NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: mangling payload
No comments on any of the legal questions. Nick is correct that this kind of action is /sometimes/ what the user wants. In other situations, it certainly isn't. Here's one example of a user being unhappy about it: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/896160.html Another of users discussing how to avoid it: http://whattheblog.net/2008/02/11/how-to-fix-vodafone-image-compression/ (note Vodafone offering a Windows-specific binary to circumvent the compression!) And this appears to be an example of Vodafone disclosing compression and touting its virtues as a cost-saver: http://www.vodafone.hu/egyeni/szolgaltatasok/internet_wap_email/gprs_internet_en.html They certainly don't say that "compression" includes lossy compression. On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 14:25 -0700, Barry Gold wrote: > Stefano Quintarelli wrote: > > Just said that it is illegal in Europe... > > > > I'd bet someone will challenge Vodafone in court. > > > > I've been notified of this of which I was not aware > > http://tinyurl.com/2ba6ao > > > > what "Giancarlo" says is that Vodafone replaces web pages content in > > order to deliver something that looks quite the same but uses less bytes. > > > > the network apparently changes the javascripts embedding them in the > > pages (rather than oading thm from specified URL) and images that get > > scaled down in resolution and provided by a server which is not the > > source one. > > In the US I suspect _any_ change in the page is a violation of copyright > (a "derivative work"). That said, I suspect nobody is going to object > if an ISP: > . squishes the Javascripts into fewer bytes and/or puts it inline in > the page, as long as the actual code remains the same and continues to > function. > . serves up images from a local cache instead of going to the remote > host every time(*). > > However, serving up a lower-resolution image is a definite no-no -- > again, it's a derivative work, and one that degrades the quality of > something the originator went to considerable effort to make attractive, > useful, or whatever other desiderata drove the page design. Not going > to make Google, IBM, Toyota, or M$ happy. And they have at least as > much to spend on lawyers as Vodafone does. > > (*) caching images and other parts of a web page is a win-win-win > situation -- as long as you don't change it: > . the originator pays for less bandwidth, because some of his most > biggest items get served up locally instead of from his host. > . the ISP also pays for less bandwidth from its upstream provider, > because they only have to fetch the image once -- after that they > provide it from a host within their own network. > . the user gets the page faster. > -- Peter Eckersley pde@eff.org Staff Technologist Tel +1 415 436 9333 x131 Electronic Frontier Foundation Fax +1 415 436 9993