I suspect this entire exchange will ultimately prove to be quite
embarrassing for IETF.
The answer to Paul's question ("...where... is it legal to traffic in a
pre-release copy of a recording or a movie?") is Somalia.
We can do better than that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Jessop [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:26 PM
To: Vijay K. Gurbani; DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal)
Cc: alto
Subject: RE: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents
> IETF is an international organization
This is such a bogus (and lame) excuse for doing nothing. Perhaps you
could enlighten me as to where exactly it is legal to traffic in a
pre-release copy of a recording or a movie?
Paul
Paul Jessop
Consultant to RIAA
-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28 April 2009 20:09
To: DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal); Paul Jessop
Cc: alto
Subject: Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents
[As co-chair]
DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) wrote:
> With apologies in advance:
>
> "Furthermore, a decision was made to focus on legal traffic only
> going back to the May 2008 IETF/MIT workshop."
>
> Come again? By what mechanism is ALTO limited to "legal traffic
> only"?
Paul Jessop wrote:
> I objected strongly at MIT, asked that the notes of that meeting be
> changed to reflect the fact (which had been glossed over) and made
> subsequent posts to keep the illegal content issue on the table.
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.
At the risk of repeating what I said earlier, given the urgent
need for a workable solution, and also given the fact that any
ALTO solution will *not* preclude existing or future content
management or rights control mechanisms, it is best to let the
ALTO work proceed as chartered.
[1] Thread "[alto] Paper on "Pushing BitTorrent Locality to the
Limit," IETF ALTO WG list, December 3, 2008. Archived at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg00029.html
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
