johnsea66
Cool Down
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Canada | HAH!
Even if it saves ISPs money (which it won't), they won't do it. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by johnsea66  :Even if it saves ISPs money (which it won't), they won't do it. Of course they will. Because they can control what the BT client can access. When what is allowed is access ONLY to cache servers on their own network with their own content.
We’ve been strong advocates of the caching solution in the next version of the (Main Line) BitTorrent client, what we are calling the Allegra release. There’ll be a protocol which allows ISPs to cache BitTorrent content which is a great thing for users.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| said by TK Junk Mail :Of course they will. Because they can control what the BT client can access. When what is allowed is access ONLY to cache servers on their own network with their own content. I disagree.
ISP’s would not want to cache content deemed illegal.
Even if this caching solution allows for selective caching this creates administrative work managing the caching server that ISP’s don’t want to deal with. Who adds the legal content to the caching server?
Also the caching server would not have the bt content (the illegal stuff) that is consuming the majority of the bandwidth so the ISPs would still be stuck limiting and shaping bt traffic.
Bt is great for linux distro iso’s and the like, but what has driven the popularity of bt is the availability of shady to illegal content on the bt network.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
 ·Be There
·UK Online
| You are misunderstanding the point of the caching. It's not to ensure legal compliance it's there to save ISPs upload bandwidth (remote clients served from the cache, not from their users eating up cable modem upstream) and transit costs.
quote:
ISP’s would not want to cache content deemed illegal.
Quite. Which is why they plead ignorance as far as the contents of their news servers goes. They are just message IDs, and that is all the ISP will claim to see them as.
Same goes for the Cachelogic appliances. NTL (the UK cableco trialling) have no idea at all what is on that box. The only data that identifies content is meaningless hashes. This way they have no liability for what is on the caches as they have no way of finding out.
As soon as an ISP admits knowledge of and therefore liability for the content on a server of theirs they open up a whole world of hurt for themselves. No sane ISP will be even considering running a readably indexed P2P cache server, the overheads of running it legally would be monstrous.
PS Guess who I used to work for  |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| I still don’t think this would fly over here in the US.
RIAA/MPAA would use the same tactics on ISP’s that they use on consumers.
Use an account with that ISP, get the IP of the caching server, and download illegal content. Show that ISP is providing illegal content and sue.
They can claim ignorance, but IMHO when it gets to court claiming ignorance wont work.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
jarosoup
join:2003-01-14
·Qwest.net
edit:
May 3rd, @08:34PM
| Even if it would fly (and I agree that the RIAA, MPAA or other party would find a way to make it illegal), I don't see caching BT as feasable. The amount and size of "content" running across BT is almost limitless. Caching web traffic can take up a lot of space...1000's of DVDs, ISOs (legal or not), software, or even "pieces" of torrents, etc. Are ISPs really interested in creating a cache to try to tackle this? We're talking about a lot of space needed to make this even a little effective. It would probably cost them less to buy more bandwidth to support the traffic. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
| reply to mikef1
It is not illegal to provide a caching server, even if 99.999999999% of what is on it is illegal, so long as they don't look at it. They can provide the cache server and just set it and forget it, and so long as they don't check to see if the content is copyrighted, it won't be illegal. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
·UK Online
| said by Necronomikro :It is not illegal to provide a caching server, even if 99.999999999% of what is on it is illegal, so long as they don't look at it. They can provide the cache server and just set it and forget it, and so long as they don't check to see if the content is copyrighted, it won't be illegal. Exactly. There is no difference between running a P2P cache and running news servers. Both have a little legit content and enormous amounts of not so legit content  |
|
