Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Major Labels v. Backbones

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Mon Aug 19 11:49:36 2002

"Majdi S. Abbas" wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:04:05PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > >   --The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.
> >
> >       One could argue (in theory) that a routing-table lookup
> > may satisfy this.
> 
>         I'm not so sure.  Generally speaking, a destination network is a
> given ISP, not a given individual.  And it's highly impractical for an ISP
> to know the /individual/ a packet is destined for from the address.
> 
IANAL, however...

Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set
the
destination IP address for the content.  The intervening backbones don't
do
that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are
modified
to send it along it's way.  The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the
originator of the communication.  There are two hosts which could be
argued
to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the
conversation.
The routers in between do not meet the test.

> > >   --The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.
> >
> >       Same theory here also, where one decrements ttl, since we are
> > talking about ip packets here.
> 
>         I believe they're referring to copyrighted material which is
> wholly contained in the payload of the packets involved.
> 
Packet headers are _NOT_ content.  the _CONTENT_ is the packet payload,
which
is _NOT_ modified by the backbone providers.

> >       Either way, this is an interesting test case and I do
> > hope it receives immediate dismissal.  This would be like asking
> > the phone company to turn off phone service for people that arrange
> > drug deals or similar.  Not something that I see happening.
> 
>         I have to say I expect this one to be disposed of pretty quickly,
> but we'll see...
> 
>         --msa

One would hope, however, I have lost much faith in the US court system
as a
result of the presidential election and the Napster ruling.  Afterall,
the
Napster ruling amounted to a ruling that a library could be ordered to
shut
down if a person used the card catalog provided by the library to find a
book and then copied said book on the photocopier in the drugstore next
door.

Owen




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.