North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: decreased caching efficiency?

  • From: Dana Hudes
  • Date: Fri Oct 20 10:29:39 2000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: decreased caching efficiency?

> Dana Hudes wrote:
> > 
> > I vehemently disagree with the statement that impressions do not make any sense,
> > only clickthroughs. There is such a thing as brand awareness, a situation where
> > a banner ad is good for itself even if it doesn't lead to click through.
> > 
> Of course, in that case, the benefit is to the advertiser.  That is, 
> they get the benefit, but you don't get paid.  Not my problem.
> That seems to follow "not make any sense", but YMMV.

No, you are interfering with my revenue stream by preventing my getting credit for the banner impression.

> > It is NOT for YOU to decide what business model makes sense for MY
> > business relationship with MY advertisers.
> > 
> Nope.  You can have any business relationship you'd like.  But, 
> by the same token, it is not for *YOU* to decide that *I* have to 
> pay to support YOUR business decision.
> Last time I looked, there's no constitutional right that 
> guarantees that you can make money.
> > I pay my ISP to carry IP packets around. 
> But, you don't pay ME to carry your IP packets around.  My customers 
> pay me.  I pay my upstream.  Therefore, I pay my upstream as little 
> as possible.

right. your customers pay you to get them the packets they asked for and if 
they want to visit my site and see my content and your cache breaks that, you're not delivering
what your customers requested. My site won't deliver content in most of the pages without the ads displaying.
At the moment there is a timeout built in while I wait for the ad network to increase server capacity to meet demand.
It will go away.

> > In some cases certainly your cache is in fact a copyright violation.
> > 
> Interesting, if true.  Perhaps you could provide a citation?

show me where I licensed your cache to store (copy) my photographs
or that it constitutes fair use.
ISPs are not common carriers. A thread on this went by last week with citations from the FCC.
I volunteer as plaintiff if one of the lurking attorneys will volunteer to make some case law by suing cache using sites for copyright violation.

> [email protected]
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32