Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Sat Sep 25 17:00:42 2010 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:01:38 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
On 2010-09-25 23:53, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:43:25 BST, Matthew Walster said:
Was anything ever standardised in that field? I imagine with much of P2P traffic being (how shall I put this...) less than legal, it's of questionable legality and the ISPs would not want to be held liable for the content cached there?
The ISP is off the hook on that one. 17 USC 512(2) specifically carves out an ISP safe-harbor for data that's only cached on an ISP's servers due to an end user's request. IANAL, so have somebody you pay for legal advice read 17 USC 512(2) and tell you what they think.
So it that is true, if you define "news server" as a "cache", even though you have to buy several terabytes, make that several petabytes, to "be able to "cache" this data one along with all the network environment to support getting data out of this "cache", the ISP is completely in the clear even though that "cache" is the sole single point where one can retrieve that "cached" data from even years after the data was originally put on the network, the original is gone and that "cache" works without anything being attached to it ? :)
There is existant _recent case law, specifically with regard to operating a newsserver, that holds otherwise. Of course the server operator was blatently _advertizing_ the copyright-infringing (and more) nature of their content. Several of the major ISPs who recently discontinued providing USENET did so as a direct result of the above-mentioned case -- attorney-generals were 'making noises' -- and the ISP chose not to risk a confrontation.
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:41:16 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:01:38 , Jeroen Massar said:
So it that is true, if you define "news server" as a "cache", even though you have to buy several terabytes, make that several petabytes, to "be able to "cache" this data one along with all the network environment to support getting data out of this "cache", the ISP is completely in the clear even though that "cache" is the sole single point where one can retrieve that "cached" data from even years after the data was originally put on the network, the original is gone and that "cache" works without anything being attached to it ? :)
"sole single point" is a sticking point, since at that point you've crossed over from "cache" to "archive" - see below.
There is existant _recent case law, specifically with regard to operating a newsserver, that holds otherwise. Of course the server operator was blatently _advertizing_ the copyright-infringing (and more) nature of their content.
Haven't read that case law yes, but I'm willing to guess the operator of the newsserver was running it in violation of 17 USC 512 (b)(2)(E)(i) - which basically says you need to respond to takedown requests if the upstream copy has already been removed (which will often be the case with netnews). So if you're the sole single point caching something that's now gone from upstream, you have a problem (and a stale cache). But of course, we all run technically competent caches that expire stuff when it goes stale (unless your business model includes advertising you have a stale cache)... The *real* fun for Bittorrent is (b)(2)(E)(ii): "The party giving the notification includes in the notification a statement confirming that the material has been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled or that a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled." - which could be difficult to do when the material has been assembled block-by-block from dozens of other sources and few records kept of the actual provenance of any given block. They might have to resort to finding a helpful judge willing to sign a "John Doe" order for each takedown.
participants (2)
-
Robert Bonomi -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu