Re: decreased caching efficiency?

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () 21rst-century com>]

"Greg A. Woods" wrote:
> [ 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.
<snip>

For what it's worth the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) 
explicitly EXEMPTS caching as a violation of copyright. (This only
holds for music and maybe video,  but it is a clear precedent.)


>                                                         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>



                                   Regards
                                   Marshall Eubanks


   Multicast Technologies, Inc.
   10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 201
   Fairfax, Virginia 22030
   Phone : 703-293-9624          Fax     : 703-293-9609     
   e-mail : tme () on-the-i com     http://www.on-the-i.com