<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">----- Mensaje original ----<br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">De: Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes@gmail.com><br>Enviado: viernes, 5 de septiembre, 2008 22:11:14<br>> > - there are anti-monopolistic laws in US<br>> Yes. But the issue at hand was not monopolies, but whether or not private enterprises and<br>> therefore "private interests" own the network infrastructure and thereby the net.<br><br>That ownage of network infrastructures inevitably drives to monopolies; if ISPs are able to filter and control which contents arrive to you -favouring some against others-, ISPs can boost some companies, even only one, making it dominate the market; if specifically that company also belongs to
the same holding as the ISP -i.e., the ISP also being a content provider-, then it wouldn't just be a content monopoly, but a general one.<br><br>> > - as long as a person is not allowed to hit people with a car, no matter if it's a car of his/her<br>> > own, an ISP/State is not allowed to invade their users' privacy, no matter whether that<br>> > ISP/State has fully paid the net infrastructures or not<br>> Of course they can. The state can't invade the privacy as easily though - it tends to make voters<br>> and citizens very grumpy.<br>><br>> But for a private enterprise, they can just put in their end-user agreement that they'll be allowed<br>> to do so and so, and then claim it was the user's free choice that led to them being surveilled.<br>> And unless you want to remove the freedom for citizens to partake in business deals, that's a<br>> very difficult practise to get rid of. (for the record - I think the
practise is bad and should be<br>> regulated)<br><br>I don't know how does it work in Sweden -I imagine that it has to be simmilar than in Spain-; here, an illegal clause becomes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28law%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">void</span></a>; e.g., I worked as salesman and I was told that certain clauses from contracts we worked with -e.g., a recission clause- were not fully avoidable, but partially avoidable; same happens with recission clause for football contracts if there is an unbalance between player's salary and player's recission. And all these and others in spite of the signatory having signed the contract -thus, signing a contract not always forces signatory to fully fulfill all its clauses-.<br><br>While I can agree with you that sometimes is not so easy to avoid certain clauses -because of courts' understanding of what sometimes implies user agreement in making a clause valid-, if a clause goes
against civil rights and liberties becomes unenforceable. Regards,<br><br><br> Carlos Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br></div></div></div><br>
</body></html>