Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

NZ's Largest ISP Owns Your Work 95

Posted by Hemos from the stupid-TOS-tricks dept.
NZKiwi writes "New Zealand's Largest ISP has quietly introduced a new clause into their TOS; basically if it goes through their servers, they own it, and can exploit it as they see fit. Have a look at their TOS, it's under section 4 "Our Use of Your Intellectual Property" I think it's time I shopped for a new ISP."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NZ's Largest ISP Owns Your Work More

NZ's Largest ISP Owns Your Work

Comments Filter:

  • This Slashdot story... (Score:4, Funny)

    by drdink ( 77 ) <smkelly+slashdot@zombie.org> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @10:50PM (#5676371) Homepage
    is owned and brought to you by Xtra! Redistribution is prohibited.
  • WTF!!!!! I cannot believe they think that that clause is in any way shape or form is ok. Maybe I'm overreacting, but, oh wait I'm not.

    • WTF!!!!! I cannot believe they think that that clause is in any way shape or form is ok. Maybe I'm overreacting, but, oh wait I'm not.

      Perhaps you are. Per a quick, simple e-mail conversation I had with their helpdesk and legal department, you might want to reload their TOS [xtra.co.nz] and see what I thought in the first place; they're protecting themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

      I'm certain you'll find similar clauses in many (most?) other large ISPs in and out of North America.

      Xtra was merely a victim of

      • they're protecting themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

        Of course they just trying to protect themselves. But against what exactly? It makes it very clear that they can do what they want with any data that passes through their systems. I don't care about their intentions or if they're trying to avoid lawsuits.
        If it is poor wording. It's very, very poor at it should have been fixed by now. And they should notify their customers about these things.

        • Of course they just trying to protect themselves. But against what exactly?

          Lawsuits? Patent/Copyright infringement claims?

          If it is poor wording. It's very, very poor at it should have been fixed by now.

          Re-read my post and refresh the page. They have updated it.

          And they should notify their customers about these things.

          Sure, while you're at it, could you ask Bell Canada, Rogers AT&T, Telus Mobility, GM Canada, IBM, Microsoft et al. to implement the same practises? Thanks.

    • Have you not noticed the "Powered by MSN" logo on the site?

      Enough said.

  • and in related news, several us corporations declare open war on NZ, in an attempt to trump Xtra's 'all your work are belong to us' scheme. no really folks, how come no one in their legal department saw this as illegal(internet provider would be international, so only international trade laws would be used, thus pissing off US Comp.) oh well, I use covad.net and love them. Maybe they should expand?
    • I wonder if Microsoft has any programmers in New Zealand that have ever written source code and transferred it over Xtra's lines.

      If so, can I buy Windows licenses from the *other* Windows copyright holder? :-)

      (Probably not -- I'd bet that MS has a strict code-does-not-leave-company policy.)
      • I would have thought they'd let people work from home, but insist that any sensitive data is always encrypted before sending anywhere. That way, the ISP can look at the data if they want, but it could take them a while to break 2048-bit RSA or something like that.
    • > ...this as illegal(internet provider would be
      > international, so only international trade laws
      > would be used...

      This is utter nonsense.

  • Universities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smoondog ( 85133 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:00PM (#5676433)
    I suggest someone send this to the attention of some universities with researchers who use that ISP. They will not be happy with changes to agreements that violate agreements their employees already have with them.

    -Sean
  • Is any of that enforceable? If it came to a law suit, what courts would uphold this clause? Honestly, I don't know the answer. But surely at least one lawyer in Xtra knows that this is an abusive clause. Whatever happened to "...the above in no way effects your statutory rights..."?

    Astounding stuff...

    Éibhear

  • What is "our systems"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drdink ( 77 ) <smkelly+slashdot@zombie.org> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:06PM (#5676460) Homepage
    The thing says that they own things you post, save, upload to, and communicate on their systems. It isn't clear to me whether this includes things that pass through their routers and go onto the Internet. It isn't staying on their system in that scenario. Do any lawyers and armchair analysists have any thoughts on this?

    • Re:What is "our systems"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:14PM (#5676493)
      Systems (including posting messages, uploading files, importing data or engaging in any other form of communication)

      I would say that last part makes it very clear.

      To XTRA customers you have until May 4 2003 before these new terms affect you. Contact you lawyer, or unsubscribe now.
    • This was my first reaction too, perhaps they merely need to clarify, or re-word the TOS. It is quite possible this is a misunderstanding, and they may have had no intention of it being interpreted this way.

      Maybe someone should try asking them?
        • It is quite possible this is a misunderstanding, and they may have had no intention of it being interpreted this way.

        Yeah. Today perhaps. But tommorrow or next year... Maybe it wasn't a misunderstanding at all? All of a sudden maybe it was intended. They just needed the TOS to sleep a little while, while people got used to more BS.

        Never trust corporate bastards. That'll keep you safer.

  • whoa (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:07PM (#5676463)
    I read the Terms expecting to see a typical poorly written terms of service with wording that could be interpreted to mean that the ISP owns your work. Instead I find the unambiguous:

    you grant to Xtra a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide licence


    That is some very scary stuff.

    • Re:whoa (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:26PM (#5676538) Homepage
      Not only do they own the work but:

      You expressly waive in favour of Xtra and any other party authorised by Xtra all moral rights and any similar rights in any jurisdiction which you may have or may later acquire in respect of any relevant Materials.

      Which seems to say, that you don't own your own work anymore either.

      I hoped that this is a late April fool; but it was updated 4th April.

      This is really quite remarkable.

      • As far as I can tell Moral Rights do not grant ownership. From Article 6 of the Berne Convention:

        "Independently of the author's copyright, and even after the transfer of the said copyright, the author shall have the right, during his lifetime, to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other alteration thereof, or any other action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."

        Which seems to me to be a "right of refusal" to preven
        • Yes, but the other clauses claim the right to edit the work and distribute it (over and above the copyright).

          I don't know. It all looks very messy. My suspicion is that most of this doesn't have a hope of standing up in court.

          And it could even backfire, for example if I were to post some libellous material up on their website. Suddenly they own it, and they're the ones publishing it. They could well be the subject of legal action against them. They could cancel my account, but they would still have been

          • And it could even backfire

            I don't believe so -- from a "they're the ones publishing it" standpoint, they have the same responsibility that they would serving files that they didn't write. Also, having a license to or even owning copyright to (assuming you can legitimately copyright libelous material -- not sure about that) certainly isn't illegal.

  • Highway robbery at its finest. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:07PM (#5676465) Journal
    Consider this example: Some wacky hillbilly suddenly decides that, if you use the road that happens to pass through one of his plots of land, you, your wife, your car, and all your belongings are suddenly his to do as he sees fit, and thus proceeds to rob you blind. Why should this be any more legal than what these people are claiming?
    If something is mine, regardless of what the fuck I choose to do with it, then you have no right to claim it for your own perverted uses.
    Of course this clause is ridiculous and would never stand up in any decent court, but the problem is that if you tell a lie one too many times people, yourself included, will begin to see it as the truth. We cannot sit idly by while things like these are happening all over the place. It's not the first time this happens and if we keep sitting on our collective arse, like we're all so fond of doing, then 1984 will arrive a bit late instead of never.
    Personally, there's not much I can do against an ISP on the other side of the world, but I will sure talk to all my friends in NZ to warn them about this and will be advising them to send letters of protest. The snail-mail kind, which is usually taken a bit more seriously.
    • and all your belongings are suddenly his to do as he sees fit, and thus proceeds to rob you blind. Why should this be any more legal than what these people are claiming?
      That example doesn't work because you don't have to use the ISP. Its not a requirement that you use them, you can just stay off line, or find another ISP. Nothing is forcing you to use them, and it would hold up in court, they can put most anything in their agreements (as long as it doesn't break certain laws), but all you have to do is ju
      • Under international law you own the copyright of anything you write. I don't think that their terms and conditions are likely to stand up in court; unless they can show that you understood the agreement you were signing would remove all your rights.

        If you didn't understand it, then it is likely that no contract exists, in which case they do not have a leg to stand on. Still, IANAL.

    • Consider this example: Some wacky hillbilly suddenly decides that, if you use the road that happens to pass through one of his plots of land, you, your wife, your car, and all your belongings are suddenly his to do as he sees fit, and thus proceeds to rob you blind.

      If you're going to secretly quote Simpsons, you'll have to do better than that. Of course, the episode you're refering to (you were quoting Simpsons, right - this is /.) is the one where a cult leader tries to escape with the loot in a 'ufo' t
  • By placing any content, software or anything else ("Materials") on our Websites or Systems (including posting messages, uploading files, importing data or engaging in any other form of communication), you grant to Xtra a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide licence to do the following in respect of the Materials:

    * use, copy, sublicence, redistribute, adapt, transmit, publish, delete, edit and/or broadcast, publicly perform or display, and

    * sublicence to any third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the rights granted.

    The above rights you grant to us includes the right to exploit all proprietary rights in any of the Materials including, but not limited to, rights under copyright, trade mark, service mark or patent laws under any jurisdiction worldwide. You expressly waive in favour of Xtra and any other party authorised by Xtra all moral rights and any similar rights in any jurisdiction which you may have or may later acquire in respect of any relevant Materials.

  • exploit (Score:4, Funny)

    by Stinson ( 564450 ) <cancerouspete@cox.nDEGASet minus painter> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:31PM (#5676557) Homepage Journal
    my favorite part i think of the entire thing is the statement, "The above rights you grant to us includes the right to exploit all proprietary rights in any of the Materials"

    Don't you just love the fact that they openly used "exploit"?

    • Re:exploit (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:10AM (#5676721) Homepage
      Connotation is such a funny thing. In this context, "use" and "exploit" would mean basically the same thing, yet they chose to use the word that conjures sensations of being ripped off. Maybe that sort of thinking is just inherent to lawyers.
      • > Connotation is such a funny thing. In this
        > context, "use" and "exploit" would mean
        > basically the same thing...

        They do not mean exactly the same thing. In this context the difference is important.

        > Maybe that sort of thinking is just inherent to
        > lawyers.

        Precise use of language is inherent to lawyers. You might want to look up the meaning of "exploit". It isn't necessarily a dirty word.

  • Won't work but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cornice ( 9801 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:36PM (#5676585)
    For the personal data I would encrypt it all. The ISP can waste all the money they want to decrypt it.

    For everything else this won't work anyway since most of what travels across their lines is not owned by the people accepting the contracts. Most ISP traffic is of the download variety. This means that all those pages, gifs, jpegs, movies, songs, etc are not available to these customers to give. In most countries you can't give or sell what you don't already own.

    This seems like a wildly stupid CYA type of move. It seems that claiming ownership to whatever travels your lines could get you in big trouble. Who wants to lay claim to illegal content? It seems safer to claim no responsibility.
    • This seems like a wildly stupid CYA type of move. It seems that claiming ownership to whatever travels your lines could get you in big trouble. Who wants to lay claim to illegal content? It seems safer to claim no responsibility.

      Yes. It looks to me like they are assuming ownership, and publishing, whatever their customers place on their website. That has to open them up to libel issues.

      Sure, it's a violation of their Terms and Conditions; and they can terminate my contract, but I don't see anywhere that

    • Re:Won't work but... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jafuser ( 112236 )
      What percentage of recipients on the net are reasonably capable of handling an encrypted file that you send them?

      Given that most of them don't even know how to set up their mail client, I hardly see encryption being a solution to this kind of problem, since a very tiny minority of users will use it, and it's easy enough for the ISP to give them the boot for denying them (the ISP) rights to their (previously your) intellectual property.

      Encryption is not a very practical solution. The hassle incurred by be

  • The Solution? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by optikSmoke ( 264261 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @11:38PM (#5676594)
    The solution, of course, is simple. I will demonstrate:
    Email -> PGP (or GPG)
    Telnet -> SSH
    HTTP -> HTTPS
    etc...
    Xtra can sell my meaningless bits to whoever they want. Want a copy of my SSL session? Feel free, but I'm not waiting around for you to decrypt it. (Err.... disclaimer: this is a hypothetical; I'm not actually an Xtra customer, though if I was I wouldn't be too worried, between this and some potential issues over legality pointed out by others)
    If whatever you are doing cannot be done securely, and is not already being done securely, it deserves to be stolen.
    • I'm suspicious (IANAL) that having copyright to an SSL session wouldn't give you copyright over the original bits.

      The encrypted stream is probably best classified as a derived work from the original stream, and having copyright to a derived work doesn't give one copyright to the original work.

      Copyright really doesn't deal all that well with lots of things in the computer world, though.
    • While this would work in most cases.. the fact is that you are just going to take it because you will put up with it?

      The problem with corporations these days is that they will continue to dish it out until the customer gets so sick of taking it, says.. "I can't fucking take it anymore!" ... and drops the service that the company is providing. Just like my cable bill, which just seems to always go up, and up and up each month. $1 here, .50c here.. soon I'll be paying $200 just to have cable modem and HBO
  • They just lost another customer.
    This is the last straw, not to mention the shitty service and helpdesk run-around.

    Even if they revoke the clause I am unprepared to continue with an organisation that would do this in the first place.
    ARSEHOLES

    • Make sure you send a detailed letter (snail mail, not e-mail) to every contact address you can find for them, explaining why you left their service for a competitor and exactly what you find wrong with this change in their policy. Enough people do it, eventually the guy who thought this up will get fired, or at least reprimanded. (or if I had my way, shot)
      • eventually the guy who thought this up will get fired, or at least reprimanded. (or if I had my way, shot)

        Shot? Hell, that's too good for him son. First he needs to be tarred and feathered, then drug through the middle of town during rush our, THEN slowly tortured (via ancient Asian methods). And then, when he's begging to be killed, heal him up real nice, lather, rince, repeat (at least once), then drawn and quarted with his head stuck on a pike in the middle of town.
      • Hmm, that sounds like a better idea than my one: Make one final heated call to the Helpdesk telling them where they can stick their TOS.

        Given that they are a large ISP, a lot of people I know are using their service too. Could be a perfect candidate for a letter with a large number of signatories(sp?).

        ...eventually the guy who thought this up will get fired...

        It wouldn't surprise me to learn that this "initiative" was backed from top to bottom within the organisation.

        Cheers.

        • Could be a perfect candidate for a letter with a large number of signatories(sp?)

          The spelling is correct, but the simple "signatures" would be more correct. But that is not why I posted.

          I feel that a large volume of letters has more impact that one letter with a large number of signatures. This is a case where you start printing letters to hand to friends with an evelope and a stamp. Better yet, ask them to sign a preprinted letter and you can send it in. That way you know it was sent.
        • Hmm, that sounds like a better idea than my one: Make one final heated call to the Helpdesk telling them where they can stick their TOS.

          That would be fun, be probably wouldn't help much. Profanity will just get you disconnected and written off as a lone nutcase. An eloquent written discourse on why the executives can all eat shit and die would be much more effective.

          Given that they are a large ISP, a lot of people I know are using their service too. Could be a perfect candidate for a letter with a larg

        • You're unhappy with a policy instituted at the very top of this company and you propose to jump ugly with the minimum wage script following monkeys working the help desk? I don't think that'll deliver your message where it needs to be delivered.
          • Agreed.
            This was my first response, but having worked on an IT helpdesk, I wouldn't follow through.
            Also, the wise council of other gentle readers here has put the light of reason to the situation and my response. :-)

  • Media perspective (Score:4, Informative)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:07AM (#5676711)
    Today's Aardvark Daily [aardvark.co.nz] has plenty to say on this ISP's new Service Terms too and raises some other very interesting (coincidental) issues.

  • So what about warez? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcdrewski42 ( 623680 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:08AM (#5676714)

    So, since they have all the rights, does that by implication mean they can be prosecuted for any w@rez, ripped CDs or similar?


    You expressly waive in favour of Xtra and any other party authorised by Xtra all moral rights and any similar rights in any jurisdiction which you may have or may later acquire in respect of any relevant Materials.


    By uploading them I'm expressly waiving any rights, and the associated responsibilities?

    Sounds like an easy way to 'protest'.
    • Be sure to email -- repeatedly, so that they *definitely* get the message -- hotline@mpaa.org (the MPAA piracy reporting hotline) to warn them that Xtra is responsible for the largest movie copyright infringement operation ever.

  • this is great!!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Unknown Poltroon ( 31628 ) <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:14AM (#5676737)
    Since they just claimed ownership of anything passing throug there servers, then those songs i downloaded arent really mine, therefore the RIAA can just attack the isp. Hey, and someone e-mail someone in austraila some child pron, lets nail the isp for owning that too!!!

    SO how long can this isp last with NO comercial customers?
    • I doubt that you can nail them like this. According to their TOS, they don't claim right of ownership of your material. Rather, they assert that you grant them the right to do (more or less) what they like with it.

      However, I doubt that these clowns will get away with this. If the current bad publicity and subsequent customer backlash doesn't convince them of their stupidity, someone is likely to take them to court to get their ammended TOS struck down.

  • All your Materials are belong to Xtra!

  • Xtra's TOS has now changed.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by NZKiwi ( 317525 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @01:04AM (#5676937)
    Xtra's TOS has now changed...., it now says:

    Xtra does not claim ownership of any content or material you provide or make available through the Services ("Customer Material"). However, by placing any Customer Material on our Websites or Systems (including posting messages, uploading files, importing data or engaging in any other form of communication), you grant to Xtra a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide licence to do the following in respect of the Customer Materials:

    * use, copy, sublicence, redistribute, adapt, transmit, publish, delete, edit and/or broadcast, publicly perform or display, and

    * sublicence to any third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the rights granted,

    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.

    where it used to say

    By placing any content, software or anything else ("Materials") on our Websites or Systems (including posting messages, uploading files, importing data or engaging in any other form of communication), you grant to Xtra a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide licence to do the following in respect of the Materials:

    * use, copy, sublicence, redistribute, adapt, transmit, publish, delete, edit and/or broadcast, publicly perform or display, and

    * sublicence to any third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the rights granted.

    The above rights you grant to us includes the right to exploit all proprietary rights in any of the Materials including, but not limited to, rights under copyright, trade mark, service mark or patent laws under any jurisdiction worldwide. You expressly waive in favour of Xtra and any other party authorised by Xtra all moral rights and any similar rights in any jurisdiction which you may have or may later acquire in respect of any relevant Materials.

    Strange how fast a little publicity changes things

    • Re:Xtra's TOS has now changed.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @01:38AM (#5677035)
      Interesting. I still take issue with the wording as it is overly general. I think I understand what the agreement is trying to accomplish. Xtra is trying to protect themselves from (frivolous) lawsuits by customers who upload content to an Xtra owned webserver not understanding that said content has now been effectively "published" to the world. Additionally it allows Xtra to make backups of their webservers and now worry about customers trying to force Xtra to purge content from the backups years later. There has been precedents for such foolishness from atleast one (proably many) Usenet kook years ago. (This should come as no surprise to anyone.)

      I personally still feel that the wording is still too general. Specifically: any other form of communication. The final limited purposes clause does limit the rights sought by Xtra, but it still leaves the door wide open for abuses. One of the problems with clauses such as these is that while the current owners/management may not have any intention of abusing their customers, future owners may not have the same ethics.

      • Xtra is trying to protect themselves from (frivolous) lawsuits by customers who upload content to an Xtra owned webserver not understanding that said content has now been effectively "published" to the world.

        I agree. The second version makes that clear, but the first version sounded like a complete land grab. But why don't they just say what they mean? Something to the effect:

        Customer agrees that material placed on Xtra systems will be published in a manner consistent with Internet practices. This me

    • If you think about what an ISP does, you'll realise that the clause (as it is now) is really no more and no less than what is needed to protect itself from disgruntled customers. Let's focus on it section by section, from the end. First of all, the last part:

      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.

      This is saying that whatever they do with your content, they can only do it for the pu
  • Didn't microsoft try this with MSN/Passport awhile back?

    Plus thats not what they are doing, read carefully:
    Xtra does not claim ownership of any content or material you provide or make available through the Services ("Customer Material"). However, by placing any Customer Material on our Websites or Systems (including posting messages, uploading files, importing data or engaging in any other form of communication), you grant to Xtra a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwi
    • "Plus thats not what they are doing, read carefully:

      Xtra does not claim ownership of any content or material you provide or make available through the Services ("Customer Material"). However, by placing any Customer Material on our Websites or Systems (including posting messages, uploading files, importing data or engaging in any other form of communication), you grant to Xtra a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide licence to do the following in respect of the Custo

  • Is there a list of TOS-es somewhere? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @02:22AM (#5677177) Journal
    I just looked at mine and it had some new interesting clauses:

    (Don't) Post on or transmit through XXXXX's network any material that is in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Should a complaint of copyright infringement be asserted to XXXXX from an agent of the claimed copyright holder, XXXXX will require that the claimed infringing material be removed immediately. Should the alleged violator assert that the works are not in violation of copyright, an appeal may be made in writing to the XXXXX Designated Agent specified in the XXXXX Copyright Complaint Policy.

    AND

    Any violations of the XXXXX Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) may result in XXXXX billing the violator at the rate of $120.00/hr. or $500.00 which ever is greater, for administrative time incurred answering complaints, parsing mail logs, etc. A minimum $500.00 fee per complaint and/or individual piece of material will also be charged, to be paid immediately to XXXXX. Payment of this fee does not waive any other fines of penalties that may be levied by XXXXX or any other state, federal or international organizations.

    AND

    The XXXXX Internet Acceptable Use Policy prohibits the transmission of copyrighted material over our IP network, or the storage of copyrighted material on our servers.
    If you believe that your copyrighted work is being hosted on a XXXXX IP address in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, please follow the procedures outlined below.

    So basically, if someone claims they hold the copyright on anything I have stored on the server, I can be sent a giant bill and have my service turned off. I used to have some original songs on my server (copyrighted by me, of course), could I be in violation if I call and report the existence of copyrighted material? Plus, it expressly forbids the transmission of ANY copyrighted work thru them. Which would include the balance of the net. Ironically, they have a copyright 2003 at the bottom of the page, so I could be kicked off at any time, since I have now viewed and copy/pasted the TOC.

    Is there a list of ISP TOCs out there? This one was recently changed to include the whole DMCA thing. I'd like to get a feel for what other ISPs are charging their users with.

    • > The XXXXX Internet Acceptable Use Policy
      > prohibits the transmission of copyrighted
      > material over our IP network, or the storage of
      > copyrighted material on our servers.

      Idiots. Everything you write is automatically copyrighted the instant you write it. They are forbidding you to use their services at all.

      Why the Xs? Are you ashamed to say who your ISP is?

  • SPAM address collection? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GreenKiwi ( 221281 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @03:15AM (#5677298)
    So does this give xtra the rights to take all names and email addresses of people sent messages and use them for advertising and sell them to others?

    sublicence to any third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the rights granted

    I hope that enough people write that this gets changed! I could see them harvesting every email address that goes through their smtp servers and pop servers and then selling that data.
  • "with great ownership comes great responsibilties" almost the case here. If they own everything on their servers, they also have to take full responsibilities for it. So if some client uploaded a bunch of kiddie-porn on their servers, they automatically own it, and thus take full responsibility and the client could actually tell the cops, and they would have pay the price... Another client could actually break into their computers, mess everything up, and all they couldn't make him liable for anything.

  • If NZ's history is anything like Australia's,
    I'm really -not- surprized by this report.

    There really needs to be a move -towards-
    acting in accordance with the people's
    wishes, eg more like Switzerland & Sweden do.

    But, no... Past is prologue... & that past
    is one that involves colonialization by
    Britain... which positioned the people
    as free to bow to the Royal Family, but
    not much else, as far as I can see...

    The bigger island country can't even decide
    to become a republic, let al
  • It would seem that if anyone puts up illegal material than the ISP could also be sued, since they now are saying (essentially, despite what the new revised terms say) that they own the content. And after all, if you own a copyright, would you prefer to go after an ISP with lots of money, or a college student who can only afford 98 billion dollars... err, I mean, nevermind, you know what I mean. :)

  • Nice Try (Score:1, Funny)

    by darkstar101 ( 84676 )
    Somebody upload WinXP to their servers and see how long they can act like they own it.


  • go up a few lines:

    "only use our Services for lawful purposes, and not use them [...] to post, upload or transmit to or by means of the Services, any information or materials:
    .
    .
    in connection with surveys, contests, pyramid schemes, chain letters, junk email, spamming or any duplicative or unsolicited messages (commercial or otherwise)."

    Does this mean I'm not allowed to talk about SPAM, or send an unsubscribe request to a spammer? What about debian's 'Popularity' package, that's a survey isn't it.
    I can't e
  • Many years ago when broadband was new to the home user I was fortunate to be living in a town where the local community pioneered in the technology. Since they were one of the first to deliver broadband to private users they had some initial problems. They couldn't get enough qualified engineers to keep the network running smoothly since the demand was a lot higher then they expected. This led to a poor quality of service and I (and others) who were there first got sick of the treatment they gave us when we
  • so basically they are doing what my 6 year old brother does....

    "Who's is that?"

    "Mine."

    "Where'd you get it?"

    "I found it."

    "That dosen't make it yours."

    "BUT I FOUND IT! IT'S MINE!"

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close