Blogspace vs. NPR

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.

Web Indexing

[filth grinder]

So, when does NPR start suing Google, Alltheweb, and others for indexing, and even worse, CACHE-ING their site.

Damn Pirates!

Why oh why?

[jhaberman]

I just can't wrap my brain around something like this. What is the point of being on the web if you don't want people to visit your site? Provided, you actually want people to visit your site, don't you want to get your information out to as many as possible? (bandwidth issues not withstanding) Ergo, wouldn't you want every possible site that might be interested to link to your content?

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

kinda takes the PUBLIC out of it doesn't it?

[T.Monk]

i thought the spirit of NPR was freedom of communication? or was i misled?

Links on NPR

[Target Drone]

From the NPR linking policy: It is important to note that npr.org contains links to other sites

What do you wanna bet that NPR doesn't bother checking another sites linking policy before they link to it.

Deep Linking law?

[Mr Guy]

How many times does this need to come up before there is a conclusive precendent set? It seems there needs to be a nice hard fast ruling on deep links.

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

[MagPulse]

It's trivial to block linking by looking at the referrer field and only allowing access if it's empty or from npr.org.

Why would NPR rather sue people than just prevent it at the source?

Slightly off topic...

[zaren]

But I really don't get this whole "blog" thing. When did it become so popular, and why? Yeah yeah, there's the whole "freedom" and "empowerment" lines, but I still don't get the attraction of putting what seems to me to be a diary online for the world to see. Can anyone else provide me with a clue about this phenomenon?

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]

Kinda Odd

[godoto]

With all that legal linking nonsense, it's funny that they don't even have a robots.txt file on their site.

Re:bad news for the Internet?

[jslag]

Much as I hate to say it, I think this case might represent the end of the free Internet as we know it. Ironic that it would be brought about by NPR, which is usually so supportive of the public.

Like that time they lobbied to prevent microtransmitters?

Re:Why oh why?

[RAMMS+EIN]

What is the point of being on the web if you don't want people to visit your site?

Exactly my words. ;-) And what about those wonderful things called ``search engines'' that let you type in a query and take you straight to the page that matches? Must they be illegalized? Back to the old days of chaos where everything is there but nobody can find it. It's really funny to see how many people think that shooting yourself in the foot is great policy. Or it would be if it weren't so sad.

Work Around

[UPSBrian]

OK, they don't want me to link them. So istead I will set up a dynamic mirror on my server and link to that.

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.

Looks like that's been their policy for at least 6

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like that's been their policy for at least 6 months. I sorta understand the part about frames, but, leaving the stupidity of the linking policy aside, look at the # of fields in the form--why would they want to be saddled with reading, evaluating and storing all that information?

If I hear an interesting piece on an NPR radio station, do I have to get their permission before I call a friend and tell him to turn on his radio?

NPR's done dumb things before, such as when they fought against low-power FM.

The founding fathers would love this.

[Anonymous Coward]

NPR of all organizations should know that when Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States, he did so because he realized that information leaks; once people learn something, they can reuse that knowledge. If there was no protection to intellectual property, people would not be encouraged to share knowledge with others. Writers would not write, inventors would not invent, artists would not . So in the US Constitution, it says:

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The reason why this is important is spelled out in Jefferson's own writings:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it...He who receives an idea from me, receives instructions himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

His assumptions are based on the fact that you can not control what people do with information that you give to them. If you hand someone a book, they can transcribe it. If you give someone a physical invention, they can disassemble it. But if you give them a new form of media, say, a song on a copy-protected CD, and they can no longer listen to it except on approved devices that they cannot copy from, why should the government provide the same protection to you? The record companies and movie studios want to have their cake and eat it too. They want traditional copyright protection, technological copyright protection, and a government guarantee of technological copyright protection. They want to deprive all those bearded Linux hippies their DeCSS, so they can't watch bootleg Buffy the Vanpire Slayer DVDs in their parents' basement. But if they have technological protection, then why should the government give them traditional protection? It was only there because information was hard to protect as property.

How far are we going to let the copyrighters go? We need to remind people that copyright, like most laws in the US, is a balance between two forces, and the scale should not be tipped too far to one side.

Uh - excuse me! NPR. National PUBLIC Radio.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe my taxes as well as yours and their constant begging for money indicates that we are all at liberty to do with NPR as we please.

Wondering why NPR might do this?

[aengblom]

STOP! THINK! Why would NPR do this?

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 .ra files than NPR's got a problem. I can make money off of NPR's work and cost them a fortune.

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.

N Public R

[binarybum]

This seems like a strange approach for an organization to take that is largely nerd supported. Many Private businesses aren't nearly as stingey and foolish. Why would a "Public" station that depends on listner support attempt to build a barrier between itself and its supporters?

Why is censorship becoming the answer more and more rather than creativity? If they're worried about people bypassing adds and the like by direct linking to their media files, why not build ads into those files or just mention in those files that the content you are receiving is from a listner supported organization that needs your help if (and only if) you

• appreciate

the services they provide.

Spitefull fooey [npr.org]

Your Taxes Pay Squat

[Niscenus]

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).

This is a total non-issue!

[rMortyH]

It makes sense for an organization to dislike deep linking because

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

Re:Context...

[SN74S181]

Actually, linking to NPR's website is a good way to keep their content from being quoted out of context. Quoting it out of context is easier if there's no link to the attributed source.

This is NOT unusual

[infohord]

I work for a small local government doing web developement. From accross the state we get together once a quarter to share ideas. One time we had a bunch of lawyers come and give a presentation. I got alot of information out of it and we actually discussed this topic. The lawyers say that linking is a problem and point to some of the existing deep linking precedints (M$ vs TicketMa$ter). They recomended putting such a policy on our websites. We argued that this is against the concept of the web but they argued back (don't remember all of the argument).

I believe that if you look at a lot of sites, especially large comercial sites they will include this policy.

Make More Sense

[Luminous]

Wouldn't it make more sense for NPR to write a policy that OK's all links but allows them to reserve the right to block links from specific referrers?

This gives them control, allows sites to get the links you know NPR is approving, and only requires technical response to deal with abusers.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

In NPR's defence

[gilder]

Seems NPR has hit quite a nerve.

What about The New York Times site? (free reg req'd, blah, blah) Their site is often linked to from /. and requires a reg. Free as it is, what purpose does it serve? To see who is reading what? Or to stop people from linking directly to their stories?

Next /. poll, how many of those complaining pledge to NPR?

Ever listen to NPR? Hear any ads? See any on their website? Even our precious /. has ads.

Re:Well, part of the reason...

[jmu1]

Isn't it all public domain anyway? I paid for it, I damn well better be able to use it. Millitary supplies aside, if I paid for it, it's mine.

Re:Wondering why NPR might do this?

[thing12]

Yes - exactly. If anyone actually took the time to look at the Link Permission Request page they might see that what they are really referring to when they say links is links to the audio content. They're example text: (e.g., "Listen to NPR's David Kestenbaum's report on the Space Shuttle, originally broadcast on NPR's All Things Considered® April 4, 2002").

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.

There is no such thing as 'Deep Linking'

[Joe U]

Say what you want, but a URL is a URL.

The legal concept of 'Deep Linking' is flawed, since it assumes you are using some kind of 'special URL'.

URL's are pointers. Either you point to the front door or you point to another area, they're still all pointers.

For example,
You can get to the Starbucks thru the Parking Lot, the Mall or the service entrance. If the service door is open and there's a sign saying Starbucks, people will walk in it. If the door is locked, then people will use the Mall or Lot. If there is a sign saying, 'use the door in the Mall', people will be REDIRECTED to where Starbucks wants them to go.

Why not just block the links?

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

I mean, sheesh, it's not like it's THAT hard to check the referrer in certain areas of the site (perhaps everything except index.html) and give the users a "We don't allow linking to this site" or better yet just redirect 'em to the front door when coming from an outside machine. Since NPR hasn't (apparently) done this it hasn't done due diligence and thus should have no legal grounds here. If they *REALLY* don't want linking then stop it technologically and just deal with the complaints therein. ... just my .02 ...

Re:That is sad

[Rakarra]

If you find things to watch because you have time on your hands you need to get a life - or at least read a book. TV is just a mind numbing time killer and there are better things to do.

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:Non-thinkers call the thoughtful center "biased

[neocon]

I'd say you give the game away when you pick Noam Chomsky, who is at the rabid fringe of the left [nationalpost.com] as your example of a mainstream liberal. Certainly, most actual liberals would contest any characterization of Mr. Chomsky's inanities as `mainstream'.

As for bias in the media, I would like to point out that on a normal evening on Fox I can see representatives from a wide range of left and right groups debating the issues, while CNN (and much more so ABC, CBS, and NBC) do not seek to provide such balance. Indeed,if you tried to describe the broadcast networks as `center' or `mainstream' to most Americans, they would laugh at you -- there's a reason Bernard Goldberg's book Bias [barnesandnoble.com] is a nationwide best-seller while the broadcast networks are losing viewers hand-over-fist to Fox.

As a taxpayer, I OWN part of NPR

[mikethegeek]

When you consider that they receive as much as 1/3rd of their funding from DIRECT taxpayer subsidy, and even more than that from inderect subsidy (the increased taxes all others bear because of their tax exempt status), to say that I don't have any right to link to any damn part of their website I want to is ludicrous.

Get out of my back pocket, NPR, and REALLY become a private company, with private property, and get back to me.

Re:Well, part of the reason...

[junkgrep]

You paid for a rather small portion of it: most NPR funding is no longer from tax dollars. Whether that small portion gives you complete control over all their content is highly debateable. But the fact is, under this policy: their content IS still fully accessible, just not in the direct way that you happen to preffer.