The real reason for "no servers"

[mjdinsmore at hotmail.com (Michael Dinsmore)]

So does that mean if there is warez, illegal MP3s, etc. in your mailbox (as 
attachments to email) on their site, that you can claim it isn't yours when 
the police come looking for you?  No wonder the German authorities were 
going after the head of CompuServe in Germany a while back.

By that agreement, I can understand why the law wanted to hold ISPs liable 
for having illegal content on their servers -- becuase they claim the legal 
right to it per their agreement.

Good grief!





>From: John Chambers <jc at trillian.mit.edu>
>Reply-To: John Chambers <jc at trillian.mit.edu>
>To: discuss at Blu.Org
>Subject: The real reason for "no servers"
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:23:59 UTC
>
>--------
>
>David Kramer writes:
>| On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, John Chambers wrote:
>| > Maybe I'm being silly, but it occurs to me that it might be useful to
>| > point out that web servers run quite well on other ports than 80.
>|
>| ... and if everyone I knew was as technical as the least technical person
>| on this list, that would be a perfectly acceptable solution.  That is far
>| from the case though.  Even writing out http://thekramers.net:8080, it
>| would take my parents several tries to get it right.
>
>Yeah; I know what you mean.  I've lost track of how many  times  I've
>had to explain to people on the phone how to type a tilde char.  (And
>the demographers tell us that between 20 and 25% of the US population
>speaks  a language that uses it ;-).  It's a good thing that most web
>servers automatically convert \ to /, or it'd be really impossible.
>
>| The other issue, which was mentioned by someone on this list or another
>| (the same thread is happening on another list I'm on), was this is very
>| likely the camel's nose in the tent.  If they shut down 80 for the 
>purpose
>| of catching all those hooligan hackers eating up all their precious
>| bandwidth, you know they're going to shut down 20 and 21 to kill ftp, and
>| then telnet (like I care), and finally, when they hire an MIT graduate in
>| the right position, ssh (EEEK!).
>|
>| No, when they shut down port 80 on my connection, I will shut down my
>| contract with them.
>
>Heh. So you have an alternative available? Most people don't. We're a
>bit pampered here in the Boston area.
>
>Some time back, before I was kicked off mediaone, I got a letter from
>them  that  listed their restrictions, and they were quite clear that
>"no servers" meant  "no  servers".   I  asked  them  if  they  really
>preferred  to  use their own machine's resources to store and forward
>email, when it could be sent directly to my machine with no effort at
>all on the part of their servers. Their answer was yes, they did want
>my mail stored on their machines. They wouldn't say why.
>
>Lest we think that being worried about this is paranoid, consider the
>fact  that  a  few  months  ago there was a bit of a fuss at MSN when
>users discovered that their personal files (mostly images) were being
>used  in  advertising.  When asked, Microsoft's answer was that their
>contract clearly states that files stored on their machines are their
>property.
>
>They did back off from the  practice,  for  now.   But  they  haven't
>changed the wording of their contracts. If you go to msn.com and look
>up the Terms of Use pages, you'll find that
>
>   You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit,  display,  perform,
>   reproduce,   publish,   license,   create  derivative  works  from,
>   transfer, or sell any information, software, products  or  services
>   obtained from the MSN Sites/Services.
>
>They ARE talking about their  customers'  personal  files  stored  in
>their web areas.  As a customer, you can't give a friend the right to
>do something with any of your files; your friends must  ask  MSN  for
>permission.
>
>It's highly likely that ATT's lawyers have also figured this out, and
>part of their "no servers" idea is that they want you to put your web
>site on their machines, where they can then claim  ownership  of  any
>file  they  like.  It might be interesting to go over their contracts
>and see if this might be the situation now.  I did find this text  at
>http://www.attbroadband.com/services/other/TermsAndConditions.html:
>
>   AT&T Broadband Web Site Agreement
>   ...
>   2. Copyright, Licenses and Idea Submissions. The entire contents of
>   the Service are copyrighted under the United States copyright laws.
>   The owner of the copyright is AT&T Broadband.  You  may  print  and
>   download  portions  of  material  from  the  different areas of the
>   Service solely for your own non-commercial use.
>
>This document appears to cover web pages on customers'  personal  web
>sites  as  well as the actual ATT files.  Note that they are claiming
>that they own the copyright to all material on their sites, including
>"Submissions" from others.
>
>-
>Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
>"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
>message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).