Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson () greendragon com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:04:04 -0400


Dana Hudes wrote:

I vehemently disagree with the statement that impressions do not make any sense,
only clickthroughs. There is such a thing as brand awareness, a situation where
a banner ad is good for itself even if it doesn't lead to click through.

Of course, in that case, the benefit is to the advertiser.  That is, 
they get the benefit, but you don't get paid.  Not my problem.

That seems to follow "not make any sense", but YMMV.


It is NOT for YOU to decide what business model makes sense for MY
business relationship with MY advertisers.

Nope.  You can have any business relationship you'd like.  But, 
by the same token, it is not for *YOU* to decide that *I* have to 
pay to support YOUR business decision.

Last time I looked, there's no constitutional right that 
guarantees that you can make money.


I pay my ISP to carry IP packets around. 

But, you don't pay ME to carry your IP packets around.  My customers 
pay me.  I pay my upstream.  Therefore, I pay my upstream as little 
as possible.


In some cases certainly your cache is in fact a copyright violation.

Interesting, if true.  Perhaps you could provide a citation?

WSimpson () UMich edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32




  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault