Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NZ's Largest ISP Owns Your Work

Posted by Hemos on 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."

4 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. What is "our systems"? by drdink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
  2. whoa by Bishop · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.
  3. So what about warez? by mcdrewski42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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'.
    --
    /* affect != effect */ void affect(int *thing,int effect) { *thing += effect; }
  4. Re:Xtra's TOS has now changed.... by Bishop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.