Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign 
And as I pointed out earlier, under consumer law, the contract is with Apple so the only complaint Norwegian consumers can make with any legal basis is with Apple. Jobs' letter does not change that.
If you read the complaint they made it's against Apple first (after all they control the largest part of the digital download market) but it's also against four other stores. If they all decided to shut up shop instead of complying with the law then the record companies will have nowhere to sell downloads in Norway. That's not good for the record companies.
Let's just run through Jobs' suggestion - 'Go direct your energies at the record companies'. Well, let's say Norway threatens to take them to court instead of Apple. Their reaction might be to just not supply online stores in Norway with ANY content, to pull out of the download market in Norway, instead of providing un-DRMd content. That's bad for everybody.
The record companies need online stores to sell their music or they're back with CDs again and a flourishing p2p market. Either way, it's going to end up on p2p unprotected.

And as I pointed out earlier, under consumer law, the contract is with Apple so the only complaint Norwegian consumers can make with any legal basis is with Apple. Jobs' letter does not change that.
If you read the complaint they made it's against Apple first (after all they control the largest part of the digital download market) but it's also against four other stores. If they all decided to shut up shop instead of complying with the law then the record companies will have nowhere to sell downloads in Norway. That's not good for the record companies.
Let's just run through Jobs' suggestion - 'Go direct your energies at the record companies'. Well, let's say Norway threatens to take them to court instead of Apple. Their reaction might be to just not supply online stores in Norway with ANY content, to pull out of the download market in Norway, instead of providing un-DRMd content. That's bad for everybody.
The record companies need online stores to sell their music or they're back with CDs again and a flourishing p2p market. Either way, it's going to end up on p2p unprotected.
As I said, they're taking the easy way out.
Their laws need revision, they are too restrictive about how wrongs should be righted, assuming that this is a wrong in the first place. They should be able, and even required, to go after everyone involved.
But you're argument here is flawed as well.
If they close down all the online stores. The ones that people overwhelmingly prefer, restrictive DRM or no, then that is almost as restrictive as telling the record companies to drop their DRM.
Again, no one wins. Consumers, the vast majority of which couldn't care less about the restrictions, would be VERY unhappy.








