Slashdot Log In
Deja Linking Ads Within Usenet Posts?
from the how-many-ways-can-these-guys-screw-up? dept.
---begin deja's reponse-----
Greetings,
Thank you for contacting Deja.Com Customer Support. Thank you for your recent e-mail concerning the new feature in Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service that detects product names in Usenet messages and hyperlinks these names to related content in Deja.com's Precision Buying Service. These hyperlinks are not sponsored advertisements, but are simply pointers to other areas of Deja.com which we hope you will find relevant and helpful as you are reading Usenet discussions.
We are sorry that you are offended by this feature. We do not believe that users of Deja.com will view the hyperlinks as being part of your message. Rather, we believe users will understand that the content of the original Usenet posting has not changed, and will appreciate that these hyperlinks are simply part of our continued efforts to make Deja.com a compelling way for users to discuss and learn about products
We know that users love to discuss and debate their favorite products and services on Usenet, and our new links provide seamless, one-click access to additional information about the exact product being discussed - from specifications and features to user ratings and reviews.
*Please bear with us during our roll-out of this feature. We are working to refine the process by which we generate these context-sensitive links in order to maximize their relevance to the products and services being discussed.
We are providing these links to help users make the most of Deja.com's content offerings, and we hope that you will come to find them helpful. However, because we realize that some users would rather not have Deja display links to our Precision Buying Service content from product names mentioned in Usenet postings, we are currently in the process of implementing an "x-no-productlinks: yes" header which will suppress the generation of these hyperlinks on those messages. Deja.com also currently observes the "x-no-archive: yes" header, which prevents postings from being available on Deja.com. More information about using headers when posting through Deja.com is available at http://www.deja.com/help/help_pn.epl For help on including headers when posting through other software or services, please refer to the help documentation for the software or service you are using to post Usenet messages. In addition, you may refer to the "self nuke" feature of Deja.com described at http://www.deja.com/help/faq_abuse.epl #nuke, which allows users to delete their messages which appear on Deja.com.
If you wish to remove older posts:
Deja.com has a form for users that allows you to remove (nuke) articles that you authored from a verifiable account.
This form can be found at
http://www.deja.com/forms/nuke.shtml
Please visit this page. Be careful to follow the instructions given both on that page and on the email that follows, or your messages will not be nuked.
Note that if the message was posted to a Usenet newsgroup, this will not eliminate your posts from the Usenet at large, only from our archives.
If the post is on an old or defunct email address please contact me for further instructions.
*Should you wish to prevent your articles from being archived in the future, when posting you will need to place the x-header:
x-no-archive: yes
in the x-header field of your posting form, or if your browser or newsgroup reader does not support x-headers, then you will need to type
x-no-archive: yes
as the FIRST line of the body. Note, it must be the ONLY text on that first line. Also, for your information, the x-no-archive will prevent your post from making their way to our archives, but in no way does this prevent an replied article from being archived.
In other words, if you post an article with the x-no-archive: yes header, and then someone reads your article and decides to reply by clicking the REPLY button, it will quote the body text of your article. The x-no-archive: yes within your original article WILL NOT prevent the replying author's article from being archived. In order for that to occur, the replying author would have to place the x-no-archive header within their x-header field or first line of the body text.
Please don't hesitate to contact us should you have any further questions, and thanks for using Deja.com!
************************************************************** Please include all previous threads in replies.
Thank you,
Dot
Customer Support
Deja.com, Inc. -- Share what know- Learn what you don't
For updates and FAQ, check out our Deja.com Customer Support Community at:
http://www.deja.com/~customersupport
***************************************************************
-------end deja's response--------
Reminds me... (Score:3)
-----
Is this really news? (Score:4)
Grandfathered Articles (Score:3)
Once again, why so worked up? (Score:4)
This is one of those occasions. This is deja's service, they clearly mark the links with an orange "deja triangle", and, if you don't want to see the links, find another way to browse Usenet. This is a free service on their part; I don't see what right any of you have to sit around and bitch about it. There could even be people who find this feature useful, and I really don't see how you can justify taking this away from them.
Use it or don't, but don't complain and whine about how this is violating your basic natural rights or how it's a sign of creeping corporatism that's going to take over your brain and steal your children.
It's just a website trying to make a little money. Deal with it.
Orwell was wrong (Score:5)
----
1984? To be so lucky. The image of the future isn't a picture of a face being stomped on by a boot, forever. Instead, it'll be something...like...this;
The ceiling brightens, and an image of a sun dances across it...with the GM logo embossed on it...the shadow of a car eclipses it for a moment.
You: Damn, I thought I opted out of that.
Rub your eyes. Push 3M-Lumisheets aside, get out of bed. The sheets have little company logos that shimmer and ripple across the surface
You: Got to make the breakfast...got to make the breakfast...
As you walk to the light switch, the sounds of waves lapping ... lapping and sand shifting are projected from the carpet. Then a soothing voice "Get away, take a Royal Caribbean vacation.
You [mumble]: fuch you...not going on another one of those damn trips...floating hotels.
There are two light switches both in illuminated green; One says YES the other says, slightly brighter, YESS. The fine print under YESS says 'yess...send me back to the Bahamas on the cruse of a lifetime'.
You pound the YES button...now mildly angered. The YESS button was on the left last time.
The rest of the morning is uneventful. You get dressed in your clothes, shower, all sponsored by the conglomerate TPGE (aka Toyota-Pepsi-GE). Little ditties and logos are everywhere, shimmering, whispering; 'did you know you can get a tune-up for your Nissan at any Toyota-Ultra-Care Autoparks?' Now, you know.
Presentable, you get in your Nissan Phantom (watch some hdtv on the view screen while in traffic), and get to work.
Your day is boring. Any epaper you touch flashes a logo across it for a moment before it's readable ... but it does have a search engine built in.
Your lunch comes..but you change your mind before it arrives and the delivery guy gets angry;
You eat the tuna sandwich.
Throughout the day, your coworkers occasionally drop by for chit-chat. Talking about what they just bought, places they're going. Oddly enough, you rember most of those things from adds in the company bathroom.
Feeling proud, you are glad that you -- at a minimum -- are doing something useful. The new Microsoft On-Target targeted marketing engine is almost complete...it should make things much better. You smile, showing sharp teeth.
*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT* Smacking your clock radio...you pant, thinking 'It's not true, OH!' You relax in bed to some music, and in a moment a soothing voice comes on and asks if you 'want a break today?'
Copyright? (Score:4)
People still use Usenet? (Score:3)
Dumb Users (Score:5)
Basically, they are saying that they think that people will be able to browse through these posts on Deja.com and discern what URLs have been automagically embedded in the text.
These URLs (as far as I can see) have no disclaimer saying that they are added by Deja and not the poster.
What happens when I post a post (HA!) that says that I know a friend that uses Packard Bell machines and the shredder/reader inserts a link to a deal from Packard Bell.
The meaning of my post is tainted by having the advertisment in it. It is almost saying that I recommend PacBells (which I certainly do not) just because I have linked to this special deal.
A not-so-informed user may take this as a recommendation and buy the machine.
Good advertising, bad ethics.
Rami
Guy with no time for stupid ads
--
Taking a page from Remarq, I see (Score:5)
It's not the feed that's the problem (Score:5)
Fortunately, the open-source community will likely have a fast implementation of these x-headers in most newsreaders that are out there. Netscape Messenger will probably never support it, and Outlook Express...who knows?
I'm hoping there's a copyright issue at play here. Does the author get to keep the copyright on Usenet posts? If so, does this linking violate that copyright?
Re:Deja's long slide into obscurity (Score:4)
Dejanews used to be one of the best sites on the internet. It was possible to search through posts as far back as 1984.
Then it was bought by some money hungry dotcom wannabe marketing assholes, who proceeded to gut all the best parts of the site. First they eliminated all the oldest posts, just to focus on more recent content. Then they changed the interface to be all marketing oriented, but backed off when hits dropped to less than 10% of the pre-change interface. They now hide the "classic deja" interface as much as they can, and prevent any direct linking into the interface. They tried to become a portal, but nobody ever used the site as a portal.
More recently, hits have dropped to an all time low, so the idiots in charge decided to alienate even more users by dropping all posts more than 1 year old from the search engines. They claimed that no more than 25% of searchers were looking for articles going back more than 1 year. Since then deja hits are even lower.
Now they are desperate to generate a few more clicks by throwing links all over other peoples posts. Look at all the complaints it is generating on
Read some of the doom [216.150.27.141] and gloom [dotcomfailures.com] sites for details on the withdrawn IPO and laying off 20% or more of their workforce. The layoffs were mostly in the technical and support groups, as management focuses on re-inventing marketing on the site.
Soon, deja will be completely forgotten as a resource on the internet. I've almost stopped using it, but I haven't found any good replacement.
the AC
Whose's messages are effected? (Score:4)
However, because we realize that some users would rather not have Deja display links to our Precision Buying Service content from product names mentioned in Usenet postings, we are currently in the process of implementing an "x-no-productlinks: yes" header which will suppress the generation of these hyperlinks on those messages.
What I am unclear on is whether they are only placing these links in posts that originated from Deja, or, as some parts of the post and response imply, into everything you can read on Deja.
The former would be bad enough, but if the latter, how do they expect to be able to communicate the "opt out"* option to everyone whose messages will be corrupted** by their new "service".
*It will of course be an opt out rather than opt in, and will probably be set up so you need to type it into every single message. Corporate jerks.
** Just for the record, I do consider this a serious corruption of a person's orriginal message. Maybe its just the /.er in me, but when I see a link in the body of a post, I see that as an intentional part of the message, and linking to something the poster was not talking about is as bad as re-editing a letter to the editor so that the word "copier" was followed by "of which xerox is the first and best".
An honest way to do this would be to stick in a little icon off to the side of the sentance in question that said "Deja content" or something. Make it very clearly a part of your Deja veiwing and not part of the intended message. But who expects web businesses to be honest?
-Kahuna Burger
what happens if I post marked up text? (Score:3)
What [dictionary.com] happens [dictionary.com] if [dictionary.com] I [dictionary.com] post [dictionary.com] marked [dictionary.com] up [dictionary.com] text [dictionary.com] ? [dictionary.com] Will [dictionary.com] they [dictionary.com] change [dictionary.com] my [dictionary.com] text [dictionary.com] ? [dictionary.com]
That would be changing what I say. While my work is placed and published into the public domain, it does not mean they can change what I say - if they change my hyperlinks - they are changing what I say! Is that allowable ?
Front end website? (Score:3)
There are better ways to do this (Score:4)
I think few people would object to, would be to
add links to products mentioned in the text of a
message in a pannel next to the message. That way
a clear seperation would be made between what the
original author was saying and the products
themselves. Surely this would be just as easy for
Deja to set up?
Simon Hibbs
Deja is justified (Score:4)
You should remember that Deja is a free service, not a company that only shells out its service for those with money. Deja does need to make some money, and by inserting ads into their posts, theyre trying get deeper and deeper into the market and ensure maximum penetration. And besides, its not like Deja is trying to rape its customers with heavy ads, the links are just displayed to give you the option of entry. Moreover, as I recall, Slashdot does not have a problem forcing large throbbing banner ads through the pipes of readers.
This is a simple case, not the messy, sticky situation it is drawn out to be here. If you do not like Deja's approach, turn around and look for another point of entry into the newsgroup scene.
"The most fortunate of persons is he who has the most means to satisfy his vagaries."
Re:Once again, why so worked up? (Score:3)
And I have no problem with people storing my posts -- just people who use the text of my posts to promote their stuff without my permission.
Deja is not modifying the text of anyone's articles in any way. All they are doing is putting hypertext links on text that would not otherwise be linked. They are not taking away, they are only adding.
Yeah, they're adding all right. It'd be the same thing as changing his post from:
"Well, it is not quite that either. Many 5 port hubs use indeed 5 ports. I have an intel 5 port hub, a 6th port is for connecting to another hub. The modem is NOT called a 6 port hub."
to
"Well, it is not quite that either. Many 5 port hubs use indeed 5 ports. I have an intel 5 port hub, a 6th port is for connecting to another hub. The modem (speaking of modems, check out user reviews of this IBM Modem; it's an internal 56K, data only, data/FAX, Data/FAX/Voice(Intel x86 Compatible)) is NOT called a 6 port hub."
They are changing the meaning of his message. The whole point of hypertext is that text becomes non-linear; you can add meaning and context to the message by providing a link to referenced material or to other text that examines a conclusion in greater depth. So while they haven' touched the "text" of his message, they're certainly modified the hypertext of it.
Everyone understands that Usenet is originally a plain text forum, and any HTML markup in and around messages is clearly understood (by someone who has more than 3 brain cells) to be part of Deja, and not the original author.
That's funny, because not too long ago I would have said that "everyone understands that e-mail is a plain text forum"; thanks to Outlook Express and other "compatible" mailreaders, I can get ugly fonts, banner ads and Melissa virii in my email. Not ever having used Deja in any meaningful sense, I would have no way of knowing that the inserted links were not added by the poster in some way until I clicked on it.
And Deja's "well if you don't like it, you can always go and remove your posts from our archive" is a cowardly attempt to shift responsibility for their actions from Deja to the posters.
Jay (=
Re:Deja's long slide into obscurity (Score:3)
Dejanews used to keep archives as far back as they could. It started when some university students restored a bunch of backup tapes containing usenet directories. There were posts going all the way back to 1984 for some low volume newsgroups such as comp.risks. Most of the posts only went back to 1989 for higher volume groups. The original research project was on mass-indexing the same way web search engines such as altavista work. The web didn't really exist when dejanews got started in 1991 or 1992, they were looking to the largest body of information to work on at the time, and usenet was it.
I remember posts going around at some point looking for copies of old backup tapes. I stopped sysadmining a usenet server in 1992, so that dates the project. The first interfaces were gopher and archie.
It has never been sold. The founder still works there.
I wouldn't know about this, but the original student project was launched as dejanews.com. In 1995, deja.com bought the dejanews.com site, and I presume kept the original founders. But that was the beginning of the slide towards the lowest common denominator at the expense of their largest user base.
1) has no facts
After the layoffs last month, I had several technical types shopping around for work. That is what alerted me to a shakeup.
3) is an ass
No argument there. But I'd still love to see deja wake up to the fact they have a large number of niche audiences rather than pander to the single largest one. The site is still somewhat useful, even if we can no longer access all the great old usenet posts.
the AC
Lawyer: I'm stunned (Score:3)
As an attorney, I'm just plain stunned by this.
The archiving of posts that they've been doing for years is at the border, but (I think) somewhat within. When posting to usenet, there is an implied consent for usenet distribution. Putting it on a universally readable website pushes this (arguably over the line), but is still at least vaguely consistent with the implied consent. [Note that the disclaimers banning particular organizations (typically msn) from posting the message have no effect, as the act of posting to usenet overrides that--because the msn server complies with usenet distribution.]
Inserting ads, topically or not, is creating a derived work. There is no argument of which I'm aware that extends the implied permission to display to do this, which leaves them only with what is allowed by copyright law--bringing them back to "derived work."
I haven't usually bothered with the x-no-archive header, as I haven't been particularly annoyed. Now, however, they're stealing from me, which I *do* mind.
Unfortunately, the nearest federal courthouse is a couple of hours from here, and I don't have time to deal with this over a few bucks. Nor does being a professor leave me the time to do this as a class action (which would be complicated by my membership in the class, anyway). However, *expect* this to happen.
A person has no more obligation to opt out by putting every header required by every news site in his postings than I have an obligation to inform every newspaper in the country that they may not use my oped pieces without paying me. I wrote it, it's mine, and theyt cannot create a derived work from it without my consent.
hawk, esq.
p.s. anywone know where to make "x-no-archive: yes" part of my default headers? I can't seem to find anything relevant in
Have your cake and eat it to? (Score:5)
Don't they have lawyers over there? Something about 17 USC 106(2)?
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of a copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Of coures, hypocritical
We don't want strong IP laws for Napster or DeCSS, but damn, don't touch my usenet post.
Go ahead and moderate me down for pointing out the hypocrisy, and don't bother defending it with "but they're corporations and we're people" that's as valid as a racial, ethnic or gender based discrimination.
Flame away and moderate away.
It constitutes copyright infringement. (Score:5)
An article is a copyrighted work attributed to the writer. Inserting endorsements for products, without the author's permission, constitutes making a derived work which distorts the original work. It is not ``fair use'' by any stretch of the imagination. Note that there aren't even any clearly visible mitigating disclaimers that state that the article was modified by the insertion of hyperlinks.
Note that I do not browse Usenet through Deja News, so seeing the links is not what offends me.
I do post to Usenet, and I'm appaled by the idea of my text being linked to products and services without my explicit endorsement and permission.
If they are going to do that, I expect to have control over what products I'm connected with, and I expect to get a chunk of the advertizing revenue.
Yet Another Lawyer: I'm also stunned (Score:3)
Now that the disclaimer's out of the way, yes, I too was stunned. That places an advertisement under the name of the author - seems like misappropriation of the author's identity for a commercial endorsement - a tort called "Commercial Appropriation." That's the whole Vanna White case scenario - basically, if you are using my words an image to sell products, I deserve compensation. I actually egosurfed Deja for an old FAQ I used to maintain (which is very clearly copyrighted in its text) to see if they'd placed ads in that. (They hadn't, yet.) I'm substantially closer to a Federal Courthouse (drive by it on my way to work), and while I couldn't pursue this because of my employment, I can think of some people who might represent me...
Anyway, that is just plain reckless. But Deja has sucked ever since they went away from the 'Dejanews' format to this new useless Deja-portal format - I never look at it anymore, while I used to be a weekly visitor.
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Because that's the new way of things (Score:3)
Evidently you don't like direct feedback. Deal with it. The Internet has empowered consumers out of their previous mere passive roles, and the change is here to stay.
Deja's death rattle (Score:3)
Incidentally, it's a touch arrogant of them to use a generically-named header field that other, more scrupulous Usenet archivers would use, as their opt-out trigger now that they're in the business of editing people's posts without consent. Maybe folks just don't want their posts archived by Deja in light of something like this.
And for the record, it most certainly does give the appearance of being a hyperlink created by the post's author. Putting ads and links in a aidebar--even right next to the relevant line in the post--would not.
It's certainly creative on their part, but it's not going to be the "innovation" that saves them. Deja's move away from straight Usenet webification to being a product and service rating site was a good idea. Their big problem is that their interface design is more convoluted than their competitors'. And more convoluted than a newsreader, which is no easy feat.
You'd think they'd have hired an interface designer by now. Maybe they've never talked to regular users or held any focus groups.
Re:Once again, why so worked up? (Score:3)
It's not like Deja is culling Usenet posts, adding some adverts and then spewing them back into the general Usenet pool.
This is DEJA's site and DEJA can do whatever the hell that they want on thier site.
If DEJA can make some money off of this and they can keep this service free and available to them, I say,
"DEJA, you have my respect. (Well, shit, you already have my posts..
Rami
Guy that posted too quick..
--
Re:DMCA and Deja (Score:5)
I am no lawyer, too, but I know a bit of copyright law because I am teaching web design, and I know pretty well that you need a license for other peoples intellectual property to use it. By posting material to USENET, you give an implicit license to use this material in the context of USENET, and use of my message in answers is even covered by fair use provisions.
What deja does, even in their normal use, probably exceeds that implicit license, and fair use. Anyway, I have just sent them a digitally signed formal takedown notice under DMCA
asking them to take down all my posts from their site, and preventing their site to include my further postings. I also notified them that an opt-out solution by providing additional headers to my posts is not sufficient, as they are the ones needing a license to use my works, and I won't give them. It is their task to get the licenses required for the works of other authors presented on their site.
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
Re:Once again, why so worked up? (Score:3)