nanog mailing list archives
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
From: "Kevin Loch" <kloch () gurunet net>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:32:32 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net> Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 0:22 am Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
(Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and recordthemachine address of the devices connected.)And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model and sell as it wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal extra service. This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that continue to allow and support NAT.
If you can tell the difference between NAT and non-NAT traffic you don't need this law. If you can't, the law is completely unenforcable. The same goes for VPN's. So what's the point other than to discourage good business models? KL
Current thread:
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Kevin Loch (Mar 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True McBurnett, Jim (Mar 30)
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True E.B. Dreger (Mar 30)
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True McBurnett, Jim (Mar 30)
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True E.B. Dreger (Mar 30)
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True McBurnett, Jim (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Kevin Loch (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Neil J. McRae (Mar 31)
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True todd glassey (Mar 31)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Stephen Sprunk (Mar 31)
- RE: State Super-DMCA Too True todd glassey (Mar 31)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Stephen Sprunk (Mar 31)
(Thread continues...)