The consumer protection groups in Norway, Sweden and Denmark said Wednesday they will give Apple until Aug. 1 to reply to their claims that the iTunes music store and service operates in violation of Scandinavian law according to a report from MarketWatch.
Last week, the groups said they believed Apple’s iTunes violates Scandinavian consumers’ rights by making Apple’s iPods the only portable devices that can play songs downloaded from iTunes. The consumer groups had originally set a June 21 deadline for Apple to respond to the claims.
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099.
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Norway gives Apple until June 21 to change iTunes Music Store terms – June 12, 2006
Apple’s iTunes Music Store faces fresh legal attacks from Norway and Sweden – June 09, 2006
Norway complains about Apple iTunes Music Store – June 07, 2006
Consumer Council of Norway files a complaint regarding Apple iTunes Music Store’s terms of service – January 27, 2006
Apple’s vs. Microsoft’s music DRM: whose solution supports more users? – August 17, 2005
neomonkey:
I agree getting around the DRM is just a matter of burn-and-re-import. When it is this easy, why do we need DRM again? Just to piss off consumers and make their life more complicated than necessary?
Bill,
“And when has Apple ever changed a users rights to their downloaded music?”
– They changed the number of times you can burn a playlist from ten to seven. Granted, it’s not exactly a huge change, but it shows that they are willing to make changes if they think they are necessary, perhaps due to pressure from the record labels. Maybe someday they will change it so that all purchased music files will have the same restrictions as videos currently have.
“…such as by forcing you to only be able to use one brand of CD player? “
People, PLEASE stop trying to make this a valid arguement! It is NOT a correct analogy. It is a strawman argument at best. You kids out there that came of age during the Great Age of Music Theft need to get a clue.
Analogies really don’t work in this case anyway, as the iTMS/iPod model is, I believe, without precedent or peer–It can’t be *like* anything.
Oh, and, GO BILL!
“My gripe in this case is that the biggest beneficiary to these demands are other mp3 player companies, NOT the consumer. It’s not like Scandinavians are all sitting around with home-made mp3 players. And when has Apple ever changed a users rights to their downloaded music? Yes, the clause is there but it’s a CYA clause at most. Let’s face it, it’s the birth of a service and Apple put that clause in just-in-case of something happening that they didn’t anticipate. The argument that Apple could one day decide to stop you from burning your music is a red herring, IMHO.”
The problem here is they have the power to do something they shouldn’t. No company should have this much control over something you bought. It doesn’t matter if they do it or not, it is a matter of principle. And it is a matter of Apple breaking the law. Simple as that.
Companies doesn’t care about you, the environment or anything else, only your money. That is why laws exists to control companies. This is especially important in contries like Norway with only 4 mill people. Consumers in Norway doesn’t have the same impact on international companies as bigger countries do.
Btw, yes, we (I’m from Norway) do have very hot women.
ShutUpAlready: Lock-ins are bad for consumers, why can’t you see that? If Sony started producing CD players that only played Sony CDs that wouldn’t be a bad thing? Howver the DRM thing is only part of the problem. The biggest one is Apple reserves the right to change the terms after purchase. This basicly means you’re at the mercy of Apple. If Apple only want you to play the songs you bought on 1 machine Apple can do that. How can something like this, giving Apple control over something you bought be a good thing? Currently you’re allowed to play your music on 5 computers. Now if they didn’t have DRM they wouldn’t be able to. See? DRM is bad not only because of lock-in issues.”
The CD analogy is bogus. It was the music industry that agreed on the CD as a universal media for their product. Before that it was the cassette tape and before that it was the LP. Digital media is a whole new ball game. The music industry has not agreed on a universal file type, that’s why they demand the DRM. If all the record companies got together and said we’re offically adopting .xxx file type which has a built in DRM and that’s the only way our music is going to be distrubited then Apple would have to play by those rules. But that’s not the situation so the CD meme is BS.
Like I said, if you don’t like the terms of use, shop somewhere else. What’s so damn difficult about that?
“People, PLEASE stop trying to make this a valid arguement! It is NOT a correct analogy. It is a strawman argument at best. You kids out there that came of age during the Great Age of Music Theft need to get a clue.”
– Wow. You really showed me. By the way, you may want to look up the definition of “strawman argument” before you misapply it again. Music theft prevention and interoperability are not mutually exclusive.
Like I said, if you don’t like the terms of use, shop somewhere else. What’s so damn difficult about that?
What is so damn difficult about admitting Apple breaking the law? Should Apple be allowed to break the law? And no, I don’t buy music from iTMS, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about Apple breaking the law in my country. I’m a big Apple supporter, but not when it comes down to iTMS.
It wouldn’t hurt amidst all this arguing, to remember that the DRM is not there because Apple wants it there; Apple would probably be amiable to giving music away for free (remember Pepsi iTunes give-away?; free song of the week?); it’s the record labels that insist that it be controlled. Apple’s Fairplay is the least restrictive and most transparent of the available solutions.
Yes, I know, you all hate DRM. I’m not a big fan either; but since I either buy songs for my own use or rip from my own CDs, it is completely transparent for me; no hassles what-so-ever. The analogy to CDs in a store is not very good in my opinion, since at the beginning of CDs there was not an issue of easy file transfer and no one thought the DRM chips in CD players was even necessary. (Seems I recall that they were concerned about making “great” sounding cassette tapes from CDs in those days!)
Too many people, both in this country and abroad (and especially foreign governments) are getting far too worked up about the conditions of music entertainment. If they had been concerned about the rights and needs of consumers, they would have put a leash on those $18.00 CDs that we were having to purchase.
Seems this world has enough other problems that some of these countries should be spending their time and energy on. Music is nice luxuary; but it is still a private business; no government has any right to say how its products should work, as long as they work as advertised and sold. Apple makes no claims about playing songs from iTunes on any other player; just iPods and iTunes (runninging on Windows and Mac).
Surely, by now, no one is confused as to where their music can be played, or how. We may not like it, but this is where the music labels have put us. If you have a beef, maybe you should be working on the source, not the middleman.
Buy from iTunes, convert to mp3, load on whatever player you want, done!
This is a non-story, just filler since there’s nothing special from Apple to talk about.
ToBill – I don’t care if all Apple cares about is my money because all I care about is their products. That’s the way it works. I don’t care if they get a dental plan and they don’t care if my car gets stolen. But that’s alright.
If Denmarks laws prevent Apple from maintaining their curent TOS then all I see is bad news for Denmark. Consumer activists group screw more people than they help. Where is the complaint from an actual consumer? If it’s such an abuse surely there should be thousands, nay, millions of complaints right? Yeah, right. This whole thing is bullshit and we all see it for what it is. You few people who have taken on DRM as your pet cause can get as lathered up as you want about this menahwile MILLIONS of other people are enjoying their iPod/iTunes experience, including me. My 34 years of experience tells me that your problem is most likely you.
“It wouldn’t hurt amidst all this arguing, to remember that the DRM is not there because Apple wants it there”
– Apple may not have initially demanded it, but they surely benefit from it.
““it’s the record labels that insist that it be controlled”
– They also want it to be interoperable. They would also like variable pricing. Apple does have enough negotiating power to make their wants not become necessities.
“The analogy to CDs in a store is not very good in my opinion, since at the beginning of CDs there was not an issue of easy file transfer and no one thought the DRM chips in CD players was even necessary.”
– The issue isn’t easy file sharing. One of the issues is about interoperability.
“If they had been concerned about the rights and needs of consumers, they would have put a leash on those $18.00 CDs that we were having to purchase.”
– If they had tried to do something about the prices in order to help the consumer, you would have fought that too.
“no government has any right to say how its products should work, as long as they work as advertised and sold.”
– But Apple can change the way it is advertised, and thus, the way it works at any time.
“maybe you should be working on the source, not the middleman.”
– I agree, but I question its effectiveness. The record labels sell their music to Apple without DRM. No problem there. They also require some type of DRM system, preferably an open one, however, it is Apple that has prevented interoperability.
If Denmarks laws prevent Apple from maintaining their curent TOS then all I see is bad news for Denmark. Consumer activists group screw more people than they help. Where is the complaint from an actual consumer? If it’s such an abuse surely there should be thousands, nay, millions of complaints right? Yeah, right. This whole thing is bullshit and we all see it for what it is. You few people who have taken on DRM as your pet cause can get as lathered up as you want about this menahwile MILLIONS of other people are enjoying their iPod/iTunes experience, including me. My 34 years of experience tells me that your problem is most likely you.
Wtf? Did you not read about the protests outside Apple stores arranged by EFF and Defective by Design? There are thousands of people complaining! My friends are complaining. I am complaining!. Just because nobody inside your little bubble is complaining does mean nobody is.
And now the consumer groups in Scandinavia are doing something about Apple disobeying Scandinavian law. About fucking time.
“If Denmarks laws prevent Apple from maintaining their curent TOS”
– It forces them to renogotiate. There’s a difference.
“menahwile MILLIONS of other people are enjoying their iPod/iTunes experience”
– How does this law change YOUR experience? I’m curious, because I don’t see how it forces you to change any of your music listening habits. Interstingly, Apple does reserve the right to change your music listening habits.
I would reexamine your pet cause if I were you.
Realist: The record labels sell their music to Apple without DRM. No problem there. They also require some type of DRM system, preferably an open one, however, it is Apple that has prevented interoperability.
Yes, because iTunes is only for iPods! What part of this escapes you?
Wtf? Did you not read about the protests outside Apple stores arranged by EFF and Defective by Design?
Did you not read that practically no one showed up? There are a heluva lot more important issues to get upset about than “lock in” on your music player.
Oh, you can’t play iTunes tracks on your Zen. Poor you. A lot of people are starving and homeless, you know. They’d love to have your problems.
(Besides, I’ve never heard one single solitary argument as to why you’re “locked in” when you can burn and re-rip. Oh, is that inconvenient? Poor you.)
“Yes, because iTunes is only for iPods! What part of this escapes you?”
– Are you sure you want to stick with that statement? Because the iTMS most definitely does not sell things that are only to be played on iPods. Now, if you had said, “the iTMS is meant to get users to buy iPods,” then I would agree with that.
LordRobin,
“A lot of people are starving and homeless, you know. They’d love to have your problems.
i]
– So, you’ve never complained about anything before? Or are all of your problems in life worse than starvation?
“I’ve never heard one single solitary argument as to why you’re “locked in” when you can burn and re-rip. Oh, is that inconvenient?”
– You do know that if this law passes, all the stores that sell MS DRM will then be available to iPods also? This may not matter to you personally, but there are songs and other media out there that are not available to the iTMS.
Additionally, interoperability is only half the issue.
ShutUpAlready,
You are just another illiterate who did not read the licensing terms when you clicked on the Accept button while installing iTunes and while setting up your iTMS account.
You do not own the music or the software you purchased or got as a free download. You own the right to use the music and the software under the terms of the agreements you electronically signed when you clicked on the Accept buttons. Those agreements have a clause that allows Apple to unilaterally change the terms of use at any time.
Apple changed the terms of use as was their right under the agreement you electronically signed.
Good luck trying to change the terms of any contract after you sign it.
If you don’t like it after electronically signing those contracts burn your music to CD’s and rip to the format of your new player.
If you don’t want a different player then just ShutTheF_ckUp.
Sorry ToBill, I don’t keep up with all the hot protest action in Scandinavia. I’ve got two Apple Stores near me and so far we’ve got a pretty civil bunch of folks. I’m sure the “thousands” of protesters over there really made an impact on the passers-by wondering who are all these pale people hanging around the Apple Store. And we all know hoe effective EFF has been in the paste. Sorry, did I say paste? I meant past. I guess we’ll find out by August 1 what Apple is going to do about all of this. Unless of course they push the deadline back again. But hey, congrats for standing up to big bad Apple Computers. It can’t be easy dealing with the criminal element like that. You can’t be too careful. Make sure you protect yourselves out there.
“Good luck trying to change the terms of any contract after you sign it.”
– Well, unless you have a clause saying that you can change the terms of the contract after you sign it, which Apple does.
Are you sure you want to stick with that statement? Because the iTMS most definitely does not sell things that are only to be played on iPods.
Really, please tell me the other players that are meant to be used with iTunes?
Are you bloody stupid Big Al? What Apple writes in that TOS is not fucking LEGAL! And yes I read it and no, I did not accept as it’s illegal in Scandinavian countries (where I live). How hard is that to understand. You’re not allowed to change terms after purchase. Lets all say it together, “it is not allowed by law”. Apples TOS is illegal. If you want to be screwed over by Apple be my guest. I just want Apple to play by the rules in my country.
Bill, you apparently don’t understand the statement that you quoted. Try reading it again. Read it slowly if you need to.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me how your music experience will change if this law succeeds. I’m sure you’ve got a wonderful explanation, so I’m eagerly waiting for your response.
realist, if playing semantics games is the best you have to offer to this debate then, really, why waste the bandwidth? Furthermore, we don’t know how the user experience will change if Apple is forced to open it’s DRM. It changes the playing field and not in Apple’s favor. I can’t predict Apple’s reaction any more than you can. So asking an unanswerable question is hardly a debate tactic.
The Norwegians are just mad that “Scream” hasn’t been found yet. Stolen from the Norwegian National Gallery?