|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: AOL web troubles.. New AOL speedup seems to be a slowdown
> your suggestion that they can add in no-cache > is probably not something they want to do (nor > would ISPs want that in view of the performance > effect it would have on their cache hit rate) Steve, perhaps you misinterpreted my posting, or missed the quote from JC that I referenced at the bottom. If you re-read it, you'll see that I made no such suggestion (and I did not even mention "no-cache" specifically, only no-transform). What I am saying is that a specific allegation made by another poster to this list (quoted again below) has no basis because the HTTP spec provides mechanisms for ensuring copyrighted material is not transformed or stored by proxy networks. I would never suggest to anyone to arbitrarily put a Cache-Control: no-cache header on their content. Cacheing by ISPs is a great thing for everyone and a content provider who uses no-cache is only costing themselves money in bandwidth. But, on the flip side, there are a myriad of situations that necessitate the need to control the way in which content is cached or (more commonly) compressed/transformed by a proxy; for example, high-res medical x-rays and other confidential information, consumer purchased high-res images and other copyrighted information purchased by the end user, or trademarked logos. For situations like these, I do think that it's important for content providers to know they have the ability to directly limit what the caches can do by reasonably implementing the appropriate Cache-Control headers. ~ The Gunn [email protected] > > AOL is copying and redistributing the image in a new format *without the > > permission of the copyright holder* in a way that A) makes AOL money and B) > > removes protections that the copyright holder had placed on the image to > > help keep third parties from reproducing the image without permission. > > > > and in doing so: > > > > IMHO they are infringing on the copyright of those who have placed the > > digital watermark in the image. > > > > jc > > >
|