Norway files complaint over iTunes TOS

You don't actually buy the music, you buy a license to play it. The terms of the license are a contract between the copyright owner and the purchaser of that license. iTMS is simply passing on the terms of the license imposed by the copyright holders (ie the music labels). Apple have had to fight to get the license as free as it is (such as no limit on the number of times a track can be burnt to CD, just on playlists).

It seems to me that the Norwegians are not understanding that you don't buy the music, you buy the license. I hate DRM as much as the next guy but we don't live in Utopia. People steal so DRM is about the only solution we have on the table. Rather than say it's a bad solution, why don't people like this group try and come up with something better?

Glad to see the Norwegian Consumer Council is taking on issue of fair use vs. DRM. I'm sure they'll be applying this attitude evenly to any similar situation--iTunes only catches the early attention because it's so popular. I only hope we start seeing more action like this here in DMCA-land (i.e. USA).

Good point about the fact that users license music rather than purchase it. However (and I know very very very little about contracts and contract law) don't users agree to a contract of sorts when they license something?

If Norweigan law provides certain protections to comsumer who enter into a contract, and if licensing music falls into that category of transaction, and if Norweigan law is found to be applicable to iTunes Norway, then shouldn't Norweigan consumers be protected?

...I think this will only get Norwegians in trouble. Apple may just close the Norwegian iTMS and leave them with no good legal solution at all.

I don't understand the first poster ("beeble"). It being a "license" may well be true, but the fact remains that you have less rights with your iTunes-purchased music than the CDs you bought a couple of years ago (not the modern DRM ones, of course).

Now that electronic music purchases have a real foothold on the market (and a bottom line for the music labels), now is the time to get our basic rights back. The labels would rather grant us back fair use than shut iTunes down.

Right on, Norway!

I might move to Norway. But it is cold, and the sun doesn't shine much during the winter. I'm pleased, though, that European countries are taking advantage of their varied legal traditions to forge ahead in the digital age. In response to Beeble 'something better' would be unlikely to meet the necessary copyright holder approval unless it was 'better' for the music labels, who, as we see every day, are more than somewhat disinclined to even allow what 'fair use' rights we have today. Norway has every right, and ought, to challenge current American legislative sentiment. So should we American consumers.

It seems to me that the Norwegians are not understanding that you don't buy the music, you buy the license. I hate DRM as much as the next guy but we don't live in Utopia. People steal so DRM is about the only solution we have on the table. Rather than say it's a bad solution, why don't people like this group try and come up with something better?

And you don't seem to understand some of their complaints, one of which is the drastic "You agree to these terms, but Apple reserves the right to change the terms". How'd you like to buy a car at 4% interest, only to find that the loan company decided a year later to change the terms to a 10 year loan at 10%?

In general, how can you truly agree to a license/contract when the terms are unknown?

And I never understood the argument of "Its the best we got, so we should stand up for it!" Hey, maybe its the best we got because we're not demanding better.

I am generally in favor of consumer rights, but this seems to be an unfair standard.

With regards to changing of he Terms of Service or use post-purchase. If that is as big of an issue as they claim then they should also be investigating Microsoft which makes the same claim with Windows, and it is your responsibility to regularly check the current Terms of Service

With regards to the second grounds, if I bought a casette tape of a song (Format A) and then choose to get a CD Player (Format B) is it the responsibility of the party I purchase the music from to convert my entire music collection for me? Apple is selling AACs not MP3s

Or if I had bought Windows and many Windows programs and then make the switch to Macs, must the developers or the people that sold me the software then convert all my programs to Mac at no charge.

With regards to the last grounds of the case, If I had a DVD or CD if it is stolen, lost, scratched, caught in a fire, etc. Am I entitled to a replacement free of charge?

Don't get me wrong, I would love for all the above to be the case as a consumer. But it doesn't happen, so why are they expecting it out of Apple?

That was a nice read about my old home country! Yes, they have a fairly good protaction for the consumer and also a copyright legislation that actually protects the creators and not the people who happen to buy the creations - and it is not that easy to buy the rights to those, either, and most artists prefer to stick to their copyright.

As for closing shop in Norway; that wouldn't be so wise because although the population is small (but in a large country), they are stinking rich! Hahaha! Not wise to throw out potential good customers, I'd say:)

As for the climate, Norway isn't that bad, especially not during summers, if you live in the south and it is not that dark, either. What most people forget is that if you put it across the USA, the northern part would touch Canada while the southern part would be not that far from the Mexican border, so both the climate and the seasons vary a lot. Also the length of the day. No midnight sun in the south and not totally dark in winters.

OK, digress, off topic, but it will be interesting to follow this one!

No, you don't get it replaced if "I had a DVD or CD if it is stolen, lost, scratched, caught in a fire, etc. Am I entitled to a replacement free of charge?"

But if the product is damaged when you have downloaded it - and you can prove that, of course - then you have the right to have it replaced with a good copy. As for the other part - "or provide for loss, attack, viruses, interference, hacking, or other security intrusions to the consumer" - it would be interesting to see that applied to any product from Microsoft!

As I see it, the point here should be that if your purchased good would be damaged because of some kind of intrusion made possible by flaws in the process of downloading it. But how would it apply to a product which has such grave flaws in its structure that it is open too attacks from third parties? Shouldn't the consumer have the right to be compensated for any economic loss?

I would like them to try that one in Norway!