nanog mailing list archives
Re: Web caching liability
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe () geo net>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:40:06 -0800
At Friday, Paul A Vixie wrote:
At the WIPO meeting in December 1996, the consensus was that mirroring ran afoul of copyright and license issues, and that caching did not. Caching was deemed an automated (no human intervention required) response to demanded traffic, and mirroring was considered a proactive human act.
Another interesting question than the intellectual property issue, is the question of what a NSP/ISP might do with the statistics on proxy traffic -- the numbers on hits, bytes, etc -- and the usage profiles of individuals using the proxy. I think it is only a matter of time and opportunity before some ISPs would begin to exploit revenue opportunities associated with this new gatekeeping role, should it develop. --Kent
Current thread:
- AOL Web caching? Brian Horvitz (Jan 02)
- Web caching liability Turnando Fuad (Jan 02)
- Message not available
- Re: Web caching liability Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 02)
- Message not available
- Re: Web caching liability Richard Welty (Jan 02)
- Re: Web caching liability Paul A Vixie (Jan 02)
- Re: Web caching liability Dean Gaudet (Jan 05)
- Re: Web caching liability Dan Mosedale (Jan 06)
- Web caching liability Turnando Fuad (Jan 02)
- Re: Web caching liability Paul A Vixie (Jan 02)
- Re: Web caching liability Kent W. England (Jan 07)
- Re: Web caching liability Jon Zeeff (Jan 07)
- Re: Web caching liability Paul R.D. LANtinga (Jan 06)