Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06OSLO1199
2006-09-28 12:15:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Oslo
Cable title:  

NORWAY, DRM DEMARCHE AND APPLE: OMBUDSMAN CHANGES

Tags:  ECON ETRD EIND EINV NO KIPR 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0003
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNY #1199/01 2711215
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 281215Z SEP 06
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4668
INFO RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 0213
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 0732
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 0560
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 0132
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS PRIORITY 6517
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 2136
RUEHDL/AMEMBASSY DUBLIN PRIORITY 0200
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1379
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID PRIORITY 1749
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 0929
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 0775
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 2932
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1576
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW PRIORITY 1336
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 001199 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/NB DALLAND; EB/TPP/IPE FOR BSOILA; DOC FOR
4212 MAC/EUR/OEURA; JUSTICE FOR JOHN ZACHARIA; STATE PLEASE
PASS TO USTR FOR JASON BUNTIN AND TANUJA GARDE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/27/2016
TAGS: ECON ETRD EIND EINV NO KIPR
SUBJECT: NORWAY, DRM DEMARCHE AND APPLE: OMBUDSMAN CHANGES
HIS ITUNE?

REF: A. STATE 160668


B. OSLO 811

Classified By: DCM Kevin M. Johnson, Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 001199

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/NB DALLAND; EB/TPP/IPE FOR BSOILA; DOC FOR
4212 MAC/EUR/OEURA; JUSTICE FOR JOHN ZACHARIA; STATE PLEASE
PASS TO USTR FOR JASON BUNTIN AND TANUJA GARDE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/27/2016
TAGS: ECON ETRD EIND EINV NO KIPR
SUBJECT: NORWAY, DRM DEMARCHE AND APPLE: OMBUDSMAN CHANGES
HIS ITUNE?

REF: A. STATE 160668


B. OSLO 811

Classified By: DCM Kevin M. Johnson, Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary. Norway is not planning any overhaul of its
existing intellectual property rights (IPR) regulations.
Government officials specializing in IPR matters emphasize
the continued need to protect rights holders protections
(which they believe are fairly represented under the current
Norwegian statutory framework). Despite such assurances,
Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Thon has continued to challenge
Apple's iTunes Music Store (iTunes) in Norway, questioning
iTunes' consumer practices in a June, 2006 enforcement letter
(Ref B). Concerned that Thon's decision would, among other
things, adversely affect its Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technologies, iTunes responded to the Ombudsman in August.
The parties are now in discussions, with an Apple source
indicating that the goal is to reach a "middle ground."

French DRM Legislation not viewed as a Model
-------------- --------------


2. (C) On September 27 we delivered Reftel A points to Lars
Vaagen, Assistant Director General in the MFA's WTO and
OECD Section. Emphasizing that Norway firmly values the
importance of developing knowledge-based technologies and
ensuring relevant rights holders' protections, Vaagen noted
that "many people" in the Norwegian government would find the
reftel points of interest. In a separate September 25
meeting, Herman Bengt, Deputy Director General in the
Ministry of Church and Culture (the relevant Norwegian
authority overseeing copyright matters) confirmed that no
amendments to Norway's current IPR laws will be considered
until 2009. Bengt (an IPR expert in the Ministry's
Department of Media Policy and Copyright) has heard
"absolutely no word" that Norway seeks to adopt DRM

legislation modeled upon the French law.

Is the Apple Poisoned?
--------------


3. (C) On September 25, Ombudsman Thon met with iTunes' U.S.
leadership, its European representative and Espen Tondel (the
company's local legal counsel). Media reports (and the
Norwegian Ombudsman's press release) cite several positive
statements from Thon (including that a "good and constructive
dialogue" occurred, with "important movements in the case").
Thon's press release states that the parties have agreed to a
continued dialogue, given that more time was needed "to work
further and evaluate the different proposals for technical
and legal solutions." A letter from the Ombudsman, summing
up the current situation, is slated to be delivered to iTunes
in October.


4. (C) Speaking to us confidentially about the iTunes
meeting with Ombudsman Thon, Tondel said that the meeting's
results were "hard to say." iTunes representatives made it
clear to Thon that, if necessary, iTunes would withdraw from
the Norwegian market. Calling the negotiations a matter of
tactics, Tondel believes that some resolution would likely
take place in a couple of months. He suggests that the
Ombudsman is embracing a more conciliatory tone in the
negotiations, yet must ultimately reach a decision which
would allow him to save face.


5. (C) He emphasized that Apple is not currently looking
for direct U.S. governmental support (previously discussed in
Reftel B). If the matter goes in the wrong direction, he
concludes that iTunes may reach out for our assistance.
Tondel characterizes Apple's corporate policy as
"tight-lipped," with the company making a strategic decision

to maintain minimal media exposure on this issue.

Comment: Not Upsetting the Apple Cart
--------------


6. (C) Comment. Norway does not plan to amend its current
IPR laws, let alone adopt laws similar to the controversial
French copyright legislation. If any changes are planned to
Norway's IPR legislation (and government officials have given
no indication that any such amendments would be made),new
laws will not be in place until 2009, when the current IPR
legislation terminates. Ministry of Church and Culture
officials repeatedly emphasize the need to protect rights
holders via Norway's IPR legislation.


7. (C) Comment Continued. Ombudsman Thon's challenge of
iTunes is based solely upon his consumer powers (given that
his agency is not responsible for IPR legislation/oversight).
Thon underwent a remarkable public transformation, now
noting his willingness to cooperate with iTunes. One of his
well-documented statements (issued prior to his September
meeting with iTunes representatives) was that he was "likely
to rule against Apple, but it is fair to hear their point of
view." The current conciliatory public statements (echoed by
iTunes' local counsel's observations) indicate a surprisingly
new desire to negotiate. We wonder whether Apple's threat
during recent closed-door negotiation sessions to withdraw
from the Norwegian market influenced this dramatic change.
Stay tuned.
WHITNEY