I understand your frustration and hope you'll feel my pain. There are a couple of things missing in your critique.
One is the history of ALTO, its arbitrary exclusion of content protection, and the total inability of anyone to articulate the reasons for it having done so other than to say a decision was made (over the objections of content creators) and that's that. As for the role an ALTO server might play in the piracy ecosystem, I'd welcome that discussion. Your second paragraph minimizes it as ALTO "is an optional service." Yet it seems to be a law of nature that options must, over time, become standard features. So I worry. But my larger point is that it's just wrong to leave open the potential to expedite delivery of any pirated content. Why would an organization that prides itself on protecting privacy, ensuring network security, and free speech (all of which represent values) ignore theft (an assault on values)? So I point out that we can do better; let's stop feeding the beast. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Peterson Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:45 PM To: DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal); Paul Jessop; Vijay K. Gurbani Cc: alto; [email protected] Subject: Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents I have no doubt that there are reasonable use cases for content delivery services that involve various forms of policy enforcement for content (irrespective of legality or lack thereof). The question is whether or not those components of the envisioned architecture are necessarily, or even plausibly, the responsibility of the ALTO service, given that ALTO plays a relatively small role in that ecosystem - as Vijay said, an advisory role. The mere fact that the broader architecture might encompass that use case does not in any way argue that the ALTO service can or should. Moreover, the fact that ALTO is an optional step in determining what source of content should be preferred suggests strongly that it would be a poor place for policy enforcement, which a provider would normally expect to be applied universally. Arguing the validity of the use case is a rat-hole for this group, I'm sure. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. On 4/29/09 12:46 PM, "DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal)" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
