North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

[OT] Re: Don't Cache that check

  • From: Douglas Dever
  • Date: Wed Sep 21 15:21:14 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=NMZL4ZiW/1H/gjqXf5zLq2l3j1+4dBXl3wlsr9wBydTzFxAZ9uaz056pQOn0UuqMmoWxn1Y0m8mYMVTb4igHlhikgYBEOHtCTB91+lRQkwVrxg7ZF6dt46F3CPqIYhykkPvtFWphzgvwdgqT512+9PFGNLJvgwRw9BAFg5531TU=
On 9/21/05, J. Oquendo <sil@politrix.org> wrote:
>
>
> Might or might not be offtopic:
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/media/AuthorsGuild-v-Google.pdf
>
> I wonder what this will do for you ISP guys out there that use Cache
> servers. Technically if the suit holds, your company too would be
> violating laws. Which makes me wonder... If I listened to say a streaming
> audio clip of an unreleased album... That album goes to my computer's
> cache, can I be sued if I turn around and sell my cache. ;)
>

It will have zero impact on people running caching servers...

Please see points 2 through 5 in the nature of the action. 
Specifically, "Google knew or should have known... to obtain
authorization from the holders of the copyrights in these literary
works before creating and reproducing digital copies of the Works for
its own commercial use..."

Somewhere, there's a shepard listening for your cries of "Wolf..."

-doug