On Apr 28, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
Greg, Paul: IETF is an international organization, as such it is probably in a suboptimal position to arbitrate on the distinction between legal and illegal content. As others on the list have pointed out when we last had this discussion [1], what is legal for one locale may well border on being illegal for another locale (and, of course, vice-versa.) I fail to see how forcing ALTO to protect content rights will eliminate the dissemination of illegal traffic; ALTO is, after all, an advisory protocol. Furthermore, as you have noted as part of the same thread [1], there are a number of companies that demonstrate working technical solutions to identify copyrighted content. As such, there is nothing in ALTO precluding you from using such solutions. Whether or not the IETF will standardize such solutions is a question for another day, and I don't see why we should hold up the progress of ALTO while that question is decided.
Additionally, this is an argument against "privacy preserving" in ALTO. Not only does privacy preserving vastly complicate ALTO's design (the ALTO server really does need to know this), not only is privacy preserving largely illusionary, but privacy preserving is largely a benefit for illegal content, with very little benefit for legal content.
Knowing that someone at IP X is watching "Heroes" on a P2P-enhanced Hulu is, lets face it, far less damaging than knowing they are torrenting a video-cam leak of "Wolverine".
You don't really NEED content protection in ALTO if it's not privacy preserving, as the incentive structure is wrong to use ALTO for pirated content.
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
