Slashdot Mirror
Deja Linking Ads Within Usenet Posts?
---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--------
Because (arguably) the content is being modified ... that's a violation of Copyright. With the Ebay situation, the presentation may have changed (just like viewing a message in different news readers) but the content was not.
If they wanted to make a sidebar with hyperlinks to objects you reference in your message, that's fine by me.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Whipped up a quickie dejafilter patch to kill this stuff.. thought I'd share.
= ========================== = ========================== g if\"(.*?)>(.*)/$3/g; a t_a_glance\/glance.xp(.*?)\">
note I'm no perl God, so the regexp probably is flawed, but wtf...
(if this paste fails snag the diff from http://euler.ewi.org/~rroberts/dejafilter.patch )
I take no blame, backup files first, save the children, blah blah blah...
---
*** dejafilter.pl Wed Jun 14 15:45:32 2000
--- dejafilter2.pl Wed Jul 19 09:54:19 2000
***************
*** 59,64 ****
--- 59,68 ----
# Version 0.07 - 12/04/1999 - P. Wehr, Industrial Softworks
#
#================================================
+ #
+ # Version 0.07b - 19/Jul/2000 - rossr mod; strip embedded ad links
+ #
+ #================================================
use CGI qw( escape param header );
use CGI::Carp 'fatalsToBrowser';
***************
*** 110,115 ****
--- 114,126 ----
my $script_name = $ENV{'SCRIPT_NAME'};
+ # what embedded link images? (rossr)
+ $trimmed_down_content =~ s/<img src=\"http:\/\/(\w)\.deja\.com\/gifs\/arrow_link.
+
+
+ # what embedded ad links? (rossr)
+ $trimmed_down_content =~ s/<a href=\"http:\/\/(\w+)\.deja\.com(.*?)\/products\/
(.*?)<\/a>/$4/g;
+
#Redirect form actions to dejafilter
$trimmed_down_content =~ s/<form action="[\w\[\]\.\/:=]*\/(.*)"(.*)>/
<form action="$script_name" \2>
-'fester
I agree that its a useful feature, and that it may not be advertising per se. I just think there are better ways to do this. (See my previous post).
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Just something for thought.
Please refrain from further metaphors equating urine (or any other form of excrement) with food (or drink) in your future postings to Slashdot.
It's a good thing you don't drink american beer then. (judging by your dietary preference, I'd wager a guess that you aren't a fan of the american be... err, rancid cow urine.)
"Almost every article"? What a laugh! Deja's been a joke ever since they started playing the Let's-Pretend-We're-Yet-Another-Portal game, and it was only adding insult to injury when messages older than a year or two were removed from their archive. They say they're going to reinstate the missing chunks Real Soon Now, but then they start pulling this crap instead? I reiterate, what a laugh. Deja is a pathetic joke nowadays, no two ways about it.
It's NOT I don't want to see the silly hyperlinks, it that they are, effectively, misquoting me!
Deja has given you the perfect remedy: go to their link and nuke your articles. Get them out of Deja's hands. Unfortunately, your words die forever, but that's the price you pay. If they should be timeless, create a web page of your own to preserve them.
Wow! HDTV in the car? Neat! I can't wait!
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Can you say "Innovate"?
-----
"Thank you,
Dot
Customer Support "
Is their customer support agent really named "Dot"?!?!
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't dejanews a free service they provide to people? In which case aren't they entitled to do do what they want with it? If you don't like it, use a different news feed. Blane.
How can you say they aren't changing the post. The person VIEWING it thru their service is looking at a modified version of what you have read. Seems to me they are in some how violating the implied copyright you have on ANYTHING you write by modifying it without your permission and without letting you know it's occuring. Don't forget - Deja.com ISN'T usenet, it's JUST a portal. Not everyone on USENET uses Deja.com...they'll have NO idea this is happening. I think it sucks!
For the first couple years of Deja's life they were doing cool stuff and became a MAJOR resource on the web for research. Then they dump years of archives, now they're putting adds into the stuff.
It's time to write them off.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Articles archived before the news header should be exempt from advertisements since there was no way for their authors to opt out.
I can't help but notice that, here on Slashdot, the second anyone does anything that violates some insanely strict, unwritten code, people are suddenly up in arms.
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.
----
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?'
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I am probably wrong here but.... Don't people who post to Usenet own the copyright of their message? If deja is changing the text ( by adding html tags ) of the body does this not break the copyright? Just a thought.
Well, the parody sites make you ask for a particular page to be parodied. If deja had a button on each message that said "linkify post" and another that said "unlinkify post" then that would be fine.
Deja, however, make it very hard to see the original post.
Johan
Hmm...very true. I did not think of this. Can "hyperlinking" a word be considered a "derived work"? I would say so. Up to the courts.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Last time I was in the land of usenet, it was a vast wasteland of Live Goat Porn and Make Money Fast spam. No sentient life was detected. I suppose Deja might insert ads into the Live Goat Porn and Make Money Fast ads and they might piss off a few spammers in the process (Especially if they link the ads to other sites) and wouldn't THAT be ironic?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The fact that any slashdotter would be against this is just another point in the long list of the techno-rebel's hypocritical stance on copyright. The techno-rebels believe that all software should be free, and anybody should be able to modify it and distribute it. The same people who think they have the right to use recorded music and recorded video in any form, including what the producers do not want to use it as, think they have the right to control their own Usenet posts. Clearly, what Deja is doing is compatible with this. Furthermore, any type of service which does interprets your post falls under this category. What Deja is really doing is interpreting your keywords, perhaps incorrectly (i.e. it may make your words into an endorsement). Is this any different than a wrongly translated output from Babelfish? So is Babelfish violating copyright because it makes a derived work from yours without permission?
First off, thanks to the moderator who gave my post the +1 Insightful.
I don't understand the -1 Overrated moderation, though. It's not like I recieved +4 for Insighful, so how does a single +1 make the whole thing overrated?
I complained once, and now it seems like more of my posts get a -1 ... out of spite? I can't tell, since I don't know who moderated me down. Either way, it does look like a reverse-troll. If so, very bad form. If not, give me a clue, eh?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
This was discussed at some length at
rec.arts.sf.fandom, and one thing we noticed is that Deja is using a *different* special X-header than Remarq offered when people wanted them not to insert ads in our Usenet postings.
We all know that X-headers are, by definition, not standardized: nonetheless, it would have simplified things for Deja to use the same X-no-markup header Remarq used before they backed down from the whole thing (in part because people figured out ways to mess up their displays by inserting HTML in posts).
Here's an idle thought: if Deja can change the rules without notifying people (even those who have accounts at Deja found out about this only by accident), why can't we? What happens if I include, in my Usenet posts, something like the
following:
"This post copyright 2000 by Vicki Rosenzweig. Permission to insert hyperlinks for advertising purposes is available for $100 per post. Insertion of such links constitutes acceptance of these terms."
It would be interesting to see their response when the bill showed up.
Weblog: http://www.redbird.org/yawl.html
My previous post said that "at the very least it is wrong not to identify" deja.com's inserted links. I didn't mean to suggest that this practice would be acceptable to everyone.
You have perfectly valid arguments against the practice... some of the same ones that I have, although I wasn't trying to argue my point of view here.
The original point of the thread was to discuss the legality of inserting these links into posts made to a semi-public board (public in the sense that anyone can read them, but a site that is hosted by a privately owned company). Legality and moral veritude are two different issues. There are many perfectly legal actions that I find reprehensible, but as long as it is legal, there will be people or companies out there that will ignore any ethical issues and practice these actions.
Eric
Sure, the page that ends up being linked to contains a product, but it's also linking to the other part of deja, the consumer reviews section. One of the things you can do from that learn more about a product. This seems strikingly familiar to when the slashdot guys decide to plug everything (everything2? i've lost track of the site) and link words in slashdot articles to nodes at everything. On that example page, I didn't even see a way to buy the modem, only to read a little bit about it, and to provide information about it to others. Sounds like an improvement to the service in my book. Maybe not in terms of useability for me, but for the general browsing public.
There is GPL'd technology available for text indexing and compression: MG (for Managing Gigabytes).
;-(
No idea on how to get the free web-based Usenet server running, though
Fact: All posts to Usenet are by default copyrighted material and not in the public domain unless explicitly stated. Read this for more info. The Copyright FAQ states that many believe it is implied, though, that by posting to Usenet you agree to let your material be redistributed through that medium. Copyright FAQ is here.
Fact: Most posts to Usenet are made independent of Deja, so whether or not their browsing service is free or their terms of service or whatever conditions they make up is irrelevant when determining if they have violated your intellectual property rights.
Opinion: I don't think allowing your copyrighted material to be reproduced immediately grants others a license use it to promote their commercial interests. I think this whole debate on the legality of Deja's move to use words from your post is a question of fair use.
Opinion/Analogy: Copyrighted music is played on the radio. It is free to whoever tunes in. However, it is illegal for me to record that music off of the radio and then use it in a television commercial without permission/paying royalties to the original copyright owner. I may not be altering the original content of the copyrighted work (the song). I may put a BIG ORANGE TRIANGLE on the screen with my company's logo in it, but does that make it legal? Deja made a business decision to use the content of your copyrighted work to endorse products without your permission. I don't see how this issue is much different.
Final opinion: This forum needs more lawyers and less speculation (including that of my own).
Could you pleasy state your reason for doing so?
/., but ok for a private homepage, I think.
I own my works and I do not want them put in a context I cannot control by another entity - I want them to be shown as original as feasible. Current US and German copyright laws give me the power to control the use of my works, and so I do exercise my rights.
It seems your Usenet posts would be a loss for lots of people looking for help on deja.com
You are not missing anything: All my works I consider worthy to be preserved are available on my own website, including my printed articles and my USENET posts. I make them available unedited, without banner ads and without ad links overlayed. Also, I refuse to sign author contracts which will prohibit me from publishing my works on my own website - I do accept a 6 month delay clause, though.
This results in a 60 meg website with 2.5 GB traffic/mo. Not much compared to
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
Definitely a way better idea. They probably thought of that but figured this would give me them better click-through and not use as much screen real estate.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
At the very most, you are giving an implicit licence to use the material in unaltered form.
/. made from the postings in the Hellmouth thread? They had to get permissions from all authors of posts they used, because posting on /. does give /. implicit permission to use this posting on their site, but not in a book. Similar logic applies to Deja.COM.
I do not think that I even give that much permission implicitly. Remember the book
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
Hi. Read this: http://www.kuro5h in.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000/7/18/122257/231. Please don't b-slap me; this is important!
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
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
--
rJames.org - illustration
A lot of people think that " Deja can do whatever it wants on its excellent service," but that's the result of a skewed outlook. The fact is that Deja is a very important and powerful business that controls the window through which its users look on the world, a power which they can easily abuse to trick users into making horrible mistakes. While adding a word or two to a post might seem to be a reasonable way to draw users towards companies that want to serve them, it also controls how those users comprehend the very fabric of the world wide web. I'm certainly glad that no such awful lies and manipulations are being visited on me by my MSN!
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
Sorry, but I don't really see how this is going to be a major problem for people. So they link to adverts in the posts they get. It's not like they're inserting great big bandwidth eating banner adds into them is it? A few A HREF="" isn't going to hurt download times.
And besides if you're using a free service then you have to expect this kind of thing. If they're not charging you then they have to have some way of making money, and advertisement is the usual model. And Deja seem to be doing it in a way that is a lot less intrusive than most sites. Hell, you might even find the links useful sometimes!
And anyone who has been using the web for any amount of time should be used to checking where a link leads anyway. If you read /. you should be used to it, otherwise you'll end up at some pretty grim sites :)
...those who have used Usenet using newsreaders, and those who have used it using Dejanews.
The Deja-groupies are, of course, in support of anything Deja does that keeps the site running, because they'd otherwise lose access to Usenet.
The newsreader folk are against the hijinx that Deja does, because they are independent of Deja. Indeed, having Dejanews go belly-up would be A Good Thing, in our view. It'd cut down on the number of crap postings.
IMO, the links Deja wants to insert imply that I have endorsed the link. This offends me: if I wanted my message to contain a link, I'd have put the URL there myself.
I've got no problem with Deja putting contextual links in its presentation -- but the damn things had better be off to the side of my message, not part of my message.
In the end, though, I'm pretty sure this is a tempest in a teacup: Deja will be sued, and they'll rethink their new gimmick.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Deja's merely copying what Remarq tried (and removed, due to the ensuing outcry). There's nothing "innovative" about this, any more than there is about Deja's tactic of spamming people who register at its site. Deja *could* have been a premier source for Usenet archives and provided a valuable service to the Internet community. But instead, they are clearly attempting to co-opt a long-standing community resource and profit from it -- without returning value to the community, and, as in this case, by corrupting the article and falsely attributing statements to their authors that they did not make. This is unethical behavior and deserves the contempt of the entire Usenet community.
I'd buy.
for me to totally despise and hate deja.com.
First the god-awful redesign into a portal and now this.
Who knows what else there was that I didn't see.
Fuck 'em with a big spiny pole.
-m
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?
The first thing that their lawyer is going to say is that you already spewed this to a vaguely infinite number of computers and therefore have lost nearly all control over it. Deja is not removing the header, so you still have full credit for your work.
Also, it's arguable that they are not really modifying the content. Let's all remember that what USENET is for is not HTML, but ASCII. They are not modifying the ASCII, they're modifying how the ASCII is displayed under HTML. (arguably)
Do I think this is sleazy? Yes. Do I think this would be better handled with a sidebar? Yes. Do I think that it's bad and evil? Nope. Deja provides a wonderful free service to the internet at large, which is just an interface (really) to another free service provided BY the internet (again, at large.) Of course, USENET isn't really free any more, but how much do YOU pay for your news? Except for those with a big fat feed (and even some of them) the answer should be "I'm not aware of any specific charge for USENET news at my site/from my ISP." ISPs are getting cheaper and cheaper and offering the same or additional functionality.
I guess you can get all pissed off at Deja if you want to, but what you're missing here is that this is what the web is for - Easy access to information. They are not changing your text; They are however causing some of your text to be underlined and turn a different color and have it link to some other page of theirs.
In exchange, what we get from DejaNews is a free, fairly fast, searchable news reading and posting service accessible from anywhere via the WWW. They do provide a mechanism to block such things, though I really would have preferred it were an actual standard rather than something they just cooked up. I dislike when companies create standards when it's something that could be better handled by others.
In summary: Deja is sleazy, but provides us a really spiffy service. Deja should have had some standards-making body come up with the specs for the new header items, but at least there are some. If your Pnews won't let you add new headers, then your Pnews sucks. I am not an atomic playboy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
From today's fortune, an appropriate quote: Carson's Consolation: Nothing is ever a complete failure. It can always be used as a bad example. I nominate deja.
/. It's clear their management is ignoring all user feedback, but thats not news. They fired all their customer support and research people at the beginning of June.
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 and gloom 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
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
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
...will work for Chick tracts...
What happens if I post marked up text ? Will they change my text ?
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 ?
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
>Expiring news was always up to the control of the local news admin. It
>was assumed that many newsgroups would never be expired, at least on
>some sites.
This is why the simple archival is not over the line. If they simply ran a universally accessible nntp server with no expiration dates, there would be no issue (though some would be annoyed ). The web interface is pushing it, as is the combining of the unmodified work with the banner adds--a close call, but I think they're withing bounds (though it is possible for reasanble lawyers to disagree; it's not clear-cut).
>For example, consider the comp.sources.* groups,
>rec.humor.funny, and other moderated groups. Things like the expire:
>line were hints to the local news admin, never a requirement.
Err, if you want to talk about day one, you really need to leave the newer distribution hierchies out of this
>Likewise, public access news sites have always been common, deja.com
>is just continuing that tradition.
No, not always. If you worked hard enough, public access was often *possible*, but it certainly wasn't easy twenty years ago. I do recall a gopher server (umich?) in the mid 90's.
>Well, I have also created a derived work from your posting by
>including your quotes. This has been accepted since day one also.
Yes. This *particular type* of derived work has been accepted since the beginning of usenet, and is accepted here as well.
>So, it comes down to, "by posting, the user has given implied concent
>to do all sorts of things to the work,
Here is where you make the wrong turn. Consent is not general; it is specific and in context. If you proposed to publish a book of the recipes from rec.craft.brewing, you would be informed by many of the authors that you had better negotiate royalties first. [this actually happens every few months. Not one has been willing to pay the royalties so far, although a magazien did ask me to write a regular column--but was shocked when I wanted market rates rather than a few bucks plus my name in print.]
The implied consent includes redistribution of the unmodified (save for routing headers) original by nntp, and quoting with attribution for distribution of a new work (the reply) by nntp. That's all.
>including copying,
Only within the context above.
>making permanent public displays of the work
Absolutely not, save in the context above.
>and making some derived works."
Only the very narrow class above.
>You are going to have to argue that this particular type of derived
>work was *not* implied.
Nope, not even close. The onus is on the republisher to show permission or right to use. They just can't do this.
>good luck. IANAL, so I have no idea how you would do that.
Since I don't have to, I won't worry about it
hawk
I can see the value added, but yeah... altering the actual body text isn't cool.
Why not have a sidebar called "Context related links", or a footer, or similar? No need to monkey with the original text.
My answer is that technology can always fail. Somebody might hack my computer and get my key, or actually successfully guess it at some point (it's not impossible, after all) by some new algorithmic development.
While the tech can certainly help us out, we'll always need to be able to fall back on human laws for human resolutions to our human problems.
So what if I created a website which was a front end to Deja? It rerouted searches and displays to Deja, but filtered out the ads? Would this be illegal? How would it be different from them adding the advertisements?
A much better way to do something like this, which
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
Take the Deja content, serve it up, but add YOUR OWN ads all over the place, linking text from articles, from their own content, but DON'T change any of their content itself, just re-package it.
Then when their lawyers come knocking, tell them they're free to start using this new tag you've come up with or some new HTTP header on each of their pages, which will cause your system to happily ignore that content.
Some might say the difference lies in the fact that by posting to USENET, you're giving implied consent to redistribute and archive. I don't believe web pages are awarded that, except insofar as pages may be cached and proxied.
The point is still the same. I don't want people taking stuff I've written and marking up the content with advertisements. It's one thing to offer up a free archive paid for by on-page advertisements. I can accept that, but don't muck up the content of my message with links I don't want there.
And that X-No-Adverts header or whatever it is sounds an awful lot like, "If you don't want to be on our spam list anymore, just click Reply and say 'Remove!'". Why should I have to opt-out of a service I never opted-in to?
Redistribution and archiving is implied on USENET posts. Modifying content for the purpose of inserting advertisements and then redistributing that modified content is not.
As one who has spent many a time working his way in and out and in and out of cavernous newsgroups before turning to Deja News. In my experience, Deja is nice little service that loosens up those messy newsgroups and makes my entry a lot less painful.
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."
"The most fortunate of persons is he who has the most means to satisfy his vagaries."
- Marquis De Sade
www.dejanews.com was a usable site. Once they made the transition to www.deja.com it's been spiraling downward, out of control.
The site is one of the most difficult to navigate that I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of difficult sites). Just the activity of looking up a topic to see what other's are talking about is a total mess. Once upon a time you could search for, say, sound cards and actually find a discussion about what others are doing with sound cards. Nowadays, you perform that same search and you'll be very lucky to find a real discussion but you'll quickly be taken to product ratings complete with links to sites where you can buy sound cards. Not very useful when you're trying to solve a problem with a sound card.
Sending any complaints to Deja is like talking to a brick wall. They'll thank you for your input and then tell you that no one else seems to have the same complaint as you.
I plan on finding a means of getting an honest-to-God newsfeed as soon as I can.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
1984?? They had archives back to april 1995.
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
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
/etc/news . . .
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
If i write a post i don't want advertisements popped in and yes, i regard this as altering of content! The altered message makes me look like i wrote that to advertise, and the colored link is probably giving emphasis to subjects i didn't mean to. Also, i drop in links if i think a site is worth mentioning. For this place i don't need to, since noone will follow any links there anyway.
It would be even worse (and it's just a small step now) if someone got it into their heads to distribute altered messages further along the usenet. Imagine your newly advertisement enhanced messages spreading over a good part of usenet. What next, banners in usenet messages?
I don't think it's a good idea to alter content of posts (even if it's 'only' dropping in links) and i think other usenetservers should think about barring dejanews usenetaccess for some days to stop this scheme becoming too popular.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I have to admit, I'm surprised how many people think this is dandy.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Then, the poster says:
Except, of course, that they are inseting hyperlinks and making connections never intended by the author. But other than changing the messages, they're not changing the messages. Huh? Makes me want to ask Couldn't have said that part better myself.The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
That should get Deja. They have to either take it down or sue to keep it up. Let us know what happens.
Two Words: Copyright infringement.
/.ers complain about overly restrictive copyright laws, and how evil IP laws are, and then Deja does something like this, which is almost definitely (although IANAL) and then they piss vinegar about something like this?
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.
Did you miss the story a month ago where Deja took all usenet postings over a year old offline?
So much for 'completeness and historical data'.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Do you like the statement that they own your messages and can do as they please with them?
As for opting out, well, I'm not opting out of hundreds of messages one by one. That's not an opt-out policy, that just an excuse of an opt-out policy.
What's wrong with this then?
:-) I never have ...
Deja has clearly marked out that it's not a normal hyperlink, by the use of their little arrow icon before the link.
They obviously have to make money, and exposing their sales department to the portion of the site that gets the most page hits makes a lot of sense. After all, they arent changing the content of the post, only adding markup to it that the user can ignore at will.
I'd be much more up-in-arms if they were subtly insinuating new content and altering posts from Usenet, but a simple bit of advertising marked as such seems perfectly reasonable when the company has to make money somehow to actually provide this service so many of us use for free.
So what's the last time someone actually SPENT money at Deja then?
Given that filtering proxy web servers already exist to suppress banner ads, how hard could it be to extend one to filter out deja's embedded adlinks. The link has that little icon preceding, which other deja embedded links don't have (if I remember correctly -- it's been a few weeks since I did a deja search). The icon can be used as an in-context cue as to which links are adverts and which aren't.
Should these kinds of steps be necessary? Has Deja committed some kind of great sin here? The new links are an ugly form of noise, but that's largely a matter of taste. Some newbies might confuse the adlinks for meaningful content, but they will learn. Will the new adlinks interfere with the utility of Deja searches for the clueful user? Maybe, but I rather doubt it.
On the other hand, Deja has every right to make money from their web site, and to massacre it however they see fit in order to bring in the dollars. Go too far, though, and they'll drive users away.
To summarize: they've got the right, the links aren't that bad to begin with, and if you're really offended by them, then there's something you can do about it. In other words: *shrug* It seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.
--Jim
You sir, and your little "copyright", are about the sickest things I've seen on /. in a long time. It shows just how perverted the whole concept of "IP" is.
/. tried to make a book from the comments posted to the Hellmouth stories.
/. does not own my words in a way that they can make a book from it without asking me, and I still believe that Deja cannot turn my posts into their advertisements. The DMCA is just a very convenient way to stop them.
I assume you allude to the signature you find below all my postings. I created that signature after I found that Slashdot posted a notice on every page it generates that "this page is copyright slashdot.org", which it isn't - I own my words, not slashdot. This has changed since then, but I kept that signature as a reminder that I own my words, nobody else. That proved useful when
The signature has no legal relevance. Current German copyright law says that you own your works whether you create a disclaimer or not, and US copyright law is the same since 1974. Before that, you had to register your works with some copyright bureau and mark protected works with a © symbol and the year of registration. You US citizend may know the details better than I do, I hope.
Your reaction to my signature shows that the reminder works. You have started to think about copyright and IP, and it's consequences for your life. That's exactly what I want to happen.
Personally I think that current IP law is indeed sick and perverted. It is still law, though, and govers your and my life as well as the life of Deja.
am making a point to post all of your comments on a web page of mine. What are you going to do, sue me?
If you are an US citizen, I don't even have to sue under current legislation. I just have to send you a DMCA takedown notice to you or your provider. You then have to take down these pages, or sue me and so does your provider. In fact, your provider has to take down these pages, unless he wants to become legally liable. It then becomes your duty to prove that you actually have the needed license to host that content and that I have no legal base to force you to take down the pages.
This is sick, and if I remember correctly, ACLU is currently working to have this changed. Also, there is no similar law currently in Germany or the EU, and I hope there never will be (in fact, I am working with groups like Fitug to stop such regulations becoming law in the EU).
But DMCA or not, I still believe that
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
It's a whole lot more; it's an attempt to pressure and force Deja to do what "we" want. ... You don't like it, fine, complain once, ...
Yes, that's what's happening, and no, sorry, it's not going to stop because this is not yesterday's world anymore. The consumer will do what the hell he or she wants, in whatever way they feel like, and not just in the way that some corporate provides for them.
Previously the power resided almost exclusively with big organizations, including government and corporates. Individual empowerment means not only that individuals have more of a say individually, it also means that they can organize and join in the fun of playing the pressure politics game.
Slashdot is one forum where such fun gets expressed and featured a lot, both formally and informally. Trying to limit this new-found freedom and channel it into just those forms that companies like Deja find acceptable is just not going to happen. Sorry.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Violating an unwritten code, my ass!
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.
Now, if VA Linux inserted a link to Freshmeat *within your post* on Slashdot, you might think otherwise... or maybe not ;)
The point is that, unless deja.com is somehow uniquely identifying links that they have inserted into posts, they will probably engender some amount of confusion on the part of their readers.
ObDisclaimer: I only use deja.com about once every 6 months, so I'm not that familiar with their service... That said, if they passed through extant hyperlinks unmolested, while marking automagically inserted deja.com hyperlinks, maybe with a small image tag at the end of the link, they might avoid some of this confusion.
That still won't placate people who get all up in arms about copyrights, when they know basically nothing about copyright statutes and limitations in the first place... but if deja.com insists on inserting these links, it's a good first step.
Eric
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."
People are dealing with it: they're providing feedback to Deja on parts of it that they don't like. That's much more constructive than merely ignoring the service as you advocate.
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.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Beyond the aspect of hyperlinking to ads or other commercial features, this situation raises some question about inserting hyperlinks into reprinted copyrighted text.
Take for example an an article by Bruce Sterling. Most of the writings on that site are described as "literary freeware". The acceptable use policy points out that copyright is retained by the author, but permission is granted for unlimited copying and distribution in any media for non-commercial uses only.
So the non-commercial clause would clearly rule out links to ads or e-commerce "services" such as Deja.com is offering. But what about other links?
The acceptable use policy also forbids altering the text. So if I reprint one of his articles on my website, that is fine. But what if he makes a mention of, say, NASA. Would I be forbidden from linking that word to the NASA website?
Is adding a hyperlink to a word truly "altering the text"? The sentence still reads the same as the author wrote it. Perhaps it is in the same way that adding italics can alter the text. What about a reverse situation: taking an article from the web that contains hyperlinks and printing it on paper for distribution, but not including URLs. Would that count as altering the text?
If I printed out an article for distribution but added footnotes connected to certain words, would that be permissible? I would think it probably would if I made clear that the footnotes were my own and not the original author. Likewise if I inserted commentary into the article.
So then how to create hyperlinks in the original article but to indicate that they are not part of the original article? Putting them as footers to the text is awkward. Putting them in a sidebar puts them closer to the original word but still doesn't provide the direct intuitive connection that linking the actual word provides. Perhaps the link could take the reader to an intermediate page with a disclaimer that then auto redirects after a few seconds to a target page.
This is a new situation in copyright brought about by the nature of the web. Perhaps there needs to be a new "fair use" created here: the right to add non-commercial hyperlinks to a reprinted article.
Trickster Coyote
Ideology is for ideots.
The problem with just ignoring them is that a person who would put a real link to something relevant to what they are talking about has their effort wasted. This is not your problem, but it is another way that Deja is corrupting messages.
Their stated goals could have been honestly accomplished by sticking a little icon out to the side of the relevant sentance that says "deja content" or something and takes you to the same places. Their statement that no one would think it was you putting those links in your message is laughable, and their current method is IMWO* simply unethical.
(*In My Writer's Opinion. As a freelance writer I take my written words anywhere very seriously and get pissed when they are messed with.)
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
How about this, Deja?
Instead of embedded links, just place a small colored area to the left or right of the original message saying "Here are some links to products mentioned in this post. Click for great deals!!"
I certainly think this is just as effective, and keeps the original poster's head from exploding over the issue.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
And who is going to cut off Deja's news feed? You really think their news feeders will stop feeding them news because a few people don't like them adding links to it?
No, didn't think so...
What are the liabilities of Deja.COM if I demand under the DMCA that they remove copyrighted material that belongs to me from their site? Can somebody with the appropriate background explain?
I am in Germany, but Deja.COM should be governed by US law. Is the DMCA already applicable to their state?
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
If Slashdot inserted the hyperlink for me when i mentioned a recognised site, i wouldn't mind one bit. For example, if i mention Freshmeat, BBC, NASA etc. and it was parsed and automatically become a hyperlink, it would save me the trouble of having to add the stuff all the time. As far as i can tell, this is what Deja is (sortof) doing.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
This "feature" isn't very context-sensitive. It bases the link strictly on the text it is linking from, ignoring the rest of the post. For example, someone might post a message, "You do *not* want to use a modem in this case.", and Deja would hyperlink the word "modem" to an ad for one. This could conceivably be confusing to someone reading the message...is the post endorsing or not endorsing the use of a modem?
Or, someone might post "I happen to think that Sony makes the best HDTVs." and Deja links "HDTVs" to some HDTV they're promoting, made by Toshiba. Hell, that borders on false advertising!
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Sounds like the consumer-ratings strategy Deja's moved to hasn't been working and they're grabbing at any idea that might, might, might catch on and get them more page views and ad revenue.
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.
Right, but suppose you were posting a message about how much you hate (insert your favorite pet peeve) and Slashdot, much to your chagrin, inserted a link to a particular site advocating (fill in the same thing, here)...
For instance, suppose I were to post something bad about the KKK here... Now SlashDot's little parser recognizes KKK, and inserts a link to a white supremacy website. I'd not be happy in the least.
The problem is that none of these automagic parsers understands context. If you are advocating a product, you probably wouldn't mind the extra bit of advertising. If, on the other hand, you wrote up a bad review, told others how much you hate a certain organization, etc. and a link popped into existence, you might be a little more miffed.
Just a thought...
Eric
So what you are saying is basicaly that since you don't pay for the service they can do as they want with any 3rd pary's copyrighted works ??
How would you feel about it if your text would have appeared on /. as fllows:
Blane.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Nuking your articles manually is a pain, several thousand articles of mine are waiting to be deleted. Has somebody already written a perl script using LWP to generate nuke requests automatically?
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
Nah, ignorance isn't a good enough reason to moderate someone down. You assume the complaint is about wanting to prevent people from using our posts. It Isn't. It's about wanting to not have them use your posts IN A WAY THAT PUTS WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. Let's say I download the "I Love you, you love me" song from the Barney show, then I edit it for parody by changing "love" to "screw". This is "fair use" only so long as I don't try to pass off my parody as if it were the original. If I were a distributor for a large record company, and I put out my altered version in such a way that it was not obvious that it was a parody, then I've just slandered the Barney show, and the PBS guys would have every right to sue my ass for this.
This is what is happening on Deja.com, when they take our posts and alter them to look as if we put in hyperlinks to sites, when we may never even had heard of those sites. In the example from this article, they made it look as if the person posted a link to a particular modem seller, when that person might not like that modem seller.
How would you like it if you put up a post containing: "So, I opened up three terminal Windows.", and it ended up turning "Windows" into a hyperlink to an MS-Windows site, tricking the newbie public into thinking you actually put that link there?
There is a huge difference between fair use of someone's material and putting words into that person's mouth. When you use someone's material fairly, then you make darn sure you clearly state if the quote is literal or not.
So your allegation of hypocracy is not applicable.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Remarq is the only other usenet catagorizer, but it's rather poor in terms of the depth that deja got.
Is it time for an 'open' usenet search engine, one that realizes exactly what usenet is and doesn't hide behind called newsgroups "discussions" or "chat rooms"? Unfortunately, such an effort would require tons of diskspace, and a fast text search engine to be effective. Additionally, we lose much of the history that deja has *somewhere* on their servers: we'd most likely have to start with posts in 2000 and can only archive from then on. It may have to be ad driven to pay for said power, but as long as the ads were just for page impressions and not tied to the search or articles.
I know that when I am looking for a solution to technical problems on the net, I turned to deja first, followed by google. Usenet posts tend to be more focused, so getting a specific answer is easier there.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
How is this different from those web sites that munge URL's and render the text into silly accents or flip the pictures over or whatever?
/. rushed to their defence? Why the opposite now? Why all mutterings about "it's my usenet post and they can't alter it." What crap.
Deja takes an existing public resource (Usenet) and munges it to add some hyperlinks.
whateveritwascalled.com takes an existing public resource (the web) and munges it by adding some BA Baracus quotes and silly pictures.
Remember when the second of these got hit my a copyright infringement notice and
If I set up a web interface to Usenet that showed all posts with the word 'Microsoft' rendered as 'Micro$oft' would that be wrong, if I made it obvious it had been altered? So what is wrong with what Deja are doing? I'm not convinced the service is all that useful, but there's nothing wrong with it.
-----
Hmmm... Lets see. I have a brain, and I don't see a tiny orange triangle as "clearly discernable", especially for a new user of the service who has not seen dozens of other normal links in Deja posts. And since there will most likely be more of these kind of links that normal links, there is really no reason that a person of normal intelligence would see that little triangle and say "Oh! this must be trying to tell me that this link is inserted by Deja and not an orriginal part of the message!" The symbol looks to me like nothing more than an additional "this is a link" signal to newbies.
I have suggested other places that an honest way of doing the same thing would be to put a icon off to the side of the message that said "deja content". It would be clearly part of the deja expereince and not the message. The way Deja is doing it is dishonest and you don't need to insult the intelligence of people just to make them look better.
-kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Oh great, now source code patches on deja.com are going to get corrupted by some damn robot going in an inserting random URLs whenever it finds a keyword:
+
+ f=open("/dev/modem", O_RDWR);
+
Well, I suppose most newsgroups which are likely to have source code posted are also archived elsewhere, but still, the most convenient place to search for instance, the mailing-list "info-cvs@gnu.org" is deja.com, and that routinely has source patches posted to it.
Bang the head that doesn't bang!
I clicked on the link, and it took me to a page with a post discussing modems, where the word "modem" was a hyperlink. Clicking on that took me to a page WITHIN DEJA.COM where people could rate a particular modem.
Does this really constitute advertising? Much of Slashdot appears to be up in arms about this, but what if the link had taken you to a page where every review of that particular modem SUCKED, and basically said "Don't buy this modem, it's a pile of junk"? From what I've seen, there's nothing to stop anyone from creating such a review.
I don't really see how this is a bad thing. It is simply a link within a post that takes you to a place to get more information, good or bad, about a certain type of product. Does this constitute altering the content of the post? I don't think so. No more than making someone's email address a "mailto:" hotlink in a browser. You won't get that as a hotlink in some text based newsreaders, and I'll bet the original poster didn't format their post with their email address as a hotlink...does this mean now deja.com is altering someone's post by making their email address a hotlink?
How about when you put a URL into your post? On a text based newsreader, this won't be a hotlink, it'll just be a URL listed in the text. But on deja.com, it's a hotlink. Does this mean deja.com is altering the content of your post? What if you didn't want it to be a hotlink? Not only that, but deja.com has a redirect for virtually every hotlink that sends it through deja.com first before sending it to the site listed in the URL. Does this mean deja.com is altering the content of your post? They've been doing this since the dawn of deja.com, and nobody's complained yet.
If the hyperlinks they insert take me to another page on deja.com where I can write a review, good or bad, for a product in question, I don't see how this can be anything but a good thing for someone searching the newsgroups for information. Especially since they put their little orange triangle in front of it so you know it's a deja inserted link.
Sure, today they're only adding links, but on the basis of all the arguments saying Deja.com is doing an OK thing, what's to stop them from doing more?
Deja.com has moved from being an internet service, archiving Usenet posts, to an Internet parasite, illegally modifying other people's post to further their own economic well being. Yes, links are a form of communication! What else are they? By adding in the links they are changing the message of the poster, and that is not just illegal but immoral and unethical.
This is a major violation of the free speech rights of Usenet posters. What good is free speech if just any old person can change what you said before it arrives to a listener? This is a form of censorship, and it doesn't matter if it's a "little" or a "lot"... it's wrong and should be fought.
There are no excuses sufficient to justify this without asking permission from every single poster of the message. Yes, that burden is impossible; that's why they shouldn't be doing this.
I certainly agree that this is a gross and disgusting violation of my copyright. So much so, that for the first time in my 13+ year history of posting on Usenet, I'm putting an X-No-Archive header in my post.
The problem is with the 6,000+ articles of mine that are already in Deja's archives. There is no easy way to remove them. They have a nuke page, where you can laboriously type in article numbers, and reply to emails. But even if that could be automated, that would only get rid of the 3,000+ of those articles that were posted from email addresses that still exist. I have no option when it comes to the ones I posted from companies that I don't work for any more, or from companies that don't exist, or divisions of companies that disappeared in re-orgs.
--
A "freaking free-loading Canadian" stealing jobs from good honest hard working Americans since 1997.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!