Have You Really Read Your ISP's TOS? 428
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."
giving up common carrier status (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:giving up common carrier status (Score:5, Funny)
We believe in very harsh punishments for such things...I believe traditionally we just send them to Australia.
Jedidiah
Re:giving up common carrier status (Score:5, Funny)
Re:giving up common carrier status (Score:3, Funny)
Re:giving up common carrier status (Score:4, Informative)
David Hicks [fairgofordavid.org]
Mamdouh Habib [uts.edu.au]
This is in spite of calls by the Australian Senate [aph.gov.au] for their release [altnews.com.au].
I believe that New Zealand still retains some degree of self-respect.
Re:giving up common carrier status (Score:5, Informative)
Stephanie Graf (the ex-tennis-pro) sent a C&D letter to MSN to take off all fabricated nude pictures of her from MSN sites, with a penalty of 300000 DM for each violation. MSN refused the letter, but lost due to their Terms Of Service. The judge ruled, that if MSN is claiming IP rights on the material, then they are responsible also for the damage it causes.
So maybe XTRA should look at the case (even though it is a german one), because if someone posts illegal material using XTRA, XTRA itself is liable for the damage done, if they are continuing to claim IP rights. The reasoning should also be valid under New Zealand's law.
If they want to stake claim on my IP... (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing intellectual there, really
"clampdown on free speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks America, our benevolent overlord dictators of the world!
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:4, Funny)
You write that as if its an insult.
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:4, Funny)
You're welcome.
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:3, Funny)
you're just jealous because we get to call our country's leader "Mr Hegemon."
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:2)
Rus
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:2)
I cannot think of a country that does have free speech... but that does not mean that we cannot gripe and bitch about it.
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:2)
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"clampdown on free speech" (Score:3)
The right to freedom of expression is not merely a legal bit in the US Bill of Rights but is implicitly and clearly part of universal human existence. Furthermore, these rights come with the responsibility that those who would exercised them in my, or any nation, be willing to defend such rights for all peopl
A *GREAT* ISP (Score:5, Informative)
They are geek-friendly. They encourage limited sharing of your DSL bandwidth (I mean, as long as you lock it down with a password so not every yahoo driving buy can use it) and offer a lot toward the wireless community in Oregon.
Not to mention, they have great policies about allowing you to run non-commercial web and email servers (which is important for me since I do a lot of small testing stuff) and are staffed by a lot of good people (some I've worked with before in a former life).
Everything you could want in an ISP, they are. I have never had a problem with them. Period. They are always friendly, helpful, have 24x7 support. Even their second and third tier tech guys will get paged and call you back in the middle of the night if you are experiencing a severe problem.
They also have people familiar in supporting non-windows OSes (mac, linux, etc) and offere their own tutorials for home networking.
Overall they are very cheap (compared to cable at least - especially if you want static IPs. For the cost of one static IP with Comcast, you can get eight here).
I've been with them for three years and since I work from home, I make HEAVY use of the DSL service. Qwest provides the actual line and I've only had two or three issues in all three years, total. One was due to a hardware problem at the PO-LOC (Qwest problem, obviously), one was due to the ISPs backbone getting torched for a few hours and another was up in the air - but eventually fixed itself.
I would say that I have had approximately two days of down time in these three years. Remarkably good for all the benifits you get.
Of course it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Funny)
(m) Scrolling. You agree not to cause the screen to "scroll" faster than other subscribers or users are able to type to it, or any action to a similar disruptive effect on or through the Access Service.
Usually I just skim through the TOS to find my unlimited download and upload limits and find crazy lines like the one above.
-dk
Re:Of course it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:3, Informative)
XTRA isn't claiming any property right on what you put on the Internet, such as Slashdot postings, email or files you upload to third-party web hosts. It's just claiming a right to redistribute content that you put on your XTRA-hosted website. I don't see anything wrong with that... if they don't declare their right to do so, you could sue them for redistributing your copyrighted material after
TOS (Score:5, Funny)
Scare tactics (Score:2)
Does anyone have a report where they have actually followed through with the terms and taken someone to court or terminated their connection because of this?
__________
cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au] for vanity domains.
Re:Scare tactics (Score:2)
Do you mean besides spamming?
Re: Scare tactics (Score:2)
________
cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au]
Re:Scare tactics (Score:2)
Rus
Criticising your ISP (Score:5, Insightful)
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?!
Re:Criticising your ISP (Score:2)
You must
Defamation is the same as slander, and is illegal throughout most of the civilized world. Slander is the communication of false statements with a malicious intent. XTRA's Terms of Service are not forbidding you from criticizing their services. They are just reiterating rights that they are already given under law.
Other NZ ISPs (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Other NZ ISPs (Score:5, Insightful)
Rus
Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Service? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi (Score:4, Interesting)
By clicking you agree, you're voting with your dollars, and that's all that matters to these companies.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi (Score:2, Insightful)
"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 obligat
Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi (Score:3, Interesting)
I did this with a government agency that wanted to have free and unfettered access to my private medical records.
I scored that bit out, and added, that they may only have access upon contacting me first and obtaining my permission, and that I vet the information they can have access to (basically "no you can't have access", but
Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi (Score:2)
I've heard good things about Go Daddy. I'm considering registering a few names with them for future site ideas I'm think of just to make sure I have them if I need them.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Have your read Network Solutions Terms of Servi (Score:3, Informative)
They changed the agreement quite a while ago, and like you I freaked out when I read it. Unlike you, I have left the "agree"
Well... (Score:3, Informative)
In Breach (Score:5, Interesting)
Before today, I'd only given the TOS a cursory glance, and I found that I am regularly in breach of a couple of the terms:
I don't really care too much, though, because it's only a dial-up connection, so the connection is inherently throttled...
That's just funny... (Score:2)
Yes, god forbid I should have multiple concurrent conections to "the internet access". Does that mean I can't read the web while downloading something? Christ, every modern web browser uses at least two concurrent connections to download a page, usually four.
never recording Your password on Your computer
What a joke. So they've banned the feature in many web browsers which lets you save (auto-enter) login informati
Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:5, Interesting)
The new DSL is 1.5mbps "best effort". They have not mentioned any download caps, but they will probably be on the way soon. The worst part of the TOS is the restriction on NAT/PAT.
They say that they can detect how many computers are on a network. For each computer, you have to pay an additional $60 for the exact same bandwidth. They don't even give you another modem for the extra $60.
Anyway, how do you think they are detecting NAT/PAT? Is there any way to stop this detection? I had planned on running Gentoo or *BSD as a firewall, but paying more money for the exact same thing seems harsh to me.
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:3, Informative)
While I on the subject of crappy ISP's I don't understand what is the point of all these conditions. I have friends that work for a fairly large (state-wide), very profitable, ISP that has none of this. Heck they even allow you to resell the service if you so desire. As they say, as long as they make money why should they care? As they see it these restrictive
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:3, Informative)
At a guess they either employed or retained an overpriced "lawyer" who then has to do something to appear to be useful.
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:4, Informative)
Well then, you need a knowledge infusion.
You can detect multiple machines behind a NAT several ways, including IP header parsing, TCP sequencing, and others.
A loophole in our favor still exists here, though. They can tell that you run multiple OSs, but not multiple distinct machines. So when you get the letter of death, just patiently explain your rather convoluted use of Win2k and Linux under VM, with Basilisk for Win2k allowing you to run Macintosh apps (mention other emulators as needed to account for all machines they may think they know you have). Then wait for the silence at the other end, and make sure they agree to remove whatever absurd charges they apply to your account before they hang up in shame and confusion.
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:5, Informative)
It may be due to initial sequence numbers, or possibly the way that a computer responds to IP packets with certain header options set (although I'm not sure if that would be possible when NAT is involved). You could probably get around it by having OpenBSD do the NAT - as it can basically rewrite NATted packets so it looks like it's all coming from the OpenBSD box. The OpenBSD pf firewall is being ported to other BSDs too, apparantly, so you might find you can get it to do the same thing on FreeBSD.
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:3)
Any number of ways. You might note different OS/browser references, or other differences in the way traffic is going from the ISP to you. The problem you face is that I reckon quite a few people will have DSL modems that are also routers. I know I do. And their TOS would seem to preclude this very sensible use of simple tools to protect your computer.
Find another ISP, if you can.
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:3, Interesting)
If only ISP's kept their word... (Score:3, Informative)
When ATTBI was ATT@home, I had a written contract with them that stated, in writing, "static address due to home network." When ATTBI took over, they took away my static address, and basically told me to fuck off.
So getting it in writing only works if you're willing to pony up the legal fees to file a breach of contract suit. Otherwise, written agreements are no better than a roll of blank toilet paper.
Re:Kinda OT: NAT/PAT (Score:3)
AFAIK OpenBSD has a side-project going to negate this technique. However, i seriously doubt your ISP is actually putting this method into practice - its just too much work.
Legality (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Legality (Score:3, Interesting)
Now services are a little different. You aren't actually buying anything, you are just paying for the right to use something owned by someone else. This giv
This could be a liability (Score:2)
This could backfire on them.
Re:This could be a liability (Score:3, Insightful)
The T&C changes (Score:2, Interesting)
Broadband != live video (Score:2)
5.6 The Customer warrants that:- 5.6.1 it shall not transmit or receive live audio or video across the Supplier's Network or use the Services for any application which in the Supplier's opinion results in an unreasonable demand on the bandwidth;
I break these most weekends :(
Didn't read it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Didn't read it (Score:2)
That's okay, the fine print should still be on your arse somewhere..
Re:Didn't read it (Score:2)
Now bugg off whoever you are.
Atlanta ISP changes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Atlanta ISP changes (Score:2)
Sigh. Damm lawyers and greedy bastards.
Re:Atlanta ISP changes (Score:3, Informative)
I'd be worried about what Comcast can do... (Score:3, Informative)
When I contacte
Anonimisty (Score:2)
Rus
I'm still looking - Post your TOS here (Score:2)
Oh well, here is mine [hickorytech.net].
All that crappy DMCA stuff was added this Feburary, along with some MAC address (and more?) logger named DHCPatriot (I have a deep-seated hatred for all things named Patriot) from these guys. [fng.net] Anyone know anything about this?
Comcast/ATTBI (Score:5, Informative)
Back when they were ATT Broadband, the user agreement said something like:
-no servers(web, FTP, mail)
-explicitly bans "discussion boards"(!?)
-if you have a wireless node, it must be locked down- no access to anyone other than YOU
-cannot be resold -clauses prohibiting using the connection for offensive/harassing/etc. communications(I guess if I type "shit" here, I just violated that. Oops!)
...among other things. It actually explicitly states that it is provided exclusively "an entertainment service", and that the users are "consumers" of that entertainment service. All this, despite the fact that they constantly market it as "Little Suzy can download her homework, Mommy can upload her work files while she's home from the office to watch Little Suzy", etc. They played the 'research for homework' angle incredibly heavily during the back-to-school period.
The kid's using it for research, Mom's using it for work, in the ads. That's not "entertainment", people. I hope mommy realizes that she's using an "entertainment service" that can go down, and Comcast has zero obligation to take care of it.
Oh, and AOL just started blocking SMTP connections from all of ATT/Comcast's customer IP ranges, to "fight spam". While yes, some systems get hacked and used as relays, that's easy for Comcast to fix(they can disable the connection instantly) if reported..and AOL also blacklists hosts on their own now; why couldn't they just blacklist systems if they send spam? Nevermind that most spam comes from eastern europe and Asia these days.
But hey, it's all good. We get to watch incessant commercials with Lance-whatever-his-name-is(the biker) talking about how "when you're a newcomer(comcast just bought att-bi), people expect you to make a name for yourself"...uh, no shit. Meanwhile, comcast had to back down from YET ANOTHER forced domain name change for everyone's email accounts because of the massive uproar(mediaone.net->attbi.com just a year or two ago, and now attbi.com->comcast.net because ATT wanted to keep attbi.com) and we can't get any other high-speed access, because Bell won't sell DSL in areas with cable internet(and what they're selling is overpriced crap anyway- 1mbit/96KBIT(!!!)
All of this in one of the most technology-rich areas(Eastern MA, 128/495 corridor)...
Re:Comcast/ATTBI (Score:2)
Here's where things start getting interesting. Sin
I'll tell you right now... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
AOL has a new TOS for you.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This effectively means that no broadband, dialup or other ISP customers who get an IP address when they connect will be able to send mail directly to AOL, you wil instead be forced to use your ISPs or some other willing SMTP relay which AOL considers to be worthy of peering with. No more end-to-end TLS encryption and/or verification; no more routing around overburdoned ISP mail hubs.
There is as yet no indication that I've seen one way or the other on what they're doing about DELIVERING mail to such addresses, but if you run your own mail server, be prepared to find that AOL.com no longer exists (which you may not consider "bad", exactly, and in fact I currenly have no plans to route around this particular damage other than to get my relatives to find new ISPs, even if that means going to MSN... *shudder*).
Many have made the argument that this is reasonable for AOL to do because many ISPs have TOSes that ban servers. So far, the standard retort has been 1) no ISP bans direct-to-MX transmission of mail except where it is spam 2) most ISPs don't enforce said rule (and tacitly encourage users to roll their own) 3) not ALL ISPs have such restrictive TOSes, and of course 4) that's none of AOL's business when receiving an incoming message.
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:Good luck!
Re:AOL has a new TOS for you.... (Score:2)
Re:AOL has a new TOS for you.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Post each others' sites (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm, this is interesting:So no posting Project Gutenberg texts, then. Taken literally, anything I post has to be trademarked.So, no GPL'd software that I wrote then, but presumably other peoples' GPL'd software is ok.Seems reasonable, they need the right to distribute the data, they might want to keep an archive, and they might want to sell that archive as an asset. Note the limiting nature of the last paragraph.
IMO, there's nothing sinister here, although the first section I quoted is just incompetently written.
Nothing onerous here (Score:2)
Prestel was doing that in 1986 (Score:5, Interesting)
Their AUP also didn't allow any kind of profanity in the message boards, either!
They did have some good things (such as Shades the MUD, which is *still going* - telnet games.world.co.uk, yes, it's on port 23).
That's not to say it's right. The "you must only say good things about us" clause was incredibly dumb, and people often pushed at them, just to see how far they could go.
Re:Prestel was doing that in 1986 (Score:5, Interesting)
enable us to register you, we need to ask five simple questions:
1) Your real name:
2) Your sex:
3) Your age:
4) Where do you live?
5) Your e-mail address:
6) Where did you find out about us:
7) What password do you wish to use (5-10 characters):
count that!
Re:Prestel was doing that in 1986 (Score:2)
Re:Prestel was doing that in 1986 (Score:4, Funny)
Not all TOS/EULA/etc. are bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Like ones that come in text boxes that you can edit.
Such as the agreement with ATI I cheerfully clicked my agreement to. When I was done with it, it said "In appreciation for downloading this driver suite, ATI inc. will send me one (1) riding pony in good health and standing in the equine community."
They've since changed the format, but I still don't have my pony.
For those that need it spelled out... (Score:2)
Don't believe me? Ask the Dixie Chicks...or Henry Norr. [bayarea.com]
Re:For those that need it spelled out... (Score:3, Interesting)
On a more serious note, Speaker's Corner is really the historic start of free speech as British people have been legally allowed to get up at Speaker's Corner and say what they like for centuries, long before America was was even an idea.
Re:For those that need it spelled out... (Score:3, Insightful)
I must have missed the part where they were arrested for expressing their views.
Legal hacking (Score:5, Interesting)
Just read the TOS for my ISP again and was reminded why I chose this ISP [xs4all.nl] (even though it is not the cheapest available). One of the clauses says (roughly translated):
I feel that this should be a standard clause in any ISP's TOS.
heh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:heh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once upon a time (a couple of years ago) I was sysadmin for a smallish ISP up here in Montreal. While out TOS didn't spell it out, it was my policy as well. (I was blessed with intelligent bosses/owners that decided from the onset that given that I was the security, its enforcement should be left to me).
There have been a total of two compromises during the two years I worked there. Both were detected by my diagnostics within minutes. I let both play out to ascertain the intent and method, and one of the crackers was obviously a white hat given that noticing me on the box he talked me to tell me how he got in. The other was a silly warez d00d-- took me about 5 minutes to detect how he got in.
In both cases, I restored offline, plugged the hole, then put the system back up.
Having compromised a system does not give you "forever usage of the system".
Just before I started work there, where was another (major) compromise of the entirety of the DMZ-- the security wasn't set up very well and each box trusted every other box. That took a complete redesign of the infrastructure, but it was also fixed. By the white hat that broke in and went to them with "Look. Obviously you need to hire a sysadmin."
You get to guess who that was.
Not everyone is a script kiddie, you know.
-- MG
Westhost looks okay (Score:3, Interesting)
- Don't hack the servers or gain unauthorized access to accounts
- No originating spam
- No running chats without approval
- Allows background scripts and self-written CGI as long as they don't screw with the system
- If your scripts are resource hogs, they may ask you to upgrade your service
- No IRC or IRC bots
- No illegal stuff
- No porn/obscene, etc.
There is the phrase "or any other material which we deem to be objectionable" to include Satanic materials. However, that's a catch-all that I don't believe has been used. I'll ask.DANG those guys are stupid (Score:2)
Bad, bad, bad strategy.
Why reading TOS is important (Score:4, Interesting)
But I really enjoyed my ISP. Fast, reliable, not that expensive, and my IP address didn't change as long as the gateway renewed the lease.
But one day, friends using the same ISP told me that all their incoming connections got firewalled. They couldn't connect to their host any more, even through POP, SMTP or SSH.
I checked it, and they were right. The ISP firewalled everything without any prior notice.
A look at the TOS revealed that indeed, customers don't have the right to host any server. No SSH, no SMTP, nothing.
I moved to another ISP since. The new ISP is a bit more expensive, but that's the price to pay to read in their TOS that servers are allowed, and NAT is allowed as well.
It's what lawyers do.... (Score:5, Informative)
At any rate, I have found that when you ask your attorney to write up an agreement for such-and-such, they will invariably write a very one-sided agreement, they will want the other party to sign their life away. After we have verbally come to terms with a new customer, our attorney writes up a license agreement, and more often than not he has put in major restrictions and terms which were not part of our verbal terms with the new customer - we then have to "send it back" to have our attorney remove restrictions which really are excessive.
Before you say that our attorney is just trying to take more time and bill us more: he really isn't - he is just attempting to watch our back in every way he can.
The flip side is also true, when a customer's attorney writes up the agreement, it invariably claims that the customer has exclusive, unlimited, rights to our software. It says that if they [the customer] stubs their toe after installing the software we are liable for millions of dollars. It says we cannot license our software to anyone else [as the customer "owns" it now], etc., etc.
Needless to say, we won't sign such an agreement.
In a nutshell, when attorneys write up any sort of legal document, they really do try to protect their customer in every way they can, and more often than not they go overboard. It really (imho) isn't their job to "see it from the other side", and hence the one-sided agreements.
When you are negotiating an agreement and both sides are represented by council, usually a fair agreement comes out in the end - but when only one side is represented, you can get "terms of service" as that ISP has published.
I suspect that the "fair" terms of service we do frequently see and agree to have been either not written by an attorney, and/or have had someone (but probably not the attorney) playing the role of the customer and looking at the agreement from their point of view.
Evidently, that didn't happen in this case.
An interesting, off-topic, side note that an attorney once told me: If there is a grey area in a contract, usually a court will side with the party that DIDN'T author the contract.
Re:It's what lawyers do.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
IMPT: Slashdot owns your intellectual property!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Here's my story of ISP abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
The page in question [bewellweb.com].
Aardvark Sponsor (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:My ISP's terms are very simple... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What TOS? (Score:2, Informative)
As soon as you become aware of the TOS however, you are (in most cases) obliged to read them and take the appropriate course of action if you disagree...
This is what I have been told by a friend studying Law anyway (Australia)...
Disclaimer: any law suits or bad karma related to this post may be directed to Xtra. All donations and good karma will be handled by me.
Re:dull (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Look... (Score:2)
If you sign a piece of paper to say you've signed away your IP then man, it's gone. Copyright/trademark/patent laws all allow you to own the IP to something, and it can be signed away in the same way as anything else you own. You work for a company, they make you sign a form to say that they own the IP for everything you produce on work time.
The only countries in which this isn't the case are the ones which have no copyright/trademark/patent laws. Every