So here is what I don't get... (Score:2, Insightful)
Swedish Chef != Norwegian Ombudsman (Score:5, Funny)
Other elements of note: the ombudsman's name is Thor!*, and other headlines on the Aftenposten site include: "Women wont [sic] give up laundry" and "angry hare attacked dogsled". I thought Norway was only silly in Monty Python sketches?
* NB: It's actually Thon. Drat.
unreasonable? (Score:2)
Nations (Score:2)
It would be a failure of democracy if some politicians in the US, which I could not vote for or against, could set policies for my country. Or some corporations could decide where to apply which laws.
If you want to do business in X, follow whatever rules/laws apply in X. If you don't like it, don't do busine
Supported by others in Scandinavia (Score:3, Informative)
So I think this is a problem with laws common to a number of Scandinavian countries, and in short they dislike that Apple is writing themselves free of so many things upon signing up; e.g freedom of changing the license agreement without warning and with immediate effect.
Same old story. (Score:2)
However, it's an American company, and more importantly it's a popular and successful one at the expense of European competitors. Europeans want a free market, until it becomes a detriment to European companies. Then they expect their government to shield them from that same free market.
If
Re:Same old story. (Score:2)
Chuckle (Score:2)
Don't see a real problem here... (Score:2)
0.20 USD per final unit sold, with an 800,000 USD a year maximum, licensed for resale in Norway only.
That's the going rate for Windows Media DRM 10 for portable devices. Since, as we see in this case, each country wants to assert sovereign control over what is or is not permitted, and has it's own terms regarding the nature of the license, the exact nature of the DRM mu
Re:Why is this so complicated? (Score:2)
The madness is a result of the amount of money to be made. When money can be increased by control, no matter how evil said control is, control is introduced. In the recent past, it has also become vogue to lobby congress for some laws that help enforce said control.
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you check out which laws are being referred to before criticising them so sweepingly. Right now you are, among aother things, arguing that it is essential for a well-functioning market to allow the seller to unilaterally change the contract (e.g. revocinga all your songs) for any or no reason and at
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
How does that make me look trollish? This has everything to do with contracts instead of regulations and mandates by government. Contracts let EVERY transaction be different (I purposely strike out terms on many contract
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:2)
The market is clearly not doing its magic here, as demonstrated by the fact that droves of people are actually "accepting" these ludicrous terms that no sane person would knowingly subject themselves to; many of them in places
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:4, Insightful)
I have _not_ made 3 purchases in the past week based on bad contracts. One was with a roofer (my other roofer decided to accept my terms), one was with a mechanic (I struck out the part about going over the quote and he didn't accept it) and one was with a lawyer. We couldn't come to terms, so we didn't do business. That's the free market.
If people are _dumb_ and can't read a contract, then why should the law be their daddies?
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:2)
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:2)
Second, no one is attacking the IPod, and it's irrelevant if it's a fine product or a pile of manure.
Third, changing a contract after a deal has been made without consent from both parties can only be defended in a commercial dictatorship.
Fourth, the force behind this is the same force that stopped companies making small children work in factories for low wages many years ago in the west
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:2)
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:3, Interesting)
Familiar with the rotting meat in the book? That was government's doing. Meat packers had shipped meat for military use and had told the government to kee
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:2)
That's quite a unusual, possibly unique claim. Maybe you should support it somehow, or cite where you're getting this from.
So far all I'm getting is that you're a gigantic rube.
Re:The "Consumer Council" is anti-consumer (Score:2)
All of these organizations are pro-control anti-consumer and we all should realize that immediately. No government mandate on companies is ever good for consumers because it decreases the amount of competition in a market and it raises prices. You can't prove otherwise.
I see so you think consumer protection laws are all useless. For example, false advertising laws? For example, food safety regulations?
Or is it maybe that some do more good than harm and it is just a scale of where a particular law falls
Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a little curious where you're getting these sales figures?
From this TIME article [time.com]:
and this NARIP document [mit.edu]. (Sorry, direct link to a PDF.)
If you insist on making spurious claims about Apple, or any other company for that matter
Re:Apple + Interoperability = Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws (Score:2)
What might make the norwegian
Re:Apple also violates European warranty laws (Score:2)
no kidding (Score:2)
* the consumer gets stuck with changing terms
* the producer is not liable, even for intentional faults
* the consumer waives privacy rights (like HIPPA - do you want health insurance?)
It's all more of the same, with the consumer getting screwed. Consider a DSL service contract or a car rental contract. Normal people are unable to comprehend these at all. I struggle through them, knowing that certain terms that appear obvious will have different