Slashdot Log In
Blogspace vs. NPR
Posted by
Hemos
on Wed Jun 19, 2002 01:35 PM
from the stupid-web-tricks dept.
from the stupid-web-tricks dept.
jonkl writes "National Public Radio's linking policy at npr.org has caused a fuss within the blog community that's hot and getting hotter. The policy's simply stated in two sentences: 'Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill out the link permission request form.' This is buried, of course, in a page linked to the site's footer, but somebody noticed and mentioned it to Howard Rheingold, who passed it on to Cory Doctorow of boingboing.net. Cory wrote scathing commentary, calling the policy 'brutally stupid,' even 'fatally stupid.' The outrage is spreading; this has to be a rough day for the NPR ombudsman who's deluged with email by now... ~24 hours after Cory's report." Reminds of the KPMG policy.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Web Indexing (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn Pirates!
linking? (Score:5, Funny)
Why oh why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tough to think there is something you could refer to as "old fashioned" in regards to the web, but I can't find another way to describe it...
Jason
Re:Why oh why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we should lobby the search engines (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it'd put a stop to things like this rather quickly.
Parent
Re:Why oh why? (Score:2)
Anyway, they should realize that if they don't want people to access their content, they shouldn't be putting it on the fscking World Wide Web.
Re:Why oh why? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Well, part of the reason... (Score:5, Informative)
However, they're not completely backwards or out of touch with the web -- not by a long shot. They were online before most companies realized it was important, and were one of the first major media outlets to start giving all their content away -- free! -- online.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the stupid policy in question was penned by some lawyer in the early days of the web, when the answers to these questions were a lot less clear.
Hopefully this exposure will wake them up, and get their policy re-grounded in reality.
Parent
Re:Well, part of the reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, part of the reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, part of the reason... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, I worked at the central office in DC...I don't know what the funding situation was like for individual stations.
Parent
Diverse? REALLY??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That is sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Crappy books can be just as much of a mind numbing time killer as crappy TV can. There is a lot of junk on TV, but there are a number of quality shows as well. Judge the shows by quality, don't merely dismiss them because you're elitist and it's just TV.
Re:Govt. should NOT be paying for this (Score:3)
You haven't listened to it much, then.
During the debate about campaign finance reform, I heard two Republican senators do opinion pieces where they gave their reasons for opposing the legislation. (I was [innapproriately, yes] screaming "Godwin's Law!" at the radio, because one of them equated CFR with Nazism.) I have never heard a Democratic senator give an opinion piece on NPR.
In your opinion, is unbiased approximately equal to liberal? I keep seeing this term ("liberal") being used, and it seems to be applied to organizations that I consider relatively unbiased. If they are not unbiased, can you list a media organization that deals with current events who you think is?
Re:Why oh why? (Score:3, Funny)
This could otherwise be summed up as a "failure to understand the environment you operate in" and thus a "flawed business model".
Re:Why oh why? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why oh why? (Score:3, Funny)
Framing vs. deep linking vs. linking (Score:3, Interesting)
But though framing is different from linking, should it be treated different legally? I think not: Cory points out how it can be useful.
And it absolutely should be legal to provide deep linking. That too provides material out of context, to be true, but it's the author of the material who chose to present it that way. The best defense against that is to provide a home page link on every page.
Another interesting point : what about linking increasing the bandwidth costs of the person linked to? I've noticed this happening a lot. 1) Popular blog gives a link to some obscure but interesting personal site. 2) Site gets a lot of hits. 3) Site owner's ISP takes the site down for exceeding its bandwidth quota for the month.
Whose fault is this, and what should be done about it? I think I'd favor a technical solution that would deliberately clog requests if they exceeded the quota, but wouldn't actually take the site down. IOW, pretty much what happens when the web is being slow anyway, only with a clear error message saying that was the reason: you could try again later when traffic was slower.
Have Your Cake and Eat It Too (Score:3, Informative)
kinda takes the PUBLIC out of it doesn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, and we'll make it better (Score:5, Funny)
Links on NPR (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you wanna bet that NPR doesn't bother checking another sites linking policy before they link to it.
Deep Linking law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Google on linking: [google.com]
Searched the web for linking suit settle.
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,500. Search took 0.15 seconds
It seems to me companies keep settling just to prevent the law from ever being decided on by a judge. Deep linking should not be a website's ATM.
Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would NPR rather sue people than just prevent it at the source?
Slightly off topic... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess the web pages I put up when my wife was pregnant with our first child was a sort of blog - I should get around to re-posting that somwehere, actually... but as a geek with a wife, two kids, and a mortgage, I don't seem to have the lifestyle that would make good blog material anymore.
-----
Let "them" know you're not a terrorist [cafepress.com]
Hey, you violated their policy! (Score:4, Funny)
Wait... I just deep linked to a link prohibiting deep links! Ack! My brain!
Kinda Odd (Score:5, Insightful)
License (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Funny)
Just ask 2600.
whoops
Re: That's not entirely true (Score:3, Informative)
"It's a basic right for someone to be able to publish publically available information, such as a universal resource locator."
That's not entirely true. There have actually been court cases where they have ruled that linking to a URL can be infringing. Some of these include Starbucks, Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, and US Intellectual Reserve Inc vs. Utah Lighthouse Ministry Inc. Here's a good article about the topic [domainnotes.com].
Work Around (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure which is worse, a goofy policy like that, or that 'I' pay for NPR as a Tax-Paying citizen of the U, S, of A and am not free to utilize the information that 'I' paid for in way 'I' want to.
Your Taxes Pay Squat (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming you are a tax paying citizen, you should be informed that even if you pay $1000 (including withheld on the W2), less than half of a penny goes into supporting both public radio and television, and even including state taxes, you still haven't paid a full cent. The funneling of tax goes to stations in need of self-support on a case by case basis, everything else, from your favourite programmes to your favourite hosts are funded by people that pledge a donation during drives. You're probably not even paying enough for the cost of electricity to parse through the database and send a copy of the article to you.
Additionally, there is a permit you may request for mirroring under most circumstance if you ever actually intend to go through with it (more so for those that actually would like to mirror, as I doubt you could).
screw NPR (Score:2)
With the power of
anything [npr.org] I want [npr.org] from NPR's [npr.org]
website.
</sarcasm>
:P
Sounds like typical NPR retoric (Score:2, Interesting)
NPR didn't speak up when the FCC was holding hearings asking for comments and conducting studies, they waited until after the FCC had made up it's mind to grant the frequencies, and then cried wolf, saying that they'd interfer with NPR's. The FCC said too little too late, and pointed to studies that were conducted showing contrary to NPR's unbased claim. So NPR lobbied congress and got them to stop the FCC.
NPR has always been a control freak. There's nothing new about that.
Revenge.. (Score:3, Funny)
Secondly, send a cease-and-decist letter to npr.org to stop setting cookies while you browse their site.
Maybe then they'll learn, that if you put information free to the public, without authentication, what the hell are they to expect?
Wondering why NPR might do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is that NPR hosts high-bandwidth audio material and the website archives many of the shows. NPR doesn't care if you link to a text article, but if I create
www.bestofnpr.com
and then offer DIRECT links to the
You may agree or disagree with the policy, but at least understand that NPR has some pretty legetimate fears. Personally, though, I don't see this as a legitamate solution, but it's understandable.
Re:Wondering why NPR might do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
They did go about this all wrong by using very broad wording. I can't imagine that they don't want people linking to their html pages freely (e.g. http://news.npr.org/). It seems like everybody here is flying off the handle over what really is nothing. The linking policy has an intent, and I'm certain that the wording of it will be changed - within a week at most - to match that intent.
Parent
watchingyou? (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, but the high-tech folks at NPR use this form to generate an email. The recipients are listed in a hidden field on the form. So if you want to give the ombudsman a break, you can send your thoughts directly to the people who evaluate the link requests: jrichards@npr.org, bmelzer@npr.org, nprhelp@npr.org, tholzman@npr.org.
Link me, but don't frame me. (Score:5, Informative)
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
if (self.location.href != top.location.href) {
top.location.href = self.location.href;
}
// -->
</script>
Re:Link me, but don't frame me. (Score:5, Informative)
Better might be to plainly label each of your pages, so even if they wind up framed elsewhere, it's obvious whose material it is.
Parent
This is a total non-issue! (Score:3, Insightful)
A. It can make their content appear to be someone else's and
B. They have no control over broken links when they change their content and this makes their site look broken and stupid.
C. Framing someone else's site is bullshit, and people who don't like it can do what it takes to stop it.
However, is it really all that hard to redirect foreign deep links to the main page? Is it? Or to send the not founds there so they don't just send most people to microsoft? Come on kids, read your docs! Learn your trade!
If you still want the search engines to deep link, it's a little more work, but it can't possibly be more of a hassel than a lawsuit you probably won't win.
As for the main page, I think it's as simple as asking for 'the right not to be refered to', which it's been shown repeatedly that you just don't have.
If only people would quit wasting time and just move on to something beneficial, like harnessing the power of stupidity, the earth would be a better place.
=mortimer
My Letter to NPR (Score:3, Funny)
To: ombudsman@npr.org
Subject: Link Permission Request
Hello,
It is trivial to tell your webserver to check the referring page of a
visitor. If the visitor is referred to npr.org from an address that is
*not* npr.org, you can deny them access, or redirect them to a page
explaining why npr.org does not allow hyperlinks.
While this is really lame, it would address your bandwidth cost concerns
without resorting to such ineffectual assertions that linking is
"prohibited". That's wishful thinking.
Love,
Jason
This is NOT unusual (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that if you look at a lot of sites, especially large comercial sites they will include this policy.
Make More Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
This gives them control, allows sites to get the links you know NPR is approving, and only requires technical response to deal with abusers.
In NPR's defence (Score:3, Insightful)
What about The New York Times site? (free reg req'd, blah, blah) Their site is often linked to from
Next
Ever listen to NPR? Hear any ads? See any on their website? Even our precious
As a taxpayer, I OWN part of NPR (Score:3, Insightful)
Get out of my back pocket, NPR, and REALLY become a private company, with private property, and get back to me.
Re:bad news for the Internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like that time they lobbied to prevent microtransmitters?
Parent
Re:Anyone Complaining are the Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of who owns the content, regardless of who paid for it, manages it, or how it is published, all copyrighted works are subject to a legal premise called "Fair Use".
"Fair Use" has been tested time and time again in all levels of federal, state, and local courts. It is a rock upon which copyright is founded. Regardless of what license or prohibitions are put upon a copyrighted work, they do not ever void the precept known as "Fair Use".
Fair User specifically allows - allows! - the use of bits and pieces of copyrighted information. One of the explicit allowances is for the purpose of "indexing".
Creating an index or catalog is critical to all management of information, whether digital or otherwise. Without this exception, book authors could prevent libraries from listing thier works in card catalogs, because the book title and 10-20 word description would be "copyrighted" and reproducing it would be a violation of copyrights of the author. Luckily, the Founding Dads and the Courts have realized that this is absurd - that it harms no one to catalog and index information - and if a small bit of "right to copy" is granted, well, so be it.
Additionally, fair use applies to "footnotes" and "endnotes". If I write a research paper, or hell, even a fun little magazine article, I can reference other works, by name, page, by sentence if needed. That is also protected.
And this is what NPR wants to take down. Slashdot is a publication. When Cringley writes a new article, we might like to know about it. Someone writes an abstract and then references it with a link.
See how that works? NPR still owns the content (or Cringely, or whoever). And Slashdot is permitted by law to "use it fairly", by providing readers a reference to it.
Now, lets say, for example, that NPR wants to limit resources and whatnot. Okay, fine. There are technological solutions to the problem - as well as appeals to peoples sensibilities - that can help. But this argument is moot anyways, because the point is as strawman. Prevent deep linking *only increases* the needed resources. Making me click the homepage, then a second, then a third, then a fourth page requires multiple times more resources than just sending me straight to where I want to go.
All in all, deep linking, if such a thing can be claimed to exisit, is a protected form of speech and should not be limited. And, if some place chooses to limit it, someone will work around that limit (and rightfully so).
Even better: ASK them for permission. (Score:3, Interesting)
-russ
Re:Worse than 'brutally stupid' (Score:3, Funny)
This part is interesting:
"Fowl"? What does Calumet City have against content about birds?