EU May Force iTunes Store To Accept Returns 252
Sweet Harmony writes "ArsTechnica is reporting that the European Union may soon require online music stores to accept returns. A review of European consumer protection laws has highlighted online sales of 'digital content services' as an area where existing consumer protection laws need to be harmonized. 'The EC would like to standardize cooling-off periods along with other aspects of the EU's consumer protection laws. One of the issues being considered is whether the rules on consumer sales should apply to 'digital content services' like music.'"
Aiee (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait
Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Funny)
At current $0.99 per song pricing, 10,000 songs would cost $9,900
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Buy songs from iTunes
2. Burn songs to CD.
3. "return" songs for refund.
4. Enjoy your free music.
I have to wonder, does this apply also to store bought CD's also in the EU? So can you buy a CD, take it home and rip it to your HD and then return it? Just wondering.
How does one conduct business like this?
Re:Awesome. (Score:4, Interesting)
According to UK law, the iTunes store is required to accept returns within 28 days of sale with no reason given (as is any other retail establishment), although I don't believe that anyone has attempted to force them to do so yet.
Of course, if you return things frequently, there is nothing stopping the store refusing to do business with you in the future...
Returns (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Returns (Score:5, Informative)
You can step back from the sale and return the item within a specified time period. Depending on country: 7 - 14 days.
Re:Returns (Score:4, Informative)
Remember we're talking about the EU, where consumer protection laws are pretty strong.
I don't know if it's based on a EU directive, but in the Netherlands, you can return any online purchase within 7 working days, no need to give a reason, and get your money back. Shipping costs are yours, but that's all. There are exceptions to this rule (like things made to order on your specs, or opened CD cases).
Re:Returns (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the Itunes Euro. All songs .01 Euros with a .98 Euro delivery charge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/133 -06.htmConsumer [oft.gov.uk]
Section 3.48:
"The DSRs require you to refund any money paid by or on behalf of the consumer in relation to the contract to the person who made the payment. This means the full price of the goods, or deposit or prepayment made, including the cost of delivery. The essence of
distance selling is that consumers buy from home and receive goods at home. In these circumstances, almost every case of home
shopping
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Returns without something like this would really put Apple in a tough spot. The fact is, you can extract an unencrypted AAC file from your protected AAC file with tools that are already out there. If they start having to accept returns, you can expect a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Whomever would be doing it probably also doesn't mind just downloading the music via some p2p network
2) "buy, rip, return" requires more effort than just queuing a download on whatever p2p client they would happen to be using
3) People are lazy
Also, one can assume that there will be an alert triggered by a high (returns / buys) value.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh US beats EU big time. Over here you can pretty much return anything even months after the original purchase - no questions asked.
The only exceptions are things like computer Games and Movies, stuff that you can copy - you can return these but only unopened.
And the most interesting thing is that there are no laws or anything governing this issue - as it should be - the market itself has arrived at a solution which is more superior to the customer than anything EU laws provide for.
The same thing goes here in the UK, most shops provide for returns over and above statutory rights, as long as I have the receipt I can return almost anything for any reason, and the thing about CDs isn't entirely true either, I recently returned an open CD because the second to last track didn't play. The shop assistant replaced it (asked me if I wanted a refund or replacement) no questions asked, he didn't even bother to check the CD. It makes good commercial sense because as a result shops can build up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as returns go on products, the US is slowly approaching a point where returns will be very difficult if not impossible due to the fact the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Norway's not in the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
back on topic, this is a good thing, just because I buy something online doesn't mean I should have lees consumer protection than if I buy it physically.
Re:Norway's not in the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the US of A, many of those protections have been stripped, and you can see what is beginning to happen over here.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning the service outright because the state doesn't like it is nanny-state mentality pure and simple. "R
Re: (Score:2)
Just a little quibble. Sales tax is never said to help the less fortunate--it is the blindest of taxes--effecting all equally, and therefor is preferred by the rich to lower their tax burden and hated by the poor who can't afford to pay tax and fly under the radar of all other taxes.
Incremental income tax helps the less fortunate, as does real-estate tax (somewhat) and inheritance tax (Significantly more)
Thanks for the
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Consumers need to be protected, virtually no matter what it is you're buying.
Here in the US of A, many of those protections have been stripped, and you can see what is beginning to happen over here.
Actually I'm in the UK, and we have reasonable consumer protection laws, an example being that if I buy faulty goods over £100 on credit card, not only is the retailer liable, so is the credit card company. We also have strict laws governing advertising. I'm unfamiliar with the situation in the USA, but here most shops will allow me return goods for almost any reason (in addition to any statutory protections). Not only is this good for the consumer, it also makes commercial sense as it doesn't cost m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the American audience...
Non-Europeans == Americans
You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.
I regard the UK as a rogue EU member state anyway with more of allegience with America (which blew up in Tony Blair's face recently :) )
That, and recent British governments like to scapegoat the EU, instead of taking political responsibility themselves are what's caused the growth of Euro-optimism's in this country. It's also why we'll never leave, the EU is always there to blame when things go wrong.
An update - EFTA (Score:3, Informative)
Misclick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I return 4'33" [wikipedia.org] then? Only half kidding. Hah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not buying bits, you're buying enjoyment (Score:3, Insightful)
The same will likely also apply to software if
Re:You are not buying bits, you're buying enjoymen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You are not buying bits, you're buying enjoymen (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You are not buying bits, you're buying enjoymen (Score:5, Insightful)
If a movie is bad, I still pay for it. If I should be upset with anyone, it's whoever suggested I see it in the first place, not the movie theatre. If there were kids crying through an entire R-rated movie because someone didn't want to pay for a baby-sitter and the theatre didn't want to kick them out, I might ask for a refund. If it happens again, I probably won't return to that theatre.
If I buy a piece of software and it doesn't do what I want, I'm stuck with it. For example, if I bought a music editor, I couldn't return it because it doesn't edit photos. If it doesn't do what it advertised I might look for a refund.
If I buy music from iTunes and don't like that I can't play it on Linux, I have the choice of burning and ripping, finding an illegal alternative method of removing the DRM, or forgetting about the music. If I buy a song from iTunes and it won't play on my iPod, I'd pursue a refund.
In short, company's should only have to provide what they tell you they're selling you. If they misrepresent the product, you should be able to get your money back. If you don't do anything to make sure you know what you're buying, I have no pity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most theatres will refund your money if you leave within the first 10-15 minutes. I don't know about you, but it usually doesn't take me that long to figure out if a movie is trash.
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah the base idea is still the same: they can't be certain you aren't keeping a copy yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I asked them to take a look at it, but they said the problem was on my end. I'm no longer a member, but I just looked again, and 12 months later it is still showing a broken track. I found eMusic, while having an admirable cau
Faulty downloaded files (Score:2)
A digital download is never faulty.
True, but the original file sometimes is. I've bought several faulty audiobooks from iTunes in the past. In each case, I told them about the problem via the handy web form, and after a while of them not listening and just sending the same faulty file to me again, they eventually listened to what I was saying and gave me the money back. So sometimes a downloaded file can be faulty, and they already give the consumer their money back.
How can they ensure that the file
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Goods vs Information vs Services (Score:2)
And also is digital bits really a "Good" ?
Digital download is "Information". Can you return Information ? You can return the Media if there is one. But in this case there is no Media.
Tip ... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the grand scheme of things, if there are drm'ed files that are corrupt that's another issue. But if you just blindly buy a dozen tracks without knowing a thing about them you assume the risk. Not like you can "uncopy" or "unhear" them.
Just like movie theaters, I know at the AMC it was policy that if you left upto 30 mins in a movie you could get a full refund. After that you're screwed. I actually made use of that policy during the movie "Any Given Sunday" [or whatever it's called, that stupid football movie]. I walked out after 15 mins and got my money back.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
"Thanks for the cab ride, i didn't like the service, I'm not paying!"
Just doesn't seem like it would jive.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Just one problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe like this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Profit?
Re:Maybe like this? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about setting a $ threshold (I can't be bothered to look up the Euro symbol right now) for the "cooling off period". "Oh my God! I really can't afford this 52\" HDTV" is one thing. "Oh my God! I spent $2.98 on music!" isn't on the same scale. Suck it up and take the loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just one problem... (Score:5, Funny)
I hear the Zune switches modes from squirt to suck.
Re: (Score:2)
>I hear the Zune switches modes from squirt to suck.
Well, if that's the case, the Zune has at least one thing going for it.
Re:Just one problem... (Score:4, Informative)
Read the article again: if I understood it correctly, this mandatory cooling off period during which returns must be accepted would only apply to content that has interoperability problems. In other words, it is very likely that it would only apply to DRM-protected content.
So it would obviously not apply to Ogg Vorbis or MP3 music files because these are not tied to specific devices. On the other hand, this would apply to music or other digital content that does not let you exercise your usual consumer rights. And if the music can only be played on one specific device under some specific conditions, then the provider would have to accept returns. Presumably, the DRM protection would also require some sort of online validation to ensure that the DRM-protected content that you are trying to play has not been "returned".
Even if the DRM scheme does not require you to be online every time you attempt to play some protected content, there are ways to limit your ability to play "returned" content. For example, the database holding the keys for all your protected music could be versioned or could use some key chaining that makes it very difficult for you to re-insert a key that has been removed. So even if you restore both the music and the keys from backups, you would not be able to do much with them or you would not be able to play anything else that you downloaded later. Given that the DRM stuff is creeping increasingly deeper into some proprietary operating systems, you may even have to re-install your OS if you want to be able to play the "returned" files. Although this would be possible in theory, I doubt that you would enjoy the experience...
Anyway, don't forget that DRM is defective by design [defectivebydesign.org].
Applies to Ogg Vorbis too (Score:2)
if I understood it correctly, this mandatory cooling off period during which returns must be accepted would only apply to content that has interoperability problems. In other words, it is very likely that it would only apply to DRM-protected content.
So it would obviously not apply to Ogg Vorbis or MP3 music files because these are not tied to specific devices.
How do you figure. Ogg vorbis must be the least interoperable format in existence, playing only on amost immeasurably small number of players. MP3 only plays on players whose companies have paid the Fraunhoffer folks for a liscence so it's not interopeable unless of course you are want to force people to use an unliscenced player (e.g. Linux).
So the question is, when do we draw the line and say that something should work for most folks. As it stands, there are many pure MP3 Players and an even greater
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
if I understood it correctly, this mandatory cooling off period during which returns must be accepted would only apply to content that has interoperability problems. In other words, it is very likely that it would only apply to DRM-protected content.
At first I was concerned that such legislation would encourage DRM as that would be the only possible means of revoking downloaded media from a buyer, assuming that they would want to do that if they forced to provide refunds. On the other hand, assuming that you are correct, the legislation could encourage the adoption of DRM-free downloads as the company, presumably, wouldn't have to give anyone refunds. Personally I'd be much more happy without the DRM than without a refund policy :)
Re: (Score:2)
You delete it. How is this any more problematic than, say, returning a half-eaten burger? Walking out of a movie 15 minutes into it? You could have actually liked the first 15 minutes that you just wanted to see that part. You do what is required customer service. If the product does not work, you do not charge for it. If the returns are too high, then you change the product. That is how it works for physical goods and most services. That's how it should wo
Re: (Score:2)
You upload it.
Duh.
I imagine there will be some sort of restocking fee though.
Re: (Score:2)
You can return it the same way I returned a downloaded copy of Norton Antivirus seve
Probably worthless anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, I've returned normal RAM and got ECC RAM instead, no questions asked.
Re: (Score:2)
slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is this about "iTunes"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: the answer isn't "because iTunes is the most popular store". When Microsoft was targeted for doing things like offering refunds for unused Windows licenses, Microsoft is mentioned explicitly because it is the only one engaged in that behavior.
So why is only "iTunes" mentioned in stories like these when in fact most (if not all - I haven't checked) also likely have similar practices?
Re: (Score:2)
iPod=PC-box
iPod firmware=Windows
iTunes Store music=shareware sold online that works on Windows only*
So when's the Norwegian ombudsman going to threaten shareware developers? And how about e-books? Online magazine subscriptions?
*Except you can't just burn a piece of shareware on a CD to make it work on Linux.
The answer (Score:3, Informative)
There are no Apple-only laws and no grand conspiracy against Apple. "because iTunes is the most popular store" actually is part of the explanation thou
then insist on return of the same exact bits (Score:2)
Unfair? (Score:2)
How does someone even go about returning downloaded music? Unless the seller starts tracking what music you're playing and whether it's legal I don't see how this could possibly work. As much as I want to see the music industry get hit I can't say
Re: (Score:2)
From experience I've found that it's much harder to return anything in Europe than it is in the US,
Which European countries have you been to? Here in the UK, the shops take back goods for virtually any reason, usually the only thing they ask for is a receipt. Infact we have statutory protection that forces retailers to refund me if they supply me with faulty goods. Further if my purchase is above £100 and I bought it with a credit card, I can sue the credit card company to get my money back.
Obvious? (Score:2)
The only one I can think of is that they don't want to have to give your money back when they realize their product is sub-standard.
It can't be the piracy thing, because why would you bother purchasing a copy and returning it to pirate music/software when you can just download it with the DRM already bypassed. It's interesting that they've gotten you to think that their bullshit lies about return policies are "obvious" though.
Because this isn't a perfect world (Score:2)
Saying that It can't be the piracy thing is ridiculous, because a lot of the morons wouldn't be able to figure out how to download files over P2P. And saying that returns are only because their product is sub-standard is equally foolish, as a lot of dishonest folks out there would be happy to buy a CD, rip
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
My karma's going to go to hell for this, but here's an interesting thought.
This "return" concept is entirely impossible without DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
They're either going to cause Apple to make the DRM more restrictive, or cause Apple to turn off the switch on iTMS Europe.
I guess in the long run, if they start this policy with all online music distributors, it could potentially help convince the labels that DRM is not a useful business model. Apple
DRM'd if you do, DRM'd if you don't? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, some compromise could probably negate most of the negative impacts, such as limiting the number of returns per year, and only giving in-store credit.
This will kill future non-DRM sales of music (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If so, they went the wrong way entirely. (Score:2)
The reworking to get it technically able to rescind keys has nothing to do with opening it up. In fact it could also be an argument against it, when taken with remarks Jobs has made, about the contracts requiring quick fixes for any exploits
Cooling Offer (Score:2)
A cooling offer sounds more like an M&A gone bad or a real estate deal that sits around too long.
Can't Be Done Without Copy Protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think this is kinda fair-ish. If you're going to pretend that digital files are scarce objects, then you have to accept all the responsibilities of selling scarce objects in a retail marketplace, and that means accepting returns.
If, however, they were to do away with copy protection entirely, thereby dropping the scarce object fiction, then they could provably make the argument to a technically unsophisticated crowd (politicians) that "returns" are impossible. Under such circumstances, I think we could let music vendors slide on returns.
So: If you sell with copy protection, you have to accept returns. If you sell without copy protection, then you don't have to accept returns. Seem fair? Fair-ish?
One side-effect of this might be that you couldn't return music CDs, since they can be freely copied.
Schwab
"May" (Score:5, Funny)
Or they "may" not. Let me know when this is actually a fact not just speculation.
Do you have to upload the song back? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Digital Wear & Tear (Score:2)
What's the issue? (Score:2, Interesting)
I just want to know... (Score:3, Funny)
-
Yes you might send a file back (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you return a non-DRM'd MP3 file. You can't just say "I don't like the song" likely to only reson you could return it is because it is corrupted or has some technical error. So you send it back a "proof" and they then sed yu the same track but non-defective. just like with an opened CD all they will do is give you the same CD title in exchange.
Re: (Score:2)