NZ's Largest ISP Owns Your Work

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."

Comments

Universities

[smoondog]

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

Re:What is "our systems"?

[Bishop]

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.

Re:whoa

[WolfWithoutAClause]

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.

Won't work but...

[cornice]

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.

Re:Won't work but...

[jafuser]

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 being forced to use encryption to share your creations with other people on the net would be an ongoing expense of time and energy. Plus, you would not reach a large number of people who are not clued on how to decrypt your data.

It would be much easier to just change ISPs.

Re:What is "our systems"?

[EvilMal]

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?

Is there a list of TOS-es somewhere?

[teamhasnoi]

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.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[unitron]

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.