[SWLUG] SSH tunelling

[Chris Jackson]

On 13 May 2011 16:15, Steve Hill <steve at nexusuk.org> wrote:
> Why?  If I were to attach a small font-size link to the bottom of a
> "service" I offered pointing to some outrageous T&Cs, will a court uphold my
> claims against people?  Lets say I have a link on the bottom of my emails
> that states that you agree to pay me £1000 if you read that email (you are
> using a service I have provided, namely reading an email that I own the
> copyright to), am I within my rights to get a county court judgement against
> you for failing to pay me?

Yes, attaching the terms would give you a cause of action should
anyone break them.  It would fail for two reasons unrelated to this:
1. The terms attach to reading the email, but to get to the terms, I
must first read the email.  Therefore, I was unable to acquaint myself
with the terms, and they would not bind me the first time around.
2. The term is patently unreasonable on its face.

For iPlayer, #1 does not apply, because the terms attach to use of the
service, which consists of providing video and audio, and it's clearly
possible to read the terms before watching the video, even though you
are presented with the interface first - in much the same way that you
can see a shop's wares through the window and decide whether or not
you want to do business with them before you enter.

> This is patently absurd - If I go into Tesco and purchase a boxed piece of
> software, a book and a loaf of bread, I no more require a licence to use the
> software than I do the loaf of bread or the book.

In the case of the boxed retail software, you've bought the discs and
the licence at the same time.  A certain software company now allows
you to buy a licence for its office suite via retail outlets - you get
a card with a number on it, and you get the software online.

> A citation on your position that I require a copyright waiver in order to
> view broadcast media would be more appropriate.

I shouldn't really, since you're the one claiming that almost the
entirety of both the broadcast and software industries have got it
wrong, but nonetheless you'll want to look at s.297 Copyrights,
Designs and Patents Act [1988 c.44] and Murphy v Media Protection
Services [2008 EWHC 1666 (Admin)].  The latter will be well-known to
people as "that foreign satellite football case".  This is sometimes
incorrectly said to have been appealed to the ECJ - it is in fact a
reference to decide on some specific questions, none of which is the
validity of s.297.

-- 
Chris Jackson