Difference between revisions of "Grøndal (2006)"
(Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Abstract=In every day life consumers are frequently accepting standardised contractual and technological terms that they have little or no understanding of. Some of these terms are generally unfair and do not stand up to legal scrutiny. In this article iTunes Music Store’s Terms of Service is used as an example of a standard contract containing unfair terms. | |Abstract=In every day life consumers are frequently accepting standardised contractual and technological terms that they have little or no understanding of. Some of these terms are generally unfair and do not stand up to legal scrutiny. In this article iTunes Music Store’s Terms of Service is used as an example of a standard contract containing unfair terms. | ||
|Link=http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=177 | |Link=http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=177 | ||
− | |Reference=Intertrek (2005); Kutterer (2005); Vigmostad (2005); | + | |Reference=Intertrek (2005);Kutterer (2005);Vigmostad (2005); |
− | |Plain Text Proposition=The study analyses three terms in the iTunes Terms of Service which are considered particularly relevant to DRM: | + | |Plain Text Proposition=The study analyses three terms in the iTunes Terms of Service which are considered particularly relevant to DRM:• Firstly, the unilateral right to change terms and conditions. In 2005, updates to the terms resulted in users having stricter limits on streaming and burning music (in particular being prevented from streaming music over the internet). This change was unilateral on Apple’s part, and sole responsibility to check and comply with the changes fell on the user (under penalty of termination of account).• Secondly, limitations of liability. Even in the case of security flaws in the software, Apple assumes no liability for any security intrusion (albeit this may be limited by the Unfair Terms Directive).• Lastly, interoperability restrictions. Through Apples “Fairplay” system, compatibility is only possible with Apple hardware devices, resulting in anticompetitive hardware tie-in. From a Norwegian perspective, the author notes how these limitations could be circumvented simply by burning a playlist to a CD. |
− | + | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare | |
− | • Firstly, the unilateral right to change terms and conditions. In 2005, updates to the terms resulted in users having stricter limits on streaming and burning music (in particular being prevented from streaming music over the internet). This change was unilateral on Apple’s part, and sole responsibility to check and comply with the changes fell on the user (under penalty of termination of account). | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right),D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) |
− | |||
− | • Secondly, limitations of liability. Even in the case of security flaws in the software, Apple assumes no liability for any security intrusion (albeit this may be limited by the Unfair Terms Directive). | ||
− | |||
− | • Lastly, interoperability restrictions. Through Apples “Fairplay” system, compatibility is only possible with Apple hardware devices, resulting in anticompetitive hardware tie-in. From a Norwegian perspective, the author notes how these limitations could be circumvented simply by burning a playlist to a CD. | ||
− | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare | ||
− | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right), D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) | ||
|Discipline=O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes | |Discipline=O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes | ||
− | |Intervention-Response=The author concludes that, whilst it is possible to challenge unfair DRMs under current legislation, this is hampered by two factors: | + | |Intervention-Response=The author concludes that, whilst it is possible to challenge unfair DRMs under current legislation, this is hampered by two factors:• Policymakers do not take into account the unique features of digital goods, and;• Business focussed policy has resulted in the absence of consumer considerations.The aim of the study is to contribute to a campaign for consumers’ digital rights, in tandem with promoting a better legal framework for consumers. |
− | |||
− | • Policymakers do not take into account the unique features of digital goods, and; | ||
− | |||
− | • Business focussed policy has resulted in the absence of consumer considerations. | ||
− | |||
− | The aim of the study is to contribute to a campaign for consumers’ digital rights, in tandem with promoting a better legal framework for consumers. | ||
|Description of Data=The study comprises of an analysis of the iTunes Terms of Service in relation to community and national law, and terms which pertain to DRM limitations. | |Description of Data=The study comprises of an analysis of the iTunes Terms of Service in relation to community and national law, and terms which pertain to DRM limitations. | ||
|Data Type=Primary data | |Data Type=Primary data | ||
Line 31: | Line 19: | ||
|Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods, Textual Content Analysis, Legal Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods, Textual Content Analysis, Legal Analysis | ||
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing; | |Industry=Sound recording and music publishing; | ||
− | |Country= | + | |Country=Norway;EU |
|Cross-country=Yes | |Cross-country=Yes | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
Line 37: | Line 25: | ||
|Literature review=No | |Literature review=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 09:16, 20 April 2020
Contents
Source Details
Grøndal (2006) | |
Title: | DRM and Contract Terms |
Author(s): | Lars Grøndal |
Year: | 2006 |
Citation: | Grøndal, L. (2006) DRM and contract terms. Available at http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=177 (last accessed 19/01/2018) |
Link(s): | , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | The study comprises of an analysis of the iTunes Terms of Service in relation to community and national law, and terms which pertain to DRM limitations. |
Data Type: | Primary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | Yes |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: | |
Funder(s): |
Abstract
In every day life consumers are frequently accepting standardised contractual and technological terms that they have little or no understanding of. Some of these terms are generally unfair and do not stand up to legal scrutiny. In this article iTunes Music Store’s Terms of Service is used as an example of a standard contract containing unfair terms.
Main Results of the Study
The study analyses three terms in the iTunes Terms of Service which are considered particularly relevant to DRM:• Firstly, the unilateral right to change terms and conditions. In 2005, updates to the terms resulted in users having stricter limits on streaming and burning music (in particular being prevented from streaming music over the internet). This change was unilateral on Apple’s part, and sole responsibility to check and comply with the changes fell on the user (under penalty of termination of account).• Secondly, limitations of liability. Even in the case of security flaws in the software, Apple assumes no liability for any security intrusion (albeit this may be limited by the Unfair Terms Directive).• Lastly, interoperability restrictions. Through Apples “Fairplay” system, compatibility is only possible with Apple hardware devices, resulting in anticompetitive hardware tie-in. From a Norwegian perspective, the author notes how these limitations could be circumvented simply by burning a playlist to a CD.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The author concludes that, whilst it is possible to challenge unfair DRMs under current legislation, this is hampered by two factors:• Policymakers do not take into account the unique features of digital goods, and;• Business focussed policy has resulted in the absence of consumer considerations.The aim of the study is to contribute to a campaign for consumers’ digital rights, in tandem with promoting a better legal framework for consumers.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
{{{Dataset}}}