Quote:
Originally Posted by haridasi
Actually, having strong (take the word strong with some salt) consumer rights means increased contact between buyer and seller. If something isn't working - don't you want the seller to improve his products and support? That's exactly what happens when consumer rights are strong, and it's working.
The Norwegian Consumer Council recently went against ITunes and won because of it's illegal use of DRM . Effect: ITunes have started providing DRM free music and can't make it so that only ipods can play the music purchased. Do you consider that to be a bad thing? Or that it alienates buyer and seller?
You can read about it here:
The Norwegian Consumer Council
If a company considers consumer rights as a bad thing well, then that is what I would consider to be a insincere company that I wouldn't like to purchase goods from anyway. |
No ... but, I started another thread about this topic, because I am really curious about how it is enforced. Now, iPods have never been (in this country anyway) such that they would only play music that was purchased. Every iPod I have owned will play any mp3 that I care to stick on it. Period. So, I don't see that any suit by Norway has impacted on my ability to use my iPod as I wish ... I've always been able to do that.
But, I would be curious as to how you would deal with a Norwegian consumer who purchases a product while on vacation ... say in France. And, that product is manufactured in Mexico. Now ... the manufacturer's warranty according to the packaging is one year. OK?? Now .... the Norwegian consumer has problems with his product in year three. So, even though the product was not sold in Norway, and not manufactured in Norway ... you are telling me that the Country of Norway will sue the Mexican manufacturer to enforce a five year warranty??
Well, that's one hell of a country you've got there if that's the case, but your government must spend an awful lot of time in litigation with foreign manufacturers over warranty and other contractual issues.