Major Labels v. Backbones

Mon Aug 19 16:11:24 UTC 2002

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:46, Owen DeLong wrote:
*snip*
> Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set
> the
> destination IP address for the content.  The intervening backbones don't
> do
> that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are
> modified
> to send it along it's way.  The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the
> originator of the communication.  There are two hosts which could be
> argued
> to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the
> conversation.
> The routers in between do not meet the test.
If this is the basis of your argument, multicast backbones would be a
legal liability.  How about a 1-800 conference circuit?  The concept is
the same, as is the level of content participation.  The difference is
the legal protection offered to the voice common-carrier is greater than
what is offered to IP carriers.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler               jsw at five-elements.com
Software Development            Five Elements, Inc
http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/