The Fine Print in Internet Access

[canonetc]

HI all,

I was reading the Tems and Conditions in an online contract for an internet provider, and Line 13 made me pause:

"13. Content you post.
When you post or upload content (including feedback and suggestions) ("Posted Content") in a context that indicates that the Posted Content will be accessible to the public, you grant PeoplePC the worldwide, royalty free, and non-exclusive license, without payment of compensation, to publish, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display and perform, reproduce, edit, translate, and reformat the Posted Content through the Internet and to publish your name (if posted by you) in connection with the Posted Content..."

The first interpretation of this paragraph that came to mind was that this is simple language whereby I give them legal permission to transmit, via their servers, whatever "Posted Content" I wish to upload to this website or others. Sounds simple enough.

The second interpretation that came to mind was that this term allows them to reproduce or use anything I upload for whatever they wish, forever, short of selling the actual content for profit. Hmmm. Where's my lawyer...?

Interesting, huh? Both interpretations could be true. I emailed them for clarification; we'll see if they reply.

Anyway, some food for thought. Yeah, yeah, I know. "Where have you been, Chris? Living in a cave? Welcome to the Internet!" 🙂

Cheers,

Chris
canonetc

 

[dmr]

What ISP is this? That almost seems unconscionable!

 

[jlw]

"Publish" in a legal sense simply means "to make public" -- so if you WANT to post content so it's accessible to anyone else on the Internet, it would be very difficult for the service provider to draft an agreement that would enable them to carry out your wishes by publishing it electronically, but bar publishing it in any other form.

I suspect their main goal is to escape liability for copyright infringement actions; normally, both authors and publishers of infringing materials are "jointly and severally liable," so if the material eventually winds up someplace you didn't want it, they can defend themselves by saying they were acting with your consent when they made it available.

 

[XAos]

Still it seems there is a legal difference between serving requests and having intellectual property rights to the image, which their language appears to actually reserve even if it was not the intended purpose. I think a lot of these things arise when someone who is not a lawyer drafts it, or only one side retains a lawyer. Their lawyer is only concerned about them, and doesn't care a whit about you. I'm not suggesting that we should need to consult with a lawyer before signing up with a new ISP, but someone needs to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar before this kind of one sided sweeping boilerplate no longer goes unchallenged. Sadly, it'll probably require someone to be able to show damages rather than just find it offensive.

I see nothing in the quoted portion that actually prevents them from even taking 12 images out of your gallery and selling a commercial calendar without ever paying you a dime.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

try googling you name and see what comes up, not to surprising!

Todd

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The "netscape.com' site's conditions adds in the clause that allows them to publish it in any format that can be conceived by mankind in the years to come. They also make it known that they will aim copyright suits back at you, the original poster. The original "at home" clause made you, the account holder, financially responsible for any illegal charges made to your account. They originally had the idea of doing internet shopping, and let the items be charged to your at-home account. But, unlike a credit card, according to the agreement that you signed, you were to be held responsible for any charges made by people spoofing your account. No wonder they went bankrupt and got bought out.