Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Register ISP bans linking to The Register

By Rogerborg in Internet
Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:24:51 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

Many of us will be familiar with The Register as a source of tech news with an ostensibly anarchic and pro-user attitude, as typified by their use of articles by celebrity cracker Kevin Poulsen, and the robustly anti-Microsoft ranter Thomas C. Greene.

Just how superficial that attitude is has been revealed by the Acceptable Use Policy of their newly launched "Vulture Capitalist ISP", which effectively bans using the service to link to large swathes of The Register itself, or to create the kind of stories that The Register likes running.

Update [2002-8-20 14:21:54 by rusty]: I ferretted a reply out of the Register. See their comments on this below.


I'm hardly shaking the foundations of journalistic integrity here: The Register has a bribery price list which is only half joking. But this is exactly the sort of story that they delight in running when it is perpetrated by anyone else, and so it's only fair - and deliciously ironic - to hold them to their own standards in this case.

Here are the pertinent terms from their new ISP's AUP, with observations on how they relate to The Register's own actions and editorials.

You may not [attempt to] probe, scan or test the vulnerability of a system or network

According to The Register, punishing people for doing that is shooting the messenger.

You are solely responsible for any information that you publish on the web. [...] you must take appropriate precautions to prevent minors from receiving inappropriate content

And yet The Register calls Australia stark raving mad for passing a law to this effect.

You are not permitted to upload or link to [...] any content that is racist, discriminatory or hateful

Like The Register's Flame Of The Week, or their description of Canadians as seal clubbers.

You are not permitted to upload or link to [...] any content that is excessively violent, horrific, disturbing or that portrays cruelty to humans or animals

Like The Register stories on Bonsai Kitten and baby cannibalism.

You are not permitted to upload or link to [...] content that infringes or violates any copyright, trademark or any other proprietary rights

But it's all right for The Register to berate BT for banning this.

You are not permitted to upload or link to [...] software designed to crack other software

Like The Register's posting of the DeCSS algorithm, or how to crack the Win2K SP3 installation process.

You may not send any adult material, material liable to offend, defamatory, confidential, secret or other proprietary material using your electronic mail access

So, nothing unsuitable for minors, or many of The Register's stories, or anything critical. And don't use your The Register email to inform The Register about any tasty inside information. What happened to journalists protecting their sources? Or to common carriers not being liable for the actions of their customers?

I understand that they're just covering their backs and are unlikely to implement this policy except in extreme (by their definition) cases. More extreme than linking to baby cannibalism, for example. However, there are some cases - such as linking to "software designed to crack other software" - where there is no wriggle room, and they are banning actions that they themselves happily carry out.

In effect, The Register is decreeing "do as we say, not as we do." I find this a timid and distasteful stance for such a bold and brash publication to take, especially when they so enjoy shredding other organisations when the marketing and PR spin doesn't match the substance.

This is also a sad indicator of just how litigation-shy ISP's worldwide are becoming, and how they are increasingly the servants of their lawyers rather than their masters. To borrow The Register's habit of using peculiarly British phrases, I declare that they're all mouth and no trousers.

Update: The Vulture Squawks

Register honcho John Lettice responds as follows:

Provisionally, the position is as follows:

1. It's virtually impossible to get this kind of deal without the ISP insisting on extensive butt-covering of this sort. And it's understandable, in that rational beings (including myself, and presumably your good self) will take reasonable steps to avoid the RIAA's tanks being parked on their lawn.

2. It seems to me Rogerborg is maybe straining a little to find bad teeth in this horse. Sure, the Ts & Cs could be interpreted by ravening ISP lawyers to mean some of these things, but if the ISP did start to act like a bunch of thugs we'd dump them, right? For chrissake, hypocrisy has its limits, even for us. (-:

3. Practically everything in the world today is illegal, if you look hard enough.

4. We sell stuff on our site. People buy the stuff because it's good stuff, some of them also buy the stuff because they like us. We like them liking us, and although the stuff is non-core, it helps pay the rent. It does not make sense to us to sell bad stuff, or lie about other people's stuff in order to shift our stuff, because then we'll get found out and people will stop liking us. An ISP service that did not work acceptably, in terms of performance or in terms of use AS APPLIED, would be bad stuff. This is an experiment, we hope it will work, but if it turns out to be bad stuff or stock we can't shift, we'll pull it.

5. It's only a big deal if people want to make it a big deal.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
The Register ISP: right or wrong?
o Right 6%
o Wrong 78%
o The Register? 14%

Votes: 47
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o The Register
o Kevin Poulsen
o Thomas C. Greene
o Acceptable Use Policy
o "Vulture Capitalist ISP"
o bribery price list
o AUP
o shooting the messenger
o stark raving mad
o Flame Of The Week
o seal clubbers
o Bonsai Kitten
o baby cannibalism
o berate BT
o DeCSS
o Win2K SP3 installation process
o inform The Register
o Also by Rogerborg


Display: Sort:
The Register ISP bans linking to The Register | 45 comments (39 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Biting the hand... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by El Volio on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:06:15 PM EST

Has anyone contacted The Register about this? I'm curious if they have anything to say about it...

Yes (none / 0) (#4)
by Rogerborg on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:19:26 PM EST

As a courtesy, I've sent Lester Haines a link to this article, and invited him to comment or reply.

However, The Register receives a lot of email, so getting a response from them is a fairly random process. Like most online news organisations, they tend to respond to stories that have already broken, they don't (from experience) nurture or welcome speculative ones, especially when they're meta.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Journalism (4.50 / 4) (#7)
by rusty on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:35:29 PM EST

It's good journalistic practice to give the subject of a story at least a day or three to respond to something like this. I gather by "sent him a link" that you posted this before contacting them at all. I'd be more impressed by the story if you had gone to the trouble of being fair to the Reg about it.

I'm know some folks over there, and I'll see if I can get a response about it.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

you know... (2.00 / 1) (#8)
by Shren on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:41:11 PM EST

You know, if there were some way to keep the story in the edit queue for a while, then it would stay largely out of the hands of the world while these issues get resolved.

[ Parent ]
To what end? (4.00 / 2) (#11)
by Rogerborg on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 02:01:59 PM EST

    if there were some way to keep the story in the edit queue for a while, then it would stay largely out of the hands of the world while these issues get resolved

Why though? The links are to a AUP that already exists and to articles that already exist, and the dichotomy that I see there is an opinion. To quote the great philosopher Sabrina the Teenage Witch, you can't retract an opinion, and I don't believe that any (terse) response that I would receive if I queried them would change my opinion about it being amusingly ironic.

The only issue here is their possible response to the opinion as expressed, which also has to be past tense. If it was really a serious issue, then it would indeed deserve a notice period, but to be perfectly honest, it's not, it's just a piece of gentle tweaking. If anything, it's free advertising for them. Cue shouts of "Buy an ad!". ;-)


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Response added (none / 0) (#35)
by rusty on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 02:26:22 PM EST

I hope you don't mind, but as John Lettice sent me a fairly detailed response, I pasted it onto the end.

I think the lesson here is that you need to work a little bit on your light and breezy humorous tone. They read it as more serious criticism than it was meant too. Damn the difficulties of conveying subtle tone in print. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#36)
by Rogerborg on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 03:46:09 PM EST

    I think the lesson here is that you need to work a little bit on your light and breezy humorous tone. They read it as more serious criticism than it was meant too. Damn the difficulties of conveying subtle tone in print. :-)

Oh no, it's definitely a bitter laugh, not light and breezy. After the way they dumped Kieren McCarthy et al on the sly, and with the increasing column space going to that venomous bombast Greene, I've really no sympathy for them.

What I mean is that it's not serious. Nobody, really, will give a damn that they're spineless dissembling media weasels. For one thing, they've never actually said otherwise.

If we're looking for a tone, it's <nelson>"Ha ha"</nelson>. Petty and spiteful, sure, but (to continue the theme) they started it. ;-)


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Explanation? (none / 0) (#38)
by crowbraid on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 04:32:44 PM EST

I've seen you use the phrase <nelson>"Ha ha"</nelson>. Since I'm a curious sort (in more ways than one) would you mind explaining or at least pointing to a place where that phrase is explained? Yes, I do recognize some HTML code, so no need to explain the brackets. Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (none / 0) (#40)
by Rogerborg on Wed Aug 21, 2002 at 06:06:19 AM EST

    I've seen you use the phrase <nelson>"Ha ha"</nelson>.

Sorry, cultural reference. It's a reference to The Simpsons character, Nelson, the school bully, and his distinctive flat mocking laugh.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Fair comment (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by Rogerborg on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:46:20 PM EST

I understand that, but in all honesty, "something like this" is just piss and wind, and a bit of gentle nose tweaking. It's hardly a serious challenge to their journalistic integrity, given that they have a bribery price list on their site.

If I thought it was actually serious, I'd have given them time for a response, but I don't expect to see a pitchfork wielding mob kicking down the doors of Vulture Central over it. It's more of a gentle "hoist by their own petard" jibe, posted to a forum that I hope will appreciate the delicious creamy irony without getting too hot and bothered over it.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Still and all... (4.00 / 1) (#17)
by rusty on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 02:48:50 PM EST

Ok. It didn't read to me as all that nose-tweaky. Perhaps I just misread the overall tone. It's still best to contact the subject beforehand, as a general rule, is all I was saying.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
"pitchfork wielding mob" (none / 0) (#26)
by Cloaked User on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:14:22 PM EST

Sounds good, and I work not far from their offices, I believe - where do I sign up? :-)

Seriously though, I can't imagine that this is anything other than a standard contract that their legal people had lying around, and that no-one looked at closely enough.

I fully expect a rueful "oops, we goofed" story on the Reg about this in a day or two.

Cheers,

Tim
--
"What the fuck do you mean 'Are you inspired to come to work'? Of course I'm not 'inspired'. It's a job for God's sake! The money's enough and the work's not so crap that I leave."
[ Parent ]

"[I] know some folks over there" (2.37 / 8) (#13)
by Steve Ballmer on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 02:20:45 PM EST

name-dropper

[ Parent ]
Hey, you call your folks, then (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Perianwyr on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 04:55:25 PM EST

I imagine it would be a simple matter to settle the issue *and* close the deal on some SharePoint licenses or something while you're at it.

[ Parent ]
Journalistic Practice (none / 0) (#37)
by wnight on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 04:32:43 PM EST

There's a big difference between posting fact, and drawing editorial conclusions from it, and posting potentially unjustified accusations.

If the story had contained rumours of tR's use of these AUP rules in an unfair context, I think it'd be fair to wait for confirmation.

But this story is based, as far as I can tell, on fact. It's a statement made directly by tR on this subject and is meant to be authoritative. If there are negative reprocussions from this they should have considered it before writing their AUP.

Also, things like this are best brought into the public's eye sooner. "We" need to know what's going on. The editorial spin isn't required, but without that this wouldn't have been noticed. Many things happen every day, unnoticed simply because nobody bother to get riled up and tell everyone.

[ Parent ]

Best brought out sooner. (none / 0) (#42)
by vectro on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 11:25:34 AM EST

Please, explain to me why something like this needs to be brought out on Wednesday rather than Monday.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
More extreme than linking to baby cannibalism (4.33 / 3) (#5)
by wiredog on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:21:57 PM EST

That sounds like quite a bit more fun that "Technology and Culture, From the Trenches".

We should suggest that to the new Board of Directors of the non-profit Kuro-five-hin Foundation

Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.

Well done (none / 0) (#15)
by d s oliver h on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 02:40:07 PM EST

It's a good, interesting story, and exactly the sort of thing The Register would pick up on in a flash if somebody else had done it.

Ah, well spotted (none / 0) (#18)
by Rogerborg on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 02:49:55 PM EST

    It's a good, interesting story, and exactly the sort of thing The Register would pick up on in a flash if somebody else had done it.

Thank you! That's exactly my point, and a good note to end my last re-edit on.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the feedback (4.33 / 3) (#16)
by Rogerborg on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 02:48:11 PM EST

Real life calls unexpectedly, and I'm going to have to put this to vote prematurely.

For the benefit of those commenting that it's professional to allow story subjects time to respond, I'd have to say that I'm not a professional journalist, this isn't a site employing same, and that anybody that gets too bothered by what they read on K5 probably buys a lot of Thighmasters and Invisible Rust Inhibitor Coatings, if you see what I mean.

That said, I've sent a note off to Lester Haines inviting him to contribute and comment on this story (which doesn't even become a story until it's voted up, let's remember), and that The Register has a predilection for saying that it has "received no response by publication time"... whatever that means in an online context. Besides, they have a bribery price sheet, which I suspect is only half joking. We're not talking shaking the foundations of journalistic integrity here.

But most of all, I'll remind you that when The Register sacked half of their staff just before Christmas 2001, it was up to ntk.net to break the news online. The Register isn't that keen on meta news, especially when raised by non-professional no-namers like my humble self.

Besides, this isn't Slashdot. Nobody's going to bounce off of their parents' basement walls or write their Congressman a snippy letter over this. It's just (to my eyes) delicious irony, worth a gentle smirk, or perhaps a quiet "Tut tut, poor show," not a lynchmob or a class action suit. ;-)


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

Seal clubbers, eh? (3.80 / 5) (#19)
by JahToasted on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:09:30 PM EST

But all us Canadians really DO club seals. I mean if you were surrounded by cute baby seals what would YOU do?
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
They're maneaters! (none / 0) (#28)
by finite automaton on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 06:34:04 PM EST

They're maneaters! Maneaters I tells ya! It was them or me. Self defense all the way. No court would convict me.

[ Parent ]
Something going on here? (2.00 / 1) (#20)
by rsidd on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:15:41 PM EST

www.vcisp.net doesn't resolve from the machine I'm sitting on. From another machine I have access to (on another continent), it resolves to www.plus.net and the "accessible use policy" document doesn't seem to exist. whois gives quite different information for the two domains, with the registrant for vcisp.net having a register.co.uk email address, but no mention of the Register for plus.net.

Ignore that... (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by rsidd on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:30:02 PM EST

It resolves now (and I see what you mean).

[ Parent ]
As a Reg junkie (4.00 / 4) (#22)
by senjiro on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 04:18:55 PM EST

I can't wait to see what, if any, response they have to this insight. You have perfected the art of Pot and Kettle journalism in this article. I would expect to read it at the Reg if you didn't scoop them.

All in good fun, of course.

it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
Insufficient input on legal boilerplate = bad (4.00 / 3) (#23)
by Perianwyr on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 04:54:02 PM EST

It feels likely that no one associated with the Register had anything to do with the agreement- The Reg's association with this ISP is purely a marketing one.

What the Register probably did was walk on over to a mega-ISP in the business of offering access to their system for resale (as many prospective ISP operators do.) The mega-ISP, as part of the service plan, probably also created the Vulture Capitalist ISP promotional and sales web pages. In the process, they took care of the boilerplating for the Register, as well. A google search for this particular bit of the AUP shows that this is by no means a unique piece of text- and anyone examining other AUPs in use by ISPs will see differences that are cosmetic at best.

All in all, it is amusing irony (which, I am inclined to believe, will be corrected posthaste by the Register) but all too common. In fact, I'd say that the "litigation-shy" quality of ISPs worldwide is largely an unconscious thing. They ask their lawyers to bust out the boilerplate and cover all their bases, and that's what happens.

rsidd's comment below confirms (none / 0) (#25)
by Perianwyr on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:08:38 PM EST

The ISP involved appears to be plus.net. Interestingly, their AUP is nowhere near as specific about what evil things you may not do as VCISP's is. I think I would like to hear exactly what the Register has to say for itself, here.

[ Parent ]
plus.net (4.00 / 1) (#30)
by Scurra on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 08:32:20 PM EST

It seems that they've teamed up with plus.net, how I would hardly describe as a mega-ISP. I used to be a plus.net customer for several years (firstly when it was called force9, then f9, then plus), and I have to say that the level of service was a running joke both between customers of the ISP itself, and in the Usenet community. It was good to start with, but I'm glad I jumped ship when I did. I do hear they've improved since then (with their ADSL offerings), but I wouldn't go back to them, and I know quite a few others who wouldn't.

I'm with demon now, first on dial-up and now on ADSL, and I have to say that the service with them has always been pretty good. They do exactly what I want of an ISP - provide me with an internet connection that works, and with the extra services (news, e-mail, web services) being avaliable but without being forced down my throat.

[ Parent ]

Ah.. Thanks. (none / 0) (#34)
by squigly on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 09:57:10 AM EST

Let me guess - You were one of the one's who jumped ship when their unmetered dialup stopped working, and then they blamed the customers.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that their service is provided by Plusnet.  I was considering them (getting ADSL installed soon), but I think I'll stick with Demon.  There's no way I'll ever forgive Plusnet unless they beg me to come back to them.

[ Parent ]

Don't be an idiot (2.42 / 7) (#27)
by wji on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:20:40 PM EST

There are at least three things wrong with your rant.

One, the Reg ISP is a business. It cannot afford to deal with five lawsuits and a criminal prosecution in Botswana. So it has no choice but to institute these regulations.

Two, the people who write the Reg's stories didn't make the fucking ISP. It's just marketing.

Three, no ISP enforces these unless you really put them in a position where you have to. If you mailbomb adl.org with nazi propaganda your ISP will probably get some nasty letters and disconnect your account. Make jokes about Canadians on a web forum and it won't be a problem.

There's probably more, but you get the idea.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

OK, let's do this (4.00 / 4) (#29)
by Rogerborg on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 08:09:01 PM EST

    the Reg ISP is a business. It cannot afford to deal with five lawsuits and a criminal prosecution in Botswana.

But why go to the bother of specifying all of the things that they will ban? Better to claim common carrier status while reserving an absolute right to censor and terminate service at their sole discretion. By coming up with a big list, they're just eroding their common carrier protections while providing fodder for criticism.

    So it has no choice but to institute these regulations.

You say this as though it's axiomatic. I hold it axiomatic that there's always a choice, just that it's usually smart and safe versus dumb but brave. I'm not surprised - but I am disappointed - that the Register has chosen the smart safe option.

    Two, the people who write the Reg's stories didn't make the fucking ISP. It's just marketing.

And the ironic part is that The Register is so fond of pointing out when the marketing spin doesn't match the substance in other companies' offerings. The link to the BT P2P blocking is just one of many examples of them making capital off of this. Do you understand that the purpose of this story is to apply exactly this approach of contrasting the spin with the substance?

    Three, no ISP enforces these unless you really put them in a position where you have to

Thanks for stating the bloody obvious. No, wait, restating it, as I already said this in the story.

    There's probably more, but you get the idea.

I get the idea that you've run out of vague generalities to spout, given that you've already borrowed one of mine for your third point. But please, do go on. I'm genuinely interested in hearing why you don't believe that it's appropriate to use the The Register's technique of contrasting spin with substance to analyse their own offering.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Makes sense (none / 0) (#31)
by Atomic Eco on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 01:32:27 AM EST

Well, they ARE self-proclaimed vulture capitalists. What would you expect if you subscribed to "Copyright Watchdog ISP".. That said, I think they're just covering their legal behinds, and will most likely only do the bare minimum of policing their users.

Finland.. where polar bears roam the streets.
you mean it's real? (none / 0) (#32)
by jbond23 on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 03:39:34 AM EST

Shurely Shome Mishtake.

I thought the Vulture Capitalist ISP was a delicious bit of post modern irony and not a real ISP. You mean they actually run an ISP and I can get broadband from them? Amazing.

And this ISP has an AUP that threatens dire consequences if you do anything at all? Well there's a surprise. Isn't this true of every ISP?

But I think we deserve to be told the Register's reaction to this story.

No, it's not true of every ISP. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Gromit on Mon Dec 02, 2002 at 09:30:11 AM EST

Isn't this true of every ISP?
No, see below.

I was really disappointed by The Register on this, as it happened I was in the market for a new ADSL ISP when they launched VCISP and I thought "finally, someone will stop the madness!" Not only didn't they stop it, but they bought into it (and invite us to), and then they try to defend buying into it saying that there's some difference between the T&Cs that are written and the T&Cs "...AS APPLIED..." (Lettice's emphasis), as though it's okay within the bounds of integrity to specifically agree to something and then break your agreement because the other person mostly won't care. And then the pure BS of (paraphrased) "Oh don't worry, dear, if the ISP is heavy-handed..." (e.g., actually does what it says it will do) "...Uncle Vulture will handle it and dump them." Give me an effing break.

I finally found an ISP that doesn't kowtow to brown-pants lawyers: Andrews and Arnold, http://aa.nu. Excellent technically, as well! When I pointed out the reasonable T&C's of this company to people at The Register, their response was to suggest that A&A had skimped on their legal advice. Tsk, tsk...

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]

Well... (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by pwhysall on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 04:55:08 AM EST

...it is called the "Vulture Capitalist ISP".

What were you expecting?
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown

Bribery Price List (none / 0) (#39)
by crowbraid on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 05:25:18 PM EST

I looked at that link and found it amusing. But then, my standards of humor are fairly low, and I find life to be amusing for the most part anyway. Mind you, I know little about the Register, so cannot comment about their business practices, etc.

 

As a final example (none / 0) (#41)
by Rogerborg on Wed Aug 21, 2002 at 11:18:09 AM EST

Of exactly what I'm talking about, I refer you to this article, written by John Lettic, after he'd responded here.

Here's the choice quotes:

  • it's vital that people are aware of the steady ratcheting upwards of Microsoft's (and indeed the software industry's in general) licensing terms and conditions, and why it is important to worry about them.
  • Things change slowly, your rights are slowly eroded, nobody bar a few ranting maniacs shouts about it, then a year or two down the line we get to the next step. It's just a little one, oh, just a tad of legal butt-covering, people huff, not much different from what they were doing before anyway. And so, on to the next step. That's why it's important to know, to worry and - while you can - to resist.

I rest my case.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

C'mon - Be Real (none / 0) (#43)
by dvchaos on Mon Sep 16, 2002 at 02:49:31 AM EST

in reality, even if the Reg's AUP spells it out for the less IQ, I mean er .. less responsive people, dosen't mean the other ISP's wouldn't do EXACTLY the same thing. infact you could just say the Reg are actually being MORE sensible by stating all parts of the AUP's unlike some whom have a tendancy to try and sneak it in afterward.

it's true (none / 0) (#44)
by duncangough on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:43:43 AM EST

they really are becoming the next Daily Mail. Better still, they're the Queen Mum of Online Journalism ;)

/*
* code: http://www.suttree.uklinux.net/code/
* read: http://www.suttree.uklinux.net/dark/fiction/
*/
The Register ISP bans linking to The Register | 45 comments (39 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!