Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatari
As a TT customer, I have to obey TT’s terms and conditions of use of the broadband they sell me. Within those Ts&Cs, there is nothing that allows TT to monitor where I go on the web or to use the URLs I have used to accesses the sites I have accessed.
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".
|
If you can find where the contents of your site is being used in order to market a commercial product I would welcome this information.
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:
Originally Posted by bluecar1
my understanding is that the sites are charging talk talk for access, as talk talk are making direct access requests to the websites for commercial gain (to populate a database of webpages for a new anti malware service with no gain for the websites)
the same way some newspapers are now charging to access content
you make it sound like the web sites are charging the ISP's for their customers access the websites from the ISP network, which is not correct
|
I'm not making it sound like that at all. I'm just noting with some amusement how content providers jump up and down to defend their 'rights' when ISPs comment on network neutrality and the potential to apply different classes of service to different websites based on their content but are all too happy to start handing out bills in this instance.
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?