mailing list archives
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: woods () weird com (Greg A. Woods)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
[ On Friday, October 20, 2000 at 09:44:37 (-0400), Dana Hudes wrote: ]
Subject: Re: decreased caching efficiency?
I pay my ISP to carry IP packets around. Caching is acceptable in some cases
but not in others.
You control how your information is distributed. If you do not wish it
to be cached in any meaningful manner by an ISP or anyone else then you
must use protocols that are inherently uncachable, such as those
protected by strong cryptography.
In some cases certainly your cache is in fact a copyright violation.
No, it's absolutely NOT. You knowingly publish your content in a medium
where copying is an inherent part of the system (at many levels!).
If you do not accept that arbitrary copies will be made of your data
then must not publish your information on the Internet. Period. No
amount of ignorance of the medium is a valid excuse in this day and age.
The only way you can prevent unabashed private copying is to enter into
explicit contracts with those you securely distribute your own copies
to. IANAL, but I have studied Copyright Law and I'm reasonably certain
that it can only prevent people from making explict commercial use of
your works -- it cannot even cause an ISP to share any percentage of the
monetary gain in bandwidth savings with you since that's not how
copyright law defines commercial use.
Network operators will do whatever's necessary to optimise their
networks. Transparent caching, where it makes sense and is possible,
will happen regardless of what content providors wish. If I can sell
even 10% more bandwidth than I buy due to caching then you can bet your
boots I'm going to use it!
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods () acm org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods () planix com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods () weird com>
Re: decreased caching efficiency? Lincoln Dale (Oct 20)
RE: decreased caching efficiency? Travis Grant (Oct 20)