Hi, (long answer again..:-/ )
On 09/06/2016 08:21 AM, ox wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:08:05 +0100 > Richard Clayton <rich...@highwayman.com> wrote: >>> "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage >>> rights of another resource" >>> >>> (1) Resource >>> Any Internet Resource >> that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much >> > Okay, how can it be improved? > > All Internet resources? > That is still recursive. (as I wrote before). And as I also wrote: "The posted suggestion of "abuse" currently does not even fit for the case where several (more than two) "resources" are involved." You ignored this fact completely. >> So..suggestion: abuse somehow is the violation of local laws and AUPs >> of >> the involved providers. (Someone might want to finalize that in >> correct english) > > But not all Internet abuse is in violation of laws, and, just because > it is not illegal, are you saying that because it is not illegal, it > means that it is not abuse? If it is legal, you can't sue your customer. It may be immoral, (is that an english word?) but yes.. if the act in question is not stated (somehow) in the (local) law or in the additional AUPs and contracts then the person in question can always argue, it was no abuse. If it is not forbidden, it is allowed. If it is allowed it is hard to call it abuse. Somewhere else it might be forbidden and considered abuse. It just depends.. Sometimes things are so easy ;) What is hard for anyone offering internet services is to define an appropriate acceptable use policy which covers at least most possible abusive behaviour cases.. >>> (4) Sanctioned >>> An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative >>> holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission >>> is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, >>> event or action. >> excellent, the negation has disappeared That doesn't say much. Example: Email sender provider supports sending advertisements; because it might be just normal in that culture. So the mail is sanctioned. The receiver lives under different laws in a different culture where unsolicited email is unwanted and considered abuse. Now what.. The sending of the email is not abuse, but receiving the mail is? >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or >administrative holder of rights to a resource assignor of a resource? What is that? (if you even say login-credentials are a resource, a smtp-server is a resource, cpu-cycles are, domain-names are.. ) Let's get back to RIPE: if RIPE NCC assigns ip-space to a provider, how does the assignor (RIPE) sees an infringement if someone sends (sanctioned, see above) spam-emails from there? I do not like the whole concept of these resources. In the sentences below you now also have added the task to define "fair use" .. I know that Andre will immediately answer this mail and he will pick only some parts and insists on his "resources"... But I want to focus on the two statements: * the restriction to (undefined) resources in an abuse-definition is not helpful * abuse is interpreted differently in different parts of this world; therefore we should stick with written papers.. contracts, laws, AUPs. like: (internet) abuse is the violation of valid legal interests (laws, contracts, AUPs) to the detriment of a third party ..to be discussed:) (Just found the word detriment..:) best greetings, Gunther > Yeah, but now it does not cater for orphan resources > > Remember that; > > If a resource is used with permission to abuse another resource = abuse > > So, the negation exists to allow the abuse to the resource (itself) by > it's 'upstream' > > Which is why sanctioned - now works... (in the new order - after > infringement...) > > (4) Infringe > An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or > encroaches upon the fair use of a resource > > (5) Sanctioned > Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or > administrative holder of rights to a resource > > Andre > > NetCologne Systemadministration -- NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln Geschäftsführer: Timo von Lepel, Mario Wilhelm Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Andreas Cerbe HRB 25580, AG Köln
