User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Exelent news

Exelent news

Posted Jun 15, 2006 10:51 UTC (Thu) by dion (guest, #2764)
Parent article: iTunes runs into trouble in Norway

I'm from Denmark and I'm quite used to consumer protection laws that cannot be circumvented by contract, it's good to see that the ombudsmen are waking up to the dangers of DRM.

I've read some comments about this (mainly from americans) that go something like this: "If you don't like the deal, don't take it", what they fail to realize is that we have consumer protection laws that:
1) Forbid unreasonable and misleading terms.
2) Forbid circumventing the law, even by contract.

#2 means that no matter what you do you can never lose your consumer rights, even if you sign a contract waiving those rights.


(Log in to post comments)

Exelent news

Posted Jun 15, 2006 12:24 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

The music industry is a cartel anyway. And they're dealing monopoly-goods.

In practice, the consumer doesn't have much choise as to which download-service he wants to use. For certain things (i.e. those that are iTMS exclusive) he has no choice at all.

Besides, which legal download-service *should* I choose if I want to download music and play it on, for example, the Slimp3 ? As far as I'm aware there are none, and the labels would infact not allow a online-music-shop that sells unencumbered files to peddle "their" artists.

Yeah, I know about the Russian thing, but the RIAA claim that's illegal too.

Exelent news

Posted Jun 15, 2006 13:46 UTC (Thu) by knobunc (subscriber, #4678) [Link]

What about Musicmatch?

-ben

Exelent news

Posted Jun 15, 2006 17:55 UTC (Thu) by Frej (subscriber, #4165) [Link]

About the Russian site..
The Danish ministry of culture(?) actually said it wasn't illegal for the consumer to buy stuff there
since the site to the consumer looks legit (or something like that). (To be honest i don't the the
prices look legit). Who knows :/

The ministry actually removed a link to a group called APG (Anti piracy group) which is basically a
cover for the Danish music industry. Think RIAA practices.

Exelent news

Posted Jun 18, 2006 16:49 UTC (Sun) by cstanhop (subscriber, #4740) [Link]

Also emusic.com provides for unencumbered mp3s.

--
Charles

Freedom to waive consumer protections

Posted Jun 17, 2006 0:24 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I've read some comments about this (mainly from americans) that go something like this: "If you don't like the deal, don't take it", what they fail to realize is that we have consumer protection laws that: 1) Forbid unreasonable and misleading terms. 2) Forbid circumventing the law, even by contract.

I really doubt they fail to realize that, since the argument makes sense even so, and because such laws are rampant in the U.S.

(1) is two very different things -- unreasonable terms and misleading terms. I don't think anyone says, "if you don't like misleading terms, don't agree to them," since you can't know that they're misleading. But as for unreasonable terms, the freedom to agree or not agree, at your own option, even to terms others find unreasonable is a freedom that's really important to some people. People in the more capitalist countries seem to value it more than people in more socialist ones.

By the way, in case anyone didn't follow why my right to accept restrictions on myself is valuable to me: Sometimes, someone will offer me something in exchange for committing to those restrictions, and I find that something more valuable than what I'm giving up. For example, Apple might offer to give me a song for $1 that can play only on an Ipod, that Apple would demand $5 for in an open format.

(2) is nonense. There's no such thing as a law that forbids violating the law. Maybe you're referring to the fact that some laws specifically say they just define the default deal and two people are free to explicitly set up different terms, while others (plentiful in the US too) say they define the only deal allowed. The first kind are hard for anyone to object to, but the second kind are exactly the ones that lead those objecters to say, "If you don't like the deal, don't take it."

There are, though, good arguments for eliminating freedom to waive consumer protections. Basically, these two:

  • It protects people who don't have the skill to negotiate a good deal for themselves (maybe I don't realize how oppressive the Ipod-only thing is going to be).
  • It protects consumers from competition with other consumers. (As long as I'm OK with Ipod-only music, you probably won't be able to get any other kind).

Freedom to waive consumer protections

Posted Jun 17, 2006 10:33 UTC (Sat) by fergal (guest, #602) [Link]

I think (2) could be a reference to contract law. When I covered it in business class, a long, long time ago, there was a list of ways in which a contract can be broken or made null. If the contract requires one of the parties to do something illegal then that part of the contract (or maybe even the enitre contract) is null and void and unenforceable.

Freedom to waive consumer protections

Posted Jun 19, 2006 10:51 UTC (Mon) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

The situation in many (all?) European states: There are some rights that end-consumers can not waive. E.g., you cannot waive your right for warranty in Germany. If a seller puts a waiver statement in a contract, that contract is void, or at least that part of the contract is void. ``puts a waiver statement'' is broadly meant. This might mean that he tells something in spoken communication, verbal contracts are still contracts (they are just harder to prove).

This is different for business-to-business contracts. Businesses (and also natural persons that make some contract as part of their own business, e.g., freelancers) can waive almost all rights. There are some exceptions, mostly concerning raciscm and equal opportunities. And waiving one's rights is regularly done, e.g., in consulting jobs. There is a vast difference between B2B and B2C contract law, and it is one where it's very easy to do things wrong, as a company's owner.

Cheers, Joachim

Freedom to waive consumer protections

Posted Jun 20, 2006 3:15 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

It's fundamentally the same in the US, but I sense from your wording a difference in degree -- i.e. Europe leans more socialist.

Throughout the US, a consumer has the power to waive even the warranty that merchandise is usable for its normal purpose. And consumers do that a lot. But a consumer is not able to waive the warranty on an automobile against injury-causing defects.

And under US law, "merchants" have considerably more power to negotiate than "consumers." A merchant, BTW, isn't just someone who sells something -- it's basically defined as someone who should know what he's doing because he's in business. "Consumer" is essentially the modern word for "peasant."

Freedom to waive consumer protections

Posted Jun 22, 2006 7:18 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Actually, even in the UK it is possible for a consumer to waive consumer protection law BUT the retailer has to cover themselves pretty comprehensively to do so.

The usual approach is to sell stock as damaged or second-user, and say that it is "as seen". All of which is a major tip-off to the consumer that the goods quite possibly may be faulty.

Even there, there are liabilities you can't disclaim - for example it is illegal to sell a non-roadworthy vehicle unless you explicitly point out that fact to the buyer. If you didn't tell the buyer because you didn't know, then sorry, you're liable.

Cheers,
Wol

Freedom to waive consumer protections

Posted Jun 22, 2006 9:14 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

There's no such thing as a law that forbids violating the law.

Try saying that out loud without laughing.

Or, to quote from "Airplane!": Shirley you can't be serious...


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds