[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: NYT's contract to read their pages

  At 12:35 PM 4/1/96 -0500, BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU wrote:
  >I have received several requests about what I was referring to
  >when I said the New York Times uses the vilest of contract language
  >and imposes harsh liabilities to users of their web page.
      IANAL, but I don't read it this way.  The clause in question refers
      to items _originating_ from your account.  That is, if you choose to
      post into one of their online forums then you agree that the material
      you post is not copyrighted by somebody else.  This seems reasonable
      to me.
  >As you read this extract of the agreement you must 'sign' to use
  >http://www.nytimes.com, ask yourself why the 'little people' must
  >sign away their assets to protect the big people -- the New York Times?
      The New York Times is still responsible for what they "publish" on
      the web.  You are responsible for what you "publish" on the web.
  >The indemnification clause place every user at risk of being hauled
  >into court over some purported breach, and you get to pay for all
  >the law fees incurred by the NYTs and for any damages.
      Only for what the user posts.  If the user is just a passive reader of
      the NYT web site then they assume no liability.
  >I urge everyone to boycott the Times' web page.
      Well, I would agree with this anyway, but solely because of their
      editorial stance.  :)
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >5.1 Subscriber represents, warrants, and covenants (a) that no materials of
  >  >any kind submitted through Subscriber's account will (i) violate,
  >  >plagiarize, or infringe upon the rights of any third party, including
  >  >copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary rights; or
  >  (remainder of agreement deleted for brevity)
      | Christopher Wysocki  | chris@datalife.com | +1 201 239 7500 x232 |    
      | Data Life Associates | 500 Bloomfield Ave | Verona, NJ 07044 USA |