Dear Newspaper Readers,
Having
not previously bought an on-line newspaper I didn’t realise that this is an
area of technology that has taken us forward on the onehand and back to
goodness knows where on the other.
For years my subscriptions entitled me to get real copies
of the Sunday Times and its daily sister paper The Times delivered to my house.
I don’t recall having to abide by any Terms and Conditions before I place my
order. In any event this would have futile because I could have gone out and bought them without agreeing to anything.
Now in the name of progress The Times is about to go
on-line. That is the only way to keep it alive by eliminating expensive
printing, delivery and other costs. Hardly surprisingly they want me to sign up
for the on-line version.
That’s when I discovered that the Tiso Blackstar Group, the
owners of The Times, has put a new twist on that old adage: “The customer is
always right.” Readers are expected to abide by almost book length Terms and
Conditions to ensure that they remain “always right.”
If
they step out of line a section of Clause 14 has this ominous warning as to
what will happen: “Any costs, including legal costs on attorney and own client
scale plus VAT incurred by the owner (The Times) arising out of your use of
this website content or breach of the terms and conditions will be borne by
you.”
Just to see what’s happening in other parts of the
newspaper world I checked with the New York Times. And its digital
subscriptions have much the same Terms and Conditions as The Times, which indicates
that this is probably standard practice among all on-line papers.
The
Times ones are under the heading: “Terms
and conditions. The fine print for
Times Live and the Sunday Times
readers.”
Even here like thousands of other firms Blackstar
refers to them as being in “in the fine
print.” Businesses have been doing it like this for ages because they are
clearly embarrassed to have to tell you, the consumer, something that is
clearly not in your interests. So they put them in the “fine print” as if they are hoping you won’t notice them until
after the deal has been done.
Here are some of the gems from the totally one sided
T&Cs mine field that readers are expect to watch their step in for the
privilege of paying for The Times on-line.
“If you accept these T&Cs you acknowledge that the
owner may at any time impose additional T&Cs. If you do not agree to these
you will not be allowed to use this website and you must immediately delete all
copies in your possession.”
Presumably Blackstar’s Gestapo will be standing by to hack
into your affairs to makes sure this is complied with.
And what’s more it’s “your responsibility to familiarise
yourself with any amended T&Cs on each occasion that you make use of this
website.” So once you log on you must do some exhaustive research to
protect yourself before you even start reading the latest edition of the paper
you are paying for.
You are given a link to enable you to download the
Electronic Communications Act and it emphasises that “it’s your responsibility
to ensure the copy downloaded is the most recent version.”
In the interests of that free speech newspapers are always
promoting “you agree that the owner shall be entitled, in its sole discretion
and for any reason, to prohibit you from participating in any discussion in any
of the forums.”
Then there are the sexy forbidden acts. “You are not
allowed to perform any act that is not fair use within the scope of the
permitted use, which has not been expressly approved by the owner in writing.
The prohibited acts include (but are not limited to) modifying, distributing, commercialising,
exploiting or altering the website or website content or incorporating any part
of the website content in any work or publication.”
So if you are not very careful you might perform a
forbidden act that you haven’t even been told about.
It seems that when this paper goes on-line nobody will be
allowed to quote extracts of it on places like my blog, Twitter and Facebook
etc without first getting “the owner’s prior written approval.”
That sounds like a pretty long winded procedure. “Requests
for approval must be submitted to the TimesLive editorial team.” Even then
don’t think the answer will be an automatic “Yes” because the T&Cs tell us
“The owner is entitled, in its sole discretion, to withhold or grant consent.
The owner may also impose any conditions on any consent that is granted.”
Will this mean that in some cases a Blackstar board meeting
will have to be convened to consider some of the more serious requests and the
firm’s legal team will have to sanction the final approval?
Just in case a reader might get any ideas about
circumventing the terms of this onerous agreement it says “no relaxation or
indulgence that the owner may grant you will be deemed to be a waiver of any of
the owner’s rights in these terms and conditions or in law.”
So there you have it. Oh I almost forgot this pompous
screed that is the very antithesis of good journalism applies to “any person
who uses any part of the website.” And once you have read the T&Cs “your
use of the website constitutes acceptance of the terms and conditions.”
Now you need to consult a lawyer before you buy something
that used to be as simple as handing your money over a counter or to a street
vender. The latest technology might be a boon to the production of newspapers
but it’s certainly treating the paying customers with the utmost suspicion as
if they’re all crooks.
Who wants to have to worry about Big Brother looking over
your shoulder, with an army of expensive lawyers waiting to pounce every time
you go on-line to read a paper?
Regards
Jon,
the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman, who learns something every day about the way
newspapers unashamedly do the kind of thing that they will enthusiastically
attack others in print for doing.
P.S. Does
this absurdity comply with South Africa
P.P.S. In June 2011 I
wrote a post praising Capitec ,
South Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment