Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: "Dana Hudes" <dhudes () hudes org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:57:15 -0400

I think you have a few misconceptions.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>
To: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: decreased caching efficiency?


Dana Hudes wrote:
From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>
That seems to follow "not make any sense", but YMMV.

No, you are interfering with my revenue stream by preventing my 
getting credit for the banner impression.

Your bad business models are not my problem.

As I wrote before (and you didn't respond):

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

certainly true and the same is applicable to you.

right. your customers pay you to get them the packets they asked for and if
they want to visit my site and see my content and your cache breaks that,
you're not delivering what your customers requested. My site won't deliver
content in most of the pages without the ads displaying. 

Interesting, if true.

For example, I use Netscape.  Netscape has long had the wonderful 
feature that images aren't loaded, unless I hit the Images button.  
Only rarely do I ever want to see images.

Then why the heck would you visit my photo gallery? to read the captions??

Don't forget Opera, iCab, and other fine browsers that automatically 
filter out various styles of junk.

Hmm. I'll have to check out Opera. If indeed it prevents ads, I'll have to add 
JavaScript to prevent Opera users from viewing my photos.

And all of them use a disc and/or memory cache.

Memory copies are an interesting secondary issue. There has been litigation on this
unrelated to the Internet that held that loading a program into RAM from disc is making a copy
and requires a license. The issue was some sort of systems maintenance company which wasn't licensed.

So, your site won't load, and customers just go on to the next site.  
Actually, that just means fewer and fewer folks will visit your site, 
and fewer and fewer folks will buy your hosting.  

No, you've got it wrong. The ads are on the pages. Apache, at the moment,
knows nothing of the ads. Anyone I provide virtual hosting for is paying money
and can do any legal thing they want with their content. They want ads, they go make
their own deals.  This isn't angelfire or yahoo. 

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

show me where I licensed your cache to store (copy) my photographs
or that it constitutes fair use.

You don't seem to have answered the question.

I guess I'll cite the entire copyright law....USC Title 31 isn't it?
I'll have to look.
But there is always the case law. And even if I gave you case citation you would
not interpret it properly.

I believe that you explicitly granted the access to your material, 
using DNS and BGP and by responding to the HTTP get request.  I don't 
understand how I access it otherwise.

Alternatively, I cannot carry your IP packets at all.  Therefore, 
at such time as you tell everyone on NANOG your network numbers 
carrying your strictly licensed material, we'll be happy to filter 
your BGP announcements, up to and until you explicitly give us 
permission to carry them again..

You are being highly silly as you confuse layer 3 with layer 7 packets for a particular application.
why are you on the side of theives?

My photo pages are supported by advertising. I am the copyright holder for the photos and the pages. The license to 
view the photos is dependent on the display of the banner ads. If you view the photos without the ads, absent some 
other license negotiated with the owner of the copyright, you are stealing
from me.

I volunteer as plaintiff if one of the lurking attorneys will volunteer to
make some case law by suing cache using sites for copyright violation. 

I'll be happy to volunteer as defendant.

William Allen Simpson
1384 Fontaine
Madison Heights  MI  48071

Although I would appreciate waiting a few months, as I already have 
a case going at 6th Circuit, and I'm an expert witness in another.  
I really prefer not to handle more than 1 or 2 at a time -- it's too 
distracting from real life.

Version: PGP 6.5.1


  By Date           By Thread  

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