That is a silly statement. From the buyers point of view, it is a finnished product. From the (consumer) sales law perspective it is a finnished product just like a car. Otherwise you by a subscription to something, which is quite different.
>It is unreasonable to expect a piece of software to have no bugs in it at all, especially in >an operating system.
That is not the issue. The issue is that when bugs are find, they should be fixed. Actually, the law requires so if the bugs makes the product to be considered defective.
>With cars, defective would mean that an important element is malfunctioning, for example, >the motor won't start.
Actually, any problem that makes the car (or any other product) not meet the requirements and expectations or not working properly is considered defective. Even a defective cup holder is defective and should be fixed, even if not a severe error.
>Windows 2000, on the other hand, although full of bugs just like the other Windowses, is at >least stable.
That is irellevant. A product can be "stable" yet having defects.
>I do not think that it is fair to say that the software is defective if it has a bug.
Depends completely what type of bug it is. Many of the existing ones most certainly would be considered as defective from the consumer sales law perspective.
>Furthermore, the program was advertised as is. Thus, you knew what you were buying.
Most countries have consumer sales law that doesn't recognize "as is". You can't get away with any responsability or avoid having to fix defects and errors by claiming it is "as is". Such provisions are void.
>It came with its EULA. A change to the program may require a new EULA.
A typical consumer sale law requires errors and defects to be fixed without any cost, inconvenience or other requirements on the customer. Thus one can't require additional (or changed) contracts or terms in existing contracts for such fixes. The law simply doesn't allow it in most countries. No way arround it. There are no exceptions for software (or any other type of product) in consumer sale laws and most provisions in them are of the nature that they can't be contracted away either, any such terms are void.
As I said, both have changed quite recently. The US version of the EULA was changed this very summer (time stamped 1 june 2006). The US ToS had the latest change last summer. The European EULA seems to not have changed since 2004 though while the European ToS was changed at the same time as the US one last summer. I have not checked any EULA for other parts of the world.
So what would you say is the difference? A license is basically a contract that gives you the right to do something you would otherwise not be allowed to do. In this case it is of course important to remember that the "right" you get, or what the license permits (no matter how you want to view it, license or contract) is for something you are allready allowed to do without the license/contract. It is like claiming you need a license to live, not needed.
Feel free to also refer to any laws regulating "licenses" as oposed to "contracts" were the difference you seem to know about is spelled out.
>In the UK, copyright law is stricter than in the US. >There's no "fair use". You do, actually, need a license >to perform any act that requires copying takes place.
This is not completely true. Although no general "fair use" exists, there is special provisions for computer programs that allows you to make nessecary copies. There is a clause about regulating agreement but it doesn't require such a thing. In the absence of an agreement restricting copying, any copying needed to use the software is allowed by a lawfull user of the software. There is no requirement of having an agreement to be a lawfull user. So unless you do agree to a contract (for example an EULA) that restrict copying to use (which seems stupid), you are allowed by copyright law to make such copying anyway.
>Of course if you want to see how much companies believe in their EULA call one >up and ask for a refund because you don't agree to the EULA.
So, if you did not agree to it, there is no contract which means they are not bound by it either, including any statements of refunds of course. A contract is only valid and enforcable if you agree upon it. This makes such clauses on what happens if you do not agree to it pointless as the only way to get them is to agree. A good catch 22.
>They don't for World of Warcraft (at least in the EU). A window pops up saying >its changed but the EULA displayed is the same, I don't think its changed since >2004 sometime..
So they lie, claiming it change and require you to read through it all (presumably comparing to the old in some way to spot differences since they don't tell) and require you to do so EVERY update, despite there being no difference?
For your information, they do the same with the ToS as well and the EULA actually DID change this summer with the latest major patch. What the change was? Since they don't tell, you actually have to go through it all, comparing to a hopefully saved version of the old one (since there is no place to find the old one any more after a patch). Alternatively you can have an excellent memory, but I doubt anyone has such a good one.
>I accept the terms and conditions of your contract. You may have some difficulty >enforcing it, however. See you in court!
If you accept it, there is not much of a problem enforcing it. The problem would be if you, in court, would change to not accepting it. If two parties goes to a court and agrees about the contract, the court will simply wonder what the problem is about.
>Why the surprise? Slashdot in every copyright story posted has always argued >that the digital domain. e.g software, music, etc falls under a different set of >rules (from legal to economic) Don't bitch just because they're not working in >your favour.
What does copyright have to do with this? It is about a product having errors and being defective and, due to consumer sale laws, the manufacturer being responsible to fix them. Extra contracts regulating the purchase (which again, has nothing to do with copyrights) can't change that. The fact that the manufacturer in this case wants to bundle fixes with new stuff is their problem, not that of the purchaser.
>There is a profound difference between a car and an operating system.
Except by the obvious differences, no, there isn't much differences when it comes to the product working, errors in the product and so on.
>A car needs to be tested fully,
So does most products, including software.
>because it is the manufacturer who introduces errors, and not crackers.
Crackers (or whatever you want to call them) doesn't introduce errors. They can exploit errors though. Of course there is also malicious programs and people that utilize non errors in the product, in such a case there is of course no responsability of the manufacturers, just as it is not the car manufacturers error or problem if someone smashes your window to steal your car. However, if the manufacturer made a defective lock on the car so that you can still open the door easilly despite it being locked (without force and so on), then it is an error in the car of course the manufacturers probelm. The same applies to software. If there is an exploit that lets someone take control over your computer due to programing errors, the problem is the manufacturers and there is a defective product. There is no difference here between a car and software.
>Also, we are talking about an EULA and not a warranty.
Ehh, no idea what one has to do with the other but this has little to do with errors or defective products in themselves. A defective product is the manufacturers problem by law, no matter what. No warranty or contract (like for example an EULA) can change that. That is how typical (consumer) sale law works. It is the manufacturers responsability to fix the error at no cost or extra trouble for the customer.
>If you want to buy the new product (SP4), then you need to agree to its EULA.
Considering the SP4, like most SP, also include several patches to fix bugs and errros, no, it is not a new product. If they want to bundle new stuff with it, that doesn't change it. You are stil entitled to the fixes and patches at no cost, work or requiring new contracts.
>I don't think so. If you end up in a US court over the EULA, they're not going >to care where you happened to be physically located when you accepted the agreement. >If you accepted it and then you violated the terms while in the jurisdiction of a US >court, rulings by EU courts are completely irrelevant.
And how will they show that you have ever actually agreed to it to start with? You might not even be the one who installed it to start with and so on...
>Similarly, accepting the EULA in the US and then living and working >in the EU won't cause EU courts to consider US precedents as >valid when Microsoft tries to sue you in EU courts. The precedents >that matter are the precedents of the court in whose jurisdiction >the alleged violation occurs.
On top of that, many European countries doesn't have the "precedent system" of the USA to start with.
I don't think there was a specific country or law for the discussion, it was about the GPL in general and since it could be applicable to any country in the world, one has to keep in mind the differences of the copyright law.
>What section of copyright law places local modifications outside the scope of copyright law? As I stated in another comment, >copyright law grants a copyright holder the "exclusive right to prepare a derivative work"...but it does not mention, in that >section, distribution. I could be wrong, but I have a copy of the copyright act on my computer and looked through it and >couldn't find anything supporting your position.
And you do realise that your copy of the copyright act applies to your country only, right? And that when it comes to "derivative work" there is quite a big difference between countries. Many countries does not at all have the concept of derivative work as existing in the US copyright law for example. many countries would, with varying definitions of the derivative work, still allow them (and actually give the copyright of such work to the one creating them) but places the same restrictions as on the original work, and as long as you use those "derivative" works only in such ways as you are allowed to use the original one, there is no infringment and such modifications would be allowed.
Actually, in that case, both sides agreed that the defendants had agreed to the EULA. So there were not much of an issue of if it was valid as such. It was about specific terms in it that was the case, or part of the case at least. The ruling had nothing to do with if EULAs as such are valid or not.
>Additionally I do not see how a company can turn a sale >into a licensing deal post sale. The sales contract >predates the EULA, it did not make any mentioning of any >licenses and it did not state that additional contracts >are required to use the software.
Also note that the sale is an agreement or contract of sale between you and the shop. The EULA would be a contract between you and the maker of the software. Two different things between different parties. The contract between you and the manufacturer can for example not bind or have any affect on the shop and so on.
Before the recent directive on saving most trafiic information in EU, it would be up to each country te decide whatever they want. Many countries, including for example Sweden, specifically *forbids* saving of much such data with some exceptions. In Sweden such data as who used which IP can only be saved if it is required for billing issues and similar reasons (which it often might be, but thus not required at all).
Which is a quite different case though. They might not have shared more than those few specific files the BPI downloaded. Even if you share a million files, it would take a long time even for a realsitic possibility for there being one download of each file, a simple calculation of file size and speed of connection gives a good estimate of minimum time. Of course, simply making it available can in many cases also be infringement, but is definately not the same as if one actually uploaded all those files many times.
That a crime has been commited is different from claiming a specific person commited it. If you have a contract that can be terminated if you commit illegal activities, then you must commit illegal activities for it to be terminated. One part can't say "I believe you commited illegal acitivites" and then be safe (well, of course the can, but they would be wrong and the ones breaching the contract). Until you have been judge by a court, you have not commited any illegal activites hence that can't be used as an excuse. One can find out a whole bunch of other reasons that doesn't require a court but we were discussing commiting an illegal activity here. So you can't, in your case terminate a contract with someone just because you think it was he who stole your bike (assuming you have a contract with him that can be terminated when he commits a criminal activity). The one who claims a breach of contract is the one who has to show it has happened, not the other way arround. The fact that the ISP can terminate your connection and account anyway is another story, they can go rob a bank as well, that doesn't make it right, legal or correct which is what we discuss here, not wether they have the possibility to terminate your account in an non correct and legal way.
Sure they might be able to pull other reasons (my comments was on illegalness specifically), but why? They could do that even without the BPI asking. And why would then "save" costs, for what? Actually they would lose income since they would lose you as a customer plus risking being draged to court by the customer, while if they do nothing, there is no problem. Had THEY (the ISP) been doing something wrong, the BPI would of course come for them, so that is appearantly not the case here in our example.
>When somebody offers something for sale, it's generally regarded as being just >an invitation to treat - it is up to the buyer to make the offer, which the >seller can then choose to accept unconditionally, to make a counter-offer for a >different amount, or to reject outright. Unless the seller specifically says "I >will sell to whoever comes to me unconditionally" and makes clear all the >necessary terms then it cannot be considered an offer capable of being accepted.
Thanks, this was basically the exact thing I tried to say above in reply to "irw". I was under the impression he claimed that mere announcement or showing a price on an item would be the "offer" for a contract which I tried to show it was not. So I think we agree on the issue.
>This is simply NOT TRUE. While we do not have a concept in British law that goes >by the name of "fair use", this does NOT mean that you are not allowed to make >private copies under any circumstances.
My comment was based on the information in the link I gave in a post a bit up (a document by the Director General of the internal market amd services) in the EU. It states that in the UK there is very limited rooms for private copying compare to most other countries. They gave examples of when it is allowed, such as time shifting. My writing of "no legal copying allowed for private use" was of course a simplification which should be seen in the context of the thread. It was meant to show why there would be a good reason to not have levies in countries were the room for privat copying is very small.
If you disagree with the statment of the document I quoted, you might want to give it an answer though since appearantly they are wrong according to you. Here is the lin again if you can't find it:
So your basic idea is that the the ISP should trust outside sources but not the customers? If the BPI doesn't even go to court, what would the reasonability be about there being an illegal activity? If they go to court, what would be the reasonability about not await what the court says? One can of course also wonder why the ISP should at all try to become a court in deciding what is illegal and non illegal activities.
>Having seen my and some other peoples phone, internet and other (usually Direct >Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along >the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any >point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the >service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a >period after that time then your going to have trouble getting you money back.
Considering the UK is part of the EU, no, such contractual terms are not allowd. If you want more information, check this out about "Unfair Contract Trems" (click on link in second paragraph or chose another language if you want). Note that the list of examples is just that, examples and not at all conclusive:
>Did you notice that the UAT of the ISP, that the people signed up to, forbids >using the service for illegal file sharing? That these people are therefore in >breach of a contract they have with the ISP? That therefore the ISP is within >their rights to withdraw from that contract?
And how would you (ot the ISP) know if you have commited illegal file sharing? Just because someone claims so?
Slashdot Mirror
>Software on the other hand is never finished.
That is a silly statement. From the buyers point of view, it is a finnished product. From the (consumer) sales law perspective it is a finnished product just like a car. Otherwise you by a subscription to something, which is quite different.
>It is unreasonable to expect a piece of software to have no bugs in it at all, especially in
>an operating system.
That is not the issue. The issue is that when bugs are find, they should be fixed. Actually, the law requires so if the bugs makes the product to be considered defective.
>With cars, defective would mean that an important element is malfunctioning, for example,
>the motor won't start.
Actually, any problem that makes the car (or any other product) not meet the requirements and expectations or not working properly is considered defective. Even a defective cup holder is defective and should be fixed, even if not a severe error.
>Windows 2000, on the other hand, although full of bugs just like the other Windowses, is at
>least stable.
That is irellevant. A product can be "stable" yet having defects.
>I do not think that it is fair to say that the software is defective if it has a bug.
Depends completely what type of bug it is. Many of the existing ones most certainly would be considered as defective from the consumer sales law perspective.
>Furthermore, the program was advertised as is. Thus, you knew what you were buying.
Most countries have consumer sales law that doesn't recognize "as is". You can't get away with any responsability or avoid having to fix defects and errors by claiming it is "as is". Such provisions are void.
>It came with its EULA. A change to the program may require a new EULA.
A typical consumer sale law requires errors and defects to be fixed without any cost, inconvenience or other requirements on the customer. Thus one can't require additional (or changed) contracts or terms in existing contracts for such fixes. The law simply doesn't allow it in most countries. No way arround it. There are no exceptions for software (or any other type of product) in consumer sale laws and most provisions in them are of the nature that they can't be contracted away either, any such terms are void.
As I said, both have changed quite recently. The US version of the EULA was changed this very summer (time stamped 1 june 2006). The US ToS had the latest change last summer. The European EULA seems to not have changed since 2004 though while the European ToS was changed at the same time as the US one last summer. I have not checked any EULA for other parts of the world.
>It's a license, not a contract.
So what would you say is the difference? A license is basically a contract that gives you the right to do something you would otherwise not be allowed to do. In this case it is of course important to remember that the "right" you get, or what the license permits (no matter how you want to view it, license or contract) is for something you are allready allowed to do without the license/contract. It is like claiming you need a license to live, not needed.
Feel free to also refer to any laws regulating "licenses" as oposed to "contracts" were the difference you seem to know about is spelled out.
>In the UK, copyright law is stricter than in the US.
_ 2.htm
>There's no "fair use". You do, actually, need a license
>to perform any act that requires copying takes place.
This is not completely true. Although no general "fair use" exists, there is special provisions for computer programs that allows you to make nessecary copies. There is a clause about regulating agreement but it doesn't require such a thing. In the absence of an agreement restricting copying, any copying needed to use the software is allowed by a lawfull user of the software. There is no requirement of having an agreement to be a lawfull user. So unless you do agree to a contract (for example an EULA) that restrict copying to use (which seems stupid), you are allowed by copyright law to make such copying anyway.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923233_en
>Of course if you want to see how much companies believe in their EULA call one
>up and ask for a refund because you don't agree to the EULA.
So, if you did not agree to it, there is no contract which means they are not bound by it either, including any statements of refunds of course. A contract is only valid and enforcable if you agree upon it. This makes such clauses on what happens if you do not agree to it pointless as the only way to get them is to agree. A good catch 22.
>They don't for World of Warcraft (at least in the EU). A window pops up saying
>its changed but the EULA displayed is the same, I don't think its changed since
>2004 sometime..
So they lie, claiming it change and require you to read through it all (presumably comparing to the old in some way to spot differences since they don't tell) and require you to do so EVERY update, despite there being no difference?
For your information, they do the same with the ToS as well and the EULA actually DID change this summer with the latest major patch. What the change was? Since they don't tell, you actually have to go through it all, comparing to a hopefully saved version of the old one (since there is no place to find the old one any more after a patch). Alternatively you can have an excellent memory, but I doubt anyone has such a good one.
>I accept the terms and conditions of your contract. You may have some difficulty
>enforcing it, however. See you in court!
If you accept it, there is not much of a problem enforcing it. The problem would be if you, in court, would change to not accepting it. If two parties goes to a court and agrees about the contract, the court will simply wonder what the problem is about.
>Why the surprise? Slashdot in every copyright story posted has always argued
>that the digital domain. e.g software, music, etc falls under a different set of
>rules (from legal to economic) Don't bitch just because they're not working in
>your favour.
What does copyright have to do with this? It is about a product having errors and being defective and, due to consumer sale laws, the manufacturer being responsible to fix them. Extra contracts regulating the purchase (which again, has nothing to do with copyrights) can't change that. The fact that the manufacturer in this case wants to bundle fixes with new stuff is their problem, not that of the purchaser.
>There is a profound difference between a car and an operating system.
Except by the obvious differences, no, there isn't much differences when it comes to the product working, errors in the product and so on.
>A car needs to be tested fully,
So does most products, including software.
>because it is the manufacturer who introduces errors, and not crackers.
Crackers (or whatever you want to call them) doesn't introduce errors. They can exploit errors though. Of course there is also malicious programs and people that utilize non errors in the product, in such a case there is of course no responsability of the manufacturers, just as it is not the car manufacturers error or problem if someone smashes your window to steal your car. However, if the manufacturer made a defective lock on the car so that you can still open the door easilly despite it being locked (without force and so on), then it is an error in the car of course the manufacturers probelm. The same applies to software. If there is an exploit that lets someone take control over your computer due to programing errors, the problem is the manufacturers and there is a defective product. There is no difference here between a car and software.
>Also, we are talking about an EULA and not a warranty.
Ehh, no idea what one has to do with the other but this has little to do with errors or defective products in themselves. A defective product is the manufacturers problem by law, no matter what. No warranty or contract (like for example an EULA) can change that. That is how typical (consumer) sale law works. It is the manufacturers responsability to fix the error at no cost or extra trouble for the customer.
>If you want to buy the new product (SP4), then you need to agree to its EULA.
Considering the SP4, like most SP, also include several patches to fix bugs and errros, no, it is not a new product. If they want to bundle new stuff with it, that doesn't change it. You are stil entitled to the fixes and patches at no cost, work or requiring new contracts.
>I don't think so. If you end up in a US court over the EULA, they're not going
>to care where you happened to be physically located when you accepted the agreement.
>If you accepted it and then you violated the terms while in the jurisdiction of a US
>court, rulings by EU courts are completely irrelevant.
And how will they show that you have ever actually agreed to it to start with? You might not even be the one who installed it to start with and so on...
>Similarly, accepting the EULA in the US and then living and working
>in the EU won't cause EU courts to consider US precedents as
>valid when Microsoft tries to sue you in EU courts. The precedents
>that matter are the precedents of the court in whose jurisdiction
>the alleged violation occurs.
On top of that, many European countries doesn't have the "precedent system" of the USA to start with.
I don't think there was a specific country or law for the discussion, it was about the GPL in general and since it could be applicable to any country in the world, one has to keep in mind the differences of the copyright law.
>What section of copyright law places local modifications outside the scope of copyright law? As I stated in another comment,
>copyright law grants a copyright holder the "exclusive right to prepare a derivative work"...but it does not mention, in that
>section, distribution. I could be wrong, but I have a copy of the copyright act on my computer and looked through it and
>couldn't find anything supporting your position.
And you do realise that your copy of the copyright act applies to your country only, right? And that when it comes to "derivative work" there is quite a big difference between countries. Many countries does not at all have the concept of derivative work as existing in the US copyright law for example. many countries would, with varying definitions of the derivative work, still allow them (and actually give the copyright of such work to the one creating them) but places the same restrictions as on the original work, and as long as you use those "derivative" works only in such ways as you are allowed to use the original one, there is no infringment and such modifications would be allowed.
Actually, in that case, both sides agreed that the defendants had agreed to the EULA. So there were not much of an issue of if it was valid as such. It was about specific terms in it that was the case, or part of the case at least. The ruling had nothing to do with if EULAs as such are valid or not.
>Additionally I do not see how a company can turn a sale
>into a licensing deal post sale. The sales contract
>predates the EULA, it did not make any mentioning of any
>licenses and it did not state that additional contracts
>are required to use the software.
Also note that the sale is an agreement or contract of sale between you and the shop. The EULA would be a contract between you and the maker of the software. Two different things between different parties. The contract between you and the manufacturer can for example not bind or have any affect on the shop and so on.
Before the recent directive on saving most trafiic information in EU, it would be up to each country te decide whatever they want. Many countries, including for example Sweden, specifically *forbids* saving of much such data with some exceptions. In Sweden such data as who used which IP can only be saved if it is required for billing issues and similar reasons (which it often might be, but thus not required at all).
Which is a quite different case though. They might not have shared more than those few specific files the BPI downloaded. Even if you share a million files, it would take a long time even for a realsitic possibility for there being one download of each file, a simple calculation of file size and speed of connection gives a good estimate of minimum time. Of course, simply making it available can in many cases also be infringement, but is definately not the same as if one actually uploaded all those files many times.
That a crime has been commited is different from claiming a specific person commited it. If you have a contract that can be terminated if you commit illegal activities, then you must commit illegal activities for it to be terminated. One part can't say "I believe you commited illegal acitivites" and then be safe (well, of course the can, but they would be wrong and the ones breaching the contract). Until you have been judge by a court, you have not commited any illegal activites hence that can't be used as an excuse. One can find out a whole bunch of other reasons that doesn't require a court but we were discussing commiting an illegal activity here. So you can't, in your case terminate a contract with someone just because you think it was he who stole your bike (assuming you have a contract with him that can be terminated when he commits a criminal activity). The one who claims a breach of contract is the one who has to show it has happened, not the other way arround. The fact that the ISP can terminate your connection and account anyway is another story, they can go rob a bank as well, that doesn't make it right, legal or correct which is what we discuss here, not wether they have the possibility to terminate your account in an non correct and legal way.
Sure they might be able to pull other reasons (my comments was on illegalness specifically), but why? They could do that even without the BPI asking. And why would then "save" costs, for what? Actually they would lose income since they would lose you as a customer plus risking being draged to court by the customer, while if they do nothing, there is no problem. Had THEY (the ISP) been doing something wrong, the BPI would of course come for them, so that is appearantly not the case here in our example.
>When somebody offers something for sale, it's generally regarded as being just
>an invitation to treat - it is up to the buyer to make the offer, which the
>seller can then choose to accept unconditionally, to make a counter-offer for a
>different amount, or to reject outright. Unless the seller specifically says "I
>will sell to whoever comes to me unconditionally" and makes clear all the
>necessary terms then it cannot be considered an offer capable of being accepted.
Thanks, this was basically the exact thing I tried to say above in reply to "irw". I was under the impression he claimed that mere announcement or showing a price on an item would be the "offer" for a contract which I tried to show it was not. So I think we agree on the issue.
>This is simply NOT TRUE. While we do not have a concept in British law that goes
/ docs/levy_reform/stakeholder_consultation_en.pdf
>by the name of "fair use", this does NOT mean that you are not allowed to make
>private copies under any circumstances.
My comment was based on the information in the link I gave in a post a bit up (a document by the Director General of the internal market amd services) in the EU. It states that in the UK there is very limited rooms for private copying compare to most other countries. They gave examples of when it is allowed, such as time shifting. My writing of "no legal copying allowed for private use" was of course a simplification which should be seen in the context of the thread. It was meant to show why there would be a good reason to not have levies in countries were the room for privat copying is very small.
If you disagree with the statment of the document I quoted, you might want to give it an answer though since appearantly they are wrong according to you. Here is the lin again if you can't find it:
http://www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright
>I think the basic principle is that you can't tax what you can't measure.
>Legally you can, but practically, it's unenforcable.
Which is why you tax blank media and devices instead.
So your basic idea is that the the ISP should trust outside sources but not the customers? If the BPI doesn't even go to court, what would the reasonability be about there being an illegal activity? If they go to court, what would be the reasonability about not await what the court says? One can of course also wonder why the ISP should at all try to become a court in deciding what is illegal and non illegal activities.
>Having seen my and some other peoples phone, internet and other (usually Direct
u nf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
>Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along
>the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any
>point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the
>service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a
>period after that time then your going to have trouble getting you money back.
Considering the UK is part of the EU, no, such contractual terms are not allowd. If you want more information, check this out about "Unfair Contract Trems" (click on link in second paragraph or chose another language if you want). Note that the list of examples is just that, examples and not at all conclusive:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/
Just because they try to put such terms into the contract doesn't make them valid or enforcable.
>Did you notice that the UAT of the ISP, that the people signed up to, forbids
>using the service for illegal file sharing? That these people are therefore in
>breach of a contract they have with the ISP? That therefore the ISP is within
>their rights to withdraw from that contract?
And how would you (ot the ISP) know if you have commited illegal file sharing? Just because someone claims so?
The issue was of doing an illegal activity. Only a court can determine if you have commited an illegal activity which is the point I made.