Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
From the view point of a website owner & developer, I own sites that have a million hits a month, compared to the Amazons of this world the sites are small, compared to a lot of sites they are big. I just think of them as small sites doing a service to ordinary broadband users. The sites are copyright and have database rights. Why should I allow anyone to use the sites contents to enable them to market a commercial product from which neither the sites nor I get a return. I do find it a insulting to be classified as "the usual people will be writing" and "same people protesting". |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
If we follow this to its' logical extreme (your content is, contrary to your apparent opinion, in no way being served by Talk Talk and used to generate revenue any more than web caching would be considered to do so) all ISPs should be paying all website owners for the privilege of being permitted to deliver their websites to their customers. Still the controversy has done wonders for your traffic, and in turn ad revenue I'm sure. ---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:25 ---------- Quote:
Again, presumably next will be charging ISPs for the pleasure of being able to deliver their content to their customers. I thought this was all about privacy? Given the costs of this exercise to content providers are virtually zero and the actual process isn't really much different to web caching from the content provider point of view, caching sites and serving them up locally is also a commercial gain to the ISPs through savings on transit and peering, and indeed is the ISP actually delivering the content in full ensuring zero ad revenue for the content provider are we getting to plain old greed now? Or are we just getting onto that someone had the idea that this was a way to stick it to 'the man'? So, yeah, I'd welcome some explanation why caching entire sites and in turn serving them up from caches is quite acceptable and drew no complaints while establishing a database, with no need to actually hold the content post-analysis, is so reprehensible that it demands what I can only consider juvenile action like this? We can have nice circular arguments about legality, etc, but my opinion is that the action is juvenility dressed up in a bit of contract law. EDIT: Another thought as I was loading the dishwasher. A few browsers, most notable Internet Explorer 8, contain anti-malware features which presumably must necessitate the analysis and referencing of websites in a database. Then there are all the externals guards which use a combination of analysis and a database. You guys have started billing Microsoft, Symantec et al too for their use of your 'content' for commercial purposes, right? |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Ignitionnet, I am not sure what your aim is here, to ridicule people for trying or to support the ISP.
As for the caching of websites by ISPs that would be illegal. Do you own a website that you have designed, built and written a lot of the content for? |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
|
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
Quote:
Frankly you're wrong - if you aren't ntl were breaking the law for many years. I don't remember seeing you or any other content provider launching any kind of legal action or reporting this criminal activity. Quote:
If you think you've a strong case get the court summons issued and report them to the police if you think their actions are illegal. If it helps this may be useful. If they were copying your content verbatim and passing it off as their own I'd be totally with you, as it is they are scanning the pages their customers are visiting for malware and classifying it. If anyone should be offended it is their customers whose privacy this potentially endangers, I am at a loss as to how this prejudices you or violates your rights as a content holder. If automated processing of content for malware / virus detection purposes is an issue does this mean if I create a program I can charge Google if their GMail service virus scans it? Does this make the scanning of any content by a virus scanning program a violation of its' copyright? If you could address this, my main point, presented in these several ways rather than incorrectly stating caching is illegal, trying to garner sympathy as a content producer, and trying to assess why I disagree with you it'd be most appreciated. |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
Oh that's it, that has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in this thread so far. :) Hatari, with respect, if you're going to come here and make statements like that, PLEASE be prepared to back those claims with some fact. I'll help you. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/18/made There is nothing in "The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002" that states that caching a website as part of a networks normal course of business is illegal. |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
This may also clarify the issue (at least in the US of A).
Pinsent Curtis Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
|
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
|
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
Would also be interesting if you could inform me on how you know ntl were obeying this code. |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
This is the code.
Code:
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache"> |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Quote:
If you want to ensure the cache complies you actually need to use HTTP 1.1 cache control headers. You may find this webpage useful as it both intelligently discusses caching, explains properly how to ensure your content isn't cached, and gives some discussion as to why obsessively setting pages to not be cached isn't necessarily a good idea. I suspect you'll ignore that bit and start obsessively adding no-store cache-controls to your pages but *shrug* it's your bandwidth costs :) It's worth noting that some hardware, which caches at the bitstream level, will cache your pages anyway. I work for a company which manufactures such hardware and neither we nor any of the other vendors in that market have had any lawsuits from any content providers, still if you want to be the first that's your prerogative. Again, how do you know you weren't being served pages from the cache? You have just said that you know because you were on ntl - how did you know? In a number of cases the response to that meta-tag from caches that actually honour it is to cache the data and validate with the source site in a similar manner to how they react to the cache-control no-cache header, then serve the page from disk anyway so they are storing your content. Just a few points. There seem to be some quite gaping holes in knowledge on one side of this argument which don't really advance the issue. Few things undermine one's argument as much as making statements which are incorrect. You're aware P2P caching is legal I take it? As are Usenet / NNTP servers? I would suggest this is rather more shaky legally thian ignoring a non-compulsory tag in website code. If Cisco / Microsoft / Yahoo / Google aren't suing ISPs for caching their IP I can't say I rate your chances too highly to be honest. |
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
First off it is a legal obligation to comply with the code specified.
Second I know NTL did not cache the page for one simple reason, the content on the page would be updated wen I uploaded new content to my web server. Now plese stop trying to defend the undefendable. I am not going to reply to you any more. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.