Have You Really Read Your ISP's TOS?

NewtonsLaw writes "XTRA, New Zealand's largest ISP is in the process of losing customers in droves after it announced its new Terms of Service which seek to claim rights over customers intellectual property (see the Slashdot discussion). Now, if that wasn't enough, Aardvark Daily reports that the ISP is also banning its users from saying bad things (anything 'detrimental to our reputation or to our brand') about it. I wonder how many slashdotters have actually read their own ISPs' terms of service in detail? Is this type of IP-grab and clampdown on free speech is unique to Xtra or is it slowly pervading the whole industry, right across the globe?" Read on for Xtra's amendments to the original IP-grab terms, though.

Reader THX1138 points out that "After the very recent story on Xtra (New Zealand's version of AOL) they changed the IP section to include 'Xtra does not claim ownership of any content or material you provide or make available through the Services. However...' at the start and 'in each case for the limited purposes for which you provided or made the Customer Materials available or to enable us and our suppliers to provide the Services.' at the end."

"clampdown on free speech"

[Tailhook]

Is this type of IP-grab and clampdown on free speech is unique to Xtra or is it slowly pervading the whole industry, right across the globe?

At what point did free speech become global?

Of course it is.

[zorgon]

This is the next big thing for corporations to do, is to attempt control the content that flows over "their" wires. Fortunately governments have failed to control encryption (intentionally? adjust aluminum hat if you think so, but maybe) so this might not be as ominous as it first appears. But if the courts cooperate (i.e. subpoena your key) then ... hilarity may ensue.

Criticising your ISP

[flokemon]

If they need a clause forbidding their users to criticise them, then it's A LOT of criticism they must be trying to cut down.

I hope it won't influence ISP's like BT, Freeserve or Wanadoo, who could probably want to end the bad reviews they get from their customers too. If their users are not allowed to say how shit they are, how will others find out that they should not sign for them?!

Other NZ ISPs

[Coryoth]

There are other good NZ ISPs, XTRA is simply the biggest because it is owned and run by the local phone company (who have, in the past instituted a few interesting changes to phone line use policy that made it very expensive for other ISPs).

Still, the good news is that everyone is leaving. A large company with some degree of market dominance will often do something nasty - but it just takes people actually doing something about it to make such practices much harder (Telecom eventually got burned on their new phone line policies a while ago).

Hooray for people actually standing up for themselves. GO the New Zealanders.

Jedidiah

Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Service?

[g00z]

Speaking of insane "agreements"....

The other day I purchased some domain space and dusted off my old domain name I had sitting around for about a year. When I went to change my DNS records via netsol, this is what I got:

"It's appears you haven't agreed to our new revised terms of service. You must do so before you proceed."

So, before agreeing to something I haven't even seen, I went and checked it out. HOLY JESUS -- The thing had to have been about 300 pages long. Besides being soaked in legal double talk, the thing was straight up unreadable in size. This is not service agreement, it's a freaking tome! Needless to say, while I tried to read it, it was all too much and I just agreed to it in the end. I mean, I just need to change a DNS record, not spend 2 days trying to digest the most uninteresting thing ever written. Besides, what if I saw something totally evil in there anyway? Chances are, I would have agreed. What am I going to do, let my domain name go to waste? I already payed for it. Shenanigans!

It's a sad state of affairs. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit on the length of a TOS agreement? It reminds me of the old cartoons where somebody would pull out some insane contract with a library of congress's worth of text on the bottom that could only be read with a microscope.

Re:Other NZ ISPs

[rf0]

There isn't anything like public opinion to give companies a wake up call. When it starts hitting their bottom line they will wake up and notice

Rus

Re:"clampdown on free speech"

[PhilHibbs]

At what point did free speech become global?

Just because the USA has free speech in it's constitution, doesn't mean that they have a patent on it. Of course there's no global right to free speech, but does that mean we should just shut up when it's threatened? I don't think this is a free speech issue really, though.

I'll tell you right now...

[discore]

They sure don't. Let's forget about shadey TOS policies like the ones above and talk basic, basic things, like service contracts.

I have the (mis)fortune of doing tech support for a rather well known, privately owned ISP. It's a cool place, our TOS is totally reasonable and includes thorough mentioning of a 1 year service contract. But why is it 90% of the time I bring up the $300 early-contract-termination fee when someone is cancelling for whatever reason inside of their contract, they start to freak out? I'll tell you why, they didn't read the TOS. They just checked the checkbox without thinking twice.

Since Sales always tells this to people making phone orders, the vast (99%) majority of these people signed up all online, and never even bothered to look. I sure as hell read my ISP's TOS before I even get one step into the ordering process. I must not be a normal person.

In conclusion, I can promise you that 70-80% of our users have never read the TOS. I wouldn't be suprised if 40-50% didn't know what TOS meant.

Re:"clampdown on free speech"

[Jack Zombie]

Who ever mentioned the USA? I'm guessing he must be talking about Canada, because, honestly, with all this terrorist paranoia going on, I don't believe anyone nowadays can say with a straight face that free speech (the right to say something you might not like) currently exists in the USSA.

Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi

[fishbowl]

"By clicking you agree, you're voting with your dollars, and that's all that matters to these companies."

People will sign contracts without reading them because it is highly inconvenient to do otherwise. I regard that as their right, but I also think it's important that they suffer the full consequences if it backfires on them. God help you if I'm on a civil jury where you're a defendant that signed a contract without reading it. People don't read real world paper contracts that bestow financial obligations, what makes you think they read things like the software licenses or the back of the utility bill? They (reasonably) assume that there are no dire consequences awaiting them, so they choose to take the risk.

Now, I do usually ask people that are getting married if they can briefly outline an understanding of the State marriage license. So far, not one has actually read it before signing....

Re:This could be a liability

[Zemran]

They are in NZ !!! *AA do not apply.

Re:dull

[Hellkitten]

Clearly signing away rights to IP is equally incompatible with our way of life.

Actually signing away rights to IP is essential to our way of life, e.g If you go to work for someone anything you create as part of your job be it physical property or IP belongs to the company. How would you get anyone to employ you if you didn't agree to that?

Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi

[Jason1729]

I agree with you, and I do read the contracts. When I was applying to access my bank account online, I was supposed to sign a form saying I'd read and agreed to the terms of service on a separate document. When I asked to see that document, the customer service person looked at me like I was nuts. It took her 10 minutes to find a copy and then I sat there and read the 5 page document. There was a clause that said they are not responsible if someone steals from my account even if it's their own employee acting through their negligence. Basically it gives them the right to take my money any time they want. Of course I refused to sign the agreement and from the reactions of the people there that was the first time it had happened.

I was taking an IT law course at the time, so I took a copy of the contract to school and showed it to the lawyer teaching the course. He said if it went to court, a judge would probably throw the clause out, but it would cost so much to fight it, I'd still lose.

I wonder how many people have signed their life's savings over to their bank like that without even knowing it. Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

Misconceptions of freedom of speech

[Jesus IS the Devil]

The article and the comments by many that have posted shows how ignorant Joe public really is. People keep on referring to this "right to free speech" as though it applies everywhere in all areas. Well sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not so.

The right to free speech does not extend to private property. This is why if I'm inside your house and make a nasty comment about you, you are free to kick me out. The same goes for ISPs. You are subscribing to their service within their private property. If they choose to enforce their TOS a certain way, and you agree to it, then you have no case for this assertion of freedom of speech.

heh?

[lingqi]

I can't imagine that's something you can do because allowing bad things to happen is just kind of dumb.

I mean I understand their point - that a benevolent hacking dude will hack the system, gleefully take the 6 monthes of free use, and tell them their security hole.

But in reality, what people in their right mind would do that? I mean, assuming: The hacker was benevolent and wanted the 6 monthes. If you hacked the system - you have unlimited, forever usage of the system, hence the word "0wnz," I believe?

If you are hacking with malevolent intentions, even less will there be a chance of you telling them what happened - and you will just, again, keep making use of the system to send out spam or look through your ex-gf's email or something.

The only thing that I can imagine is bragging rights - but really who would you brag to? the trade off is "bragging rights to your friends + unlimited free use, forever (or, for a long ass time)" vs "bragging rights to your friends and your ISP + 6 monthes free use + ISP will probably forever look at you with extra caution." I really don't think the latter is worth it.

By doing this you are (I think) voiding your rights of prosecution. It's like saying to people "Yeah if you can jack my lambo with its whiz-bang security system and I'll let you drive it around for half a day if you tell me how you jacked it." Are you nuts? If I go through the pains of jacking the car, you bet your butt you ain't getting it back. (The analogy works better if you imagine that the car-thief was only taking the car out at nights to pick up chicks or something - why would you give up that privledge for a chance to drive it for 6 hours during the day?)

Re:Of course it is.

[TheLink]

1) That's not dumb. It's sad - it shows how many people are lame enough for there to require a rule like this.

The rule allows an ISP to _quickly_ take action. Generalized rules could work ("be nice"), but the process won't be as streamlined or quick.

2) The job of floodbots and other technical controls are to help enforce the rules (whether written or unwritten), not the other way round. Without the rules, people could _acceptably_ make a game of getting around bots and other controls.

And before the American claim free speach they...

[boogy nightmare]

might want to consider..

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

hmmmmmmm

cuba springs to mind here.

dont fight for one right above all only to turn around and find you have lost everything else.

A

Re:dull

[Anonymous Coward]

If nobody agreed to those terms, who would be left to hire?

A person is always at a disadvantage to a corporation, because the corporation

• always has more money
• is undying, meaning they will last forever if managed correctly (not correctly, more like not-dumbly)

Corporations are what're ending self-reliance. Your power, water, phone, internet, TV, cell phone, insurance, health care, and loans all come from big companys that have established methods of dealing with little folk: do everything you can get away with.

This has proved extremely effective, and cost effective as well. By screwing everyone at every turn, the corporation has one policy to maintain, instead of millions of little ones--they save money that way. It's also established the mindset that ``that's the way companies all work.'' The average person doesn't have the money to fight a corporation, because they can't hire the lawyers. Corporations ran all their shit through lawyers before they ever started, and although their policies are shitty, they're normally legal. I say normally, because if they happen to not be legal, there's not too much a person can do to fight them, even then, because lawyers are expensive. A company has to fuck over a lot of people before lawyers to do a class-action become viable.

In short, corporations suck, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Re:It's what lawyers do....

[Sycraft-fu]

The objection with normal software liscences that are like this is that there is no negoation. They sell you software, without disclosing any sort of agreement a priori, and tehn expect you to accept it, without any sort of legal negoation or signing taking place. This would be akin to buying a TV, opening the box, and finding a document that prohibited you from doing all sorts of things such as watching certian channels.

So it would seem they have legality problems in several areas:

1) There is no room for negotiation. You buy something and are then told you must agree to certian terms, even though you already bought it. Real contracts have to be negotiated beforehand. This would be like renting an apartment, and only being informed of the lease terms AFTER already paying for it.

2) There is no actual signature. Real contracts HAVE to be signed, and they have to be signed by an adult. There is no singature with a softwre click-thru liscence, and it can be clicked by a minor, who may not legally enter into a binding contract. Thus, it is hard to call a real contract.

3) It's a huge legal contract for a small-ticket item. I mean the average EULA is about 3x as long as my lease agreement. There is something really wrong with that. How can it be that a $40-$50 consumer item, that is no different on a fundimental level than a toaster or the like that we buy every day with no contract at all, require more legalese than renting a dwelling costing near $1000 each month? It seems absurd that a person would be required to reand, understand and agree to a multi page document for a trivial good. Imagine if ALL good tried to do that.

This is all an aisde to the main sotry, really, since that is about services, which have really different rules than goods. A terms of service agreement isn't really a contract, it's a mandidate. You are telling your customers that if they want to use your service, this is how it is going to be. If they don't like it, they are free to not use your service.

legaliity of this tos

[tt1513]

this may be a little off topic, but in the tos of an isp called access toledo it clearly states:

Usage Policy . Unlimited dial-up access means an on-demand connection to the Internet in temporary intervals not to exceed 360 hours per month. Maintaining a continuous connection by artificial means while away from your computer is strictly prohibited. Access Toledo reserves the right to terminate a connection lasting more than 10 continuous hours. Spending more than 360 hours online per month (that's an average of 12 hours every day of the month), may require an alteration in your social schedule to allow more time for you to do things away from your computer and with your family and/or non-virtual friends.

I'm signing away what i do in my spare time to my isp.

IMPT: Slashdot owns your intellectual property!!

[fixion]

See http://www.osdn.com/terms.shtml [osdn.com], the TOS for OSDN, the parent company that hosts Slashdot:

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("OSDN Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such OSDN Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by OSDN. In each such case, the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

Sigh. This issues comes up every few months when someone actually reads the TOS. The OSDN language above is nearly identical to that of the New Zealand ISP as well as every TOS in existence.

It's standard legal language to protect the service provider from idiots who want to sue them because "you, my ISP, made copies of my copyrighted web page available to everyone via the Internet!!!"

Duh. That's what a service provider is supposed to do, but they have to include the kind of legal disclaimer above to protect themselves from litigious idiots.

Re:"clampdown on free speech"

[millard]

>So thanks again for the export of freedom (and patronising self-righteousness) to the world.

From your post it sure seems that America doesn't have a monopoly on "patronising self-righteousness". I'm not a US citizen (in fact I have dual citizenship in two European countries) but I'm getting a little tired of the holier-than-thou attitude of many Europeans.

I noticed you mentioned Canada, Australia and New Zealand. You neglected to mention such bulwarks of freedom as Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania (all part of British East Africa), Nigeria, etc. I don't think Britains can afford to be on a high horse about spreading democracy around the world.

Human nature doesn't respect many national and even cultural boundaries. Even "democracies" (which I'll define here as nation-states with relatively free and meaningful elections) can do and have done evil things. No nationality is without sin and I don't think self-righteously casting stones is the answer.

I don't mean to say that we shouldn't point out, protest, fight against the injustices, infringements upon human rights, etc. What I am saying is that it seems pointless to make "us good - you bad" statements. They're not likely to get through to anyone...

Millard

P.S.: I include the "the US is the beacon bringing enlightenment to a dark world" sort of attitude in the above...

Re:For those that need it spelled out...

[bnenning]

Don't believe me? Ask the Dixie Chicks

I must have missed the part where they were arrested for expressing their views.

Re:AOL has a new TOS for you....

[Tackhead]

> For those who are interested in details, here's the almost useless blurb I get when telneting to port 25 on any random AOL MX host:

Considering that 75% of my email every day is spam, and considering that about 90% of that spam is from clueless fucking idiots on DSL or cable modems who can't secure their fucking proxies (or who are deliberately leaving them open for $10/month from some fucking spambag), tough tittie.

Don't like being lumped in with those fuckwits? Take it up with your ISP. Because it's your ISP's unwillingness to deal with aforementioend fuckwits that's resulted in the unfortunate situation you describe.

I block 200.0.0.0/6 (200, 201, 202, 203) - LACNIC and a chunk of China - at the router. I also tag all inbound SMTP from 4.0.0.0/8, 12.0.0.0/8 and 24.0.0.0/8 as spam. To date, only one false positive from a company that had the misfortune to reside in AT&T netspace.

Collateral damage sux0rz, but face it. 99% of residential broadband users have no intention of ever running their own MTA. The right thing is to have residential broadband port 25 blocked by default. Just like it is on dialups.

For the 1% of residential broadband users that do wanna run a mail server, that's cool, but you should have to send email to your ISPs "oh shit we just realized the rest of the world is fed up with our bullshit and is blocking all of our customers in self-defense" desk, asking for the block to be removed .

The longer your ISP takes to set that up, the more MXs are going to tell you (and anyone who looks like you) to 550-GFY.

Re:"clampdown on free speech"

[rhizome]

Well, if I see you burning a flag next to my town hall, I will exercise my right to free speach by beating you to a bloody pulp.

Once you're threatening assault you're beyond free-speech issues, Mr. Redneck.

If you feel that this country sucks so much that you are going to dishonor all of its citizens and their ancestors who laid down their lives for this country, then get the fuck out.

Nice. "You're either with us or you're against us" is a rallying cry of the lowest sort. Laws have already been passed to reduce the number of freedoms US citizens have during these warlike times. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that the US would not have the freedoms it does without military action, but in the current environment it is the military action that is causing the number of American freedoms to shrink. Perhaps it's worth considering that the US actually has the freedoms it does *in spite* of what our soldiers have done.

Aardvark Sponsor

[jesterzog]

It's probably worth pointing out that Aardvark Daily [aardvark.co.nz], the "news and commentary site" being linked to by slashdot, is sponsored by Ihug [ihug.co.nz] -- a rival ISP here in New Zealand. It's hardly an independant media source.