Slashdot Mirror
"Smart Tags," Round Two
A few more stories about "Smart Tags" (see round 1 if you missed it) -- Liza writes: "According to Newsbytes, a new feature in IE 6.0, "Smart Tags," which inserts hyperlinks into pages so that users can get more information about a concept or company, could violate both copyright law and federal rules prohibiting deceptive and unfair business practices. Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them. Interesting questions!" Meanwhile, ZDNet has a nice piece examining smart tags in action.
Yes, it absolutely does create a derivative work.
It has always been understood that a link appearing in an HTML document implies that the author wishes to offer the user the opportunity to "follow" the link in order to find more information related to that word. This invitation is based upon the meaning attached to the word by the author. The author establishes this relationship knowing that it will serve his particular interests, whatever they may be. Software that adds link relationships that the original author has not explicitly defined changes or alters the meaning of the content and could very easily establish relationships that would be harmful to the author's interests (others have already made this case with the "Acme Widget Co. site having links to ABC Widgets, Inc.'s site inserted" example).
The descriptions of the implementation that I've read make this feature sound a lot sexier than your run-of-the-mill hyperlink. I imagine that your average luser would be inclined to use the Smart Tag links rather than the less attractive standard links. This will lead to confusion on the part of users, which will result in lost traffic (and in the case of corporate sites, lost business) for web publishers. It's easy to imagine that a user who didn't understand the difference between the two types of links would find most web sites virtually worthless since instead of allowing him to follow a series of links to gather increasingly detailed information on a particular subject, he would be lead through a series of sites with little relationship to each other or to the information has was seeking in the first place.
The basic idea, looking at the content and providing the user with links to sites with more information, is a good one, but the implementation is awful. Microsoft would scream bloody murder if a competitor's browser did the same thing with their content. Communicator and Mozilla offer a similar feature called "What's Related," but it lists related sites in a separate list. Something like this, which separates the third-party's links from the original content, would be much better since it wouldn't effectively add unintended relationships to the original author's content.
slashdot broke my sig
Also, there's a difference in who controls what words get Smart-Tagged, and where those links go. What do you bet that Microsoft's default Smart Tag library will link the word "Linux" to Microsoft's "Linux Myths" page, or to a copy of Ballmer's "Linux is a cancer" speech? (Sure, other people can write Smart Tag libraries, but how many people will ever bother to install them? And what do you bet that Microsoft has some way of making their Smart Tags "higher priority" than other people's Smart Tags?)
I think it's time for the Justice Department to begin writing Volume II of its briefs against Microsoft. Oh wait, Microsoft paid for George Bush to be elected. Guess they're just going to sit on their hands for this one. Microsoft, Microsoft, über alles, über alles in der Welt...
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
That said, what do you propose to do about it?
I wonder if the antitrust appeals court is being kept up to date on all this? It certainly is awfully contemptuous behavior. Absolutely justifies anything and everything Judge Jackson said about them. The question is, will Microsoft in doing this piss off even the appeals court?
In doing so they are for one, playing brinksmanship and taking NO effort at all to prepare for a loss, which means the breakup would be more catastrophic rather than less- and in addition, they are stepping over the line with regular people who use their products, killing off functionality and blatantly setting up tollbooths and preparing to milk people for all they're worth. This is not appealing to the consumer. In fact, Microsoft 'taking over' the web by putting their own tags in, is not appealing to the consumer per se, only confusing and perhaps intimidating. You no longer know who you're dealing with. This is damaging popular support for Microsoft. Who ever heard of a ZDnet 'report' on a MS technology zinging 'em that savagely? If they are losing even their lapdogs they must have lost consumers _long_ ago.
I know my take on copyright law (I record music) is that I distinguish between noncommercial and commercial uses. I reserve all commercial rights, but I openly encourage noncommercial copying. If someone wants to noncommercially play my music through a goofy EQ filter, of course they may. If, on the other hand, someone defaces it in that way and tries to SELL the result.. they are up a creek, because I have protections against that sort of abuse, being copyright holder.
By the same token, if someone doesn't like one of my links and, say, paints White-Out on the screen to conceal it, more power to 'em. But if Microsoft decides IT wishes to link my words to ITS interpretation of what it wants those words to relate to, it is making commercial use of my stuff on a large scale, period. I'll repeat that- it is making commercial use of my stuff. It's USING the material I put on the web, to try to place ITS paid links everywhere you look. It is advertising heavily and intrusively on my page without paying me a damned cent! There is absolutely no justification for this.
When they turn around and begin placing links to MY site, my music or whatever, all over THEIR pages without charging me a penny, then I will consider the idea that this is a service. You'll note they are not offering THAT. I can only wonder just how much it's gonna cost to get access to this technology. In theory, I could end up having to pay large sums of money to Microsoft in order to get 'rights' to certain words that they are going to grab out of my pages, without asking, and link to. It's an extortion racket- another sort of 'namespace', but this time it is literally the English language being seized and monetized. If this goes through, I will not have the capacity to clearly and unambiguously express my views on the Web even though I PAY for web hosting that will in theory allow me to put up what I want. The 'receiving end' is being compromised for commercial gain, and I don't even get a kickback.
If they're allowed to do this, I should be allowed to go add links to my stuff on THEIR homepage, and links to rebuttals on all their FUD pages without asking them. Hell, I should be allowed to go paint my company logo on their buildings in Redmond while I'm at it.
If they're allowed to use opt-in meta tags, I should be allowed to ask my friend Craig if HE minds if I add links to rebuttals on all Microsoft's pages and paint my logo on their buildings.
"Hey, Craig, do you mind if I stick my logos all over Microsoft's property?"
"Nah, go for it."
*dum de dum de dum* Gotta love the new rules! Where's my paint? My friend Craig opted in to letting me put logos on Microsoft's property, so off I go. I think I'll ask him if I can paint the White House pink, next.
It doesn't even make sense as opt-in. Let's say your house has a big front wall. I'd like to make it a billboard, because my neighbors drive past your place.
Opt-out means I paint stuff on your house, and then neighbors can choose not to look.
Opt-in means I can ask the neigbors, "Hey, do you mind if I paint a billboard on Maloi's house?"
How is their opinion relevant?
Not footnotes in the usual sense. Unpaid advertising from an entirely different publisher.
What justification is there for allowing this? There's not even the pretense of paying for this commercial use of your content! Not even opt-in makes sense. Opt-in and paying content providers a royalty for use of their words as tags would make sense. I daresay it would not pay as much as selling banner ad space, but you _can_ buy text-only web advertising. How is this different from text-only web advertising, and what possible justification could there be for not paying page-authors a royalty for use of their words as commercial advertising?
Perhaps it should be _more_ of a royalty because this is even more intrusive than those new huge web ads. It's no longer even a case of routing content _around_ an enormous animated GIF. In this case the advertisement IS the word being read, and you can't read the content without reading the word. Thus, the royalty paid should be proportionally higher, because it is the last word in intrusiveness.
If you want to add commercial links to words on the web content that I PAY TO HOST, I think you should pay me.
Period.
Write your own damn content if you want advertising links ;)
Of course. This is just advertising! All the same rules apply as if it was banner ads. The only difference is, Microsoft intends to not pay anybody no matter how much advertising they place on your page. There's no other difference- text-only web advertising even already exists. Actually, this _ought_ to pay higher royalties than that as it is more intrusive.
Of all the things you mention, the only one particularly analogous is Third Voice, and even that is not completely analogous. Third Voice is a parallel note-sticking technology. Smart Links is ubitiquous unpaid commercial advertising in a VERY intrusive way.
Web advertising costs money. None of the things you mention are anything like web advertising. If Microsoft wishes to place web advertising on every page in the world, they should be ready to pay a royalty to all those people for the commercial use of their content as advertising. It's no different if it's opt-in: they're still using other people's content as outright web advertising without payment. They need to come up with some form of royalty to compensate the content holders- particularly because, UNLIKE Third Voice, the advertising is directed by a central controlling authority, not just random commentary by web users.
Of course it is unlawful! Nobody gave Microsoft any sort of right to place unpaid advertising on every freaking page on the Web- even as a 'switchable' option. They have web pages of their own: they can place links there. They have the damn _browser_, they can place little buttons all along the window frame if that pleases them. They don't have rights to make COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING USE of the content on the web, unless they enter an agreement with content providers. Nothing you mention is commercial advertising. Do you propose that Microsoft be given television and radio advertising for free, too?
We would not either think this was a great idea if some Linux geek was doing it. We might think it was less potentially harmful because nobody would use it, but it'd be the same thing: unpaid commercial advertising actually made out of the content itself (can't get much more intrusive than that!). As such, it's a neat-ish idea- IF they pay me for use of my words. They are obliged to do so if they want to advertise on my content. If they just want links all over, they can put 'em on the window frame of the browser, which they own. They can't use _my_ words for it. Advertising should be paid for.
It's sort of like compulsory licensing in music. I can see arguing that global compulsory advertising should not be done in this way. But if compulsory advertising IS done, it's insane to not pay content owners a royalty for use of their words. If Microsoft wishes me to link to their site, they could get me to use banner ads and BUY a banner ad: they could get me to run text-format web advertising and buy a text link at a cheaper price because it is less intrusive. If they want a link right in the MIDDLE of my content, they should pay MORE because it is more intrusive and hence more valuable.
Woo! somebody who is less of a damn blabbermouth than I am please mod this poster UP! Talk about insightful (or interesting- no, I think 'they can get their own damn accreditation' is just flat insightful)!
Hmmm, you have a point. I'd like to suggest that perhaps it's not about the 'huge commercial entity' part either- whether it's a monopoly doing it or not is irrelevant. It is the _context_ of the modification. This draws a distinction between your ad-stripping example and Smart Tags, in that the ad stripping is on the reader end and is a refusal to 'read the page' the way the content provider is supplying it. With Smart Tags, the context is that of a _third_ _party_ interfering with the attempt to provide content to the reader (who can strip or not or even SwedishChefify for all it matters). The situation of a third party getting in between and changing things is significantly different from simply having a reader going 'I want to strip ads! I choose to strip ads, therefore although I _expect_ this content provider to want to put ads in, I'm not going to honor that'. The third party means the reader can be fooled into believing the intent of the content provider is different than it is- but more than that, it's granting the third party a 'right' to alter and change things that really only the reader is entitled to.
Not quite... You can't control the appearance of the content on the user's machine. You can control the content itself. This is the difference between an editor publishing a book in Braille (same content, different presentation) and the editor rewriting the last chapter himself (different content, not what the author intended).
A VBS virus that changes every entry in msnodc.xml to goatse.cx
You're confusing content with presentation. The web was always about separating the two out....well..for a while anyway. Today, you can still change the colors of links and font sizes and whatnot. But the content is still the same.
Until now. MS is intending on changing the content of a web page. This is no longer about changing how it looks, they're changing how it acts. Links that you as an author did not want are now popping up in your site, changing the flow of the content. This is very different from changing a font size.
Assuming they aren't lying about allowing a special HTML tag to disable this feature, The first thing I'm going to do is see if there's any such thing as boilerplate headers for Apache, and make that tag be a part of what goes in the boilerplate for all pages served on any site I'm running.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
This is worse than ordinary plagerism. Instead of taking credit for what others have said, you are alterting what they said without mentioning to the reader what those alterations were.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If I were to use a browser with this feature (which I doubt that I will), i'd simply disable it. The last thing I want is my browser using cpu cycles and network bandwidth to look up every word on the page so that it can link to advertising and corporate sanctioned sites. What a stupid bloated feature!
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Whatever benefit it may be to the user, it's not a benefit to the content provider. The message that the provider intended is at the least muddied up, or at the worst completely flipped on it's ear. It's like CBS digitally masking their competitors advetising. Yes, it's subtle, but it provides viewers with a skewed view of reality, however subtle the changes are. In CBS's case, it leads people to think that CBS has more advertising than it normally does. In Microsoft's case, people might consider Microsoft to be a viable (or truthful) source of information. Never trust a company to do things that are good for the public good.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
and the maddening thing is;
they planned, speced, and developed this feature, all without one single person standing up and mentioning this one fact; it's opt-out rather than opt-in. You change your site for us, not we change our browser for you.
the audacity.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"As for the spam argument, that's ridiculous. All a user sees is a dotted underline on a piece of text which allows the user to get more information."
Yes, but consider the source of that information - it can be slanted any way Microsoft wishes. No other power on earth has ever had that kind of editorial control. Anybody with half a brain ought to be terrified at the prospect.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
As long as the option to TURN THEM ON is left to the author of the page.
The way MS has it now, "I" have to explicitly turn them OFF. It should be OFF by default.
"I can't see MS leaving something like this user-editable - it's just not like them. They play the control game "
Now that's curious because it's not at all like Microsoft.
Why do you say such things when they are obviously not true?
If I have a site describing how dreadful pornography is, I don't want some other twat coming along and linking words to sex sites.
It utterly changes the meaning of the text. I have nothing in particular against pornography or in fact people who hate pornography, i'm just using it as an example.
Oh and don't tell me that trojan/virus writers won't find this xml file to be a fantastic target for exploitation.
How stupid Microsoft are.
Deleted
That ZDNet article is one of the funniest things I have ever read in a Ziff publiction (intentionally funny, anyway).
sPh
I would need to research it a little more, but my solution to this will be to try to detect if the browser is using smart tags and to deny access for said browser. It shouldn't be too hard to do, and a nice denial page which kindly informs the user about the reason should make the point clear. Mind you, this might mean that I lose some readership on my site, but that is preferable to allowing Microsoft to dictate content matters. The ability to turn off the feature with a meta tag isn't enough to satisfy me. I would prefer to "educate" the web user as to why I don't permit M$ tags.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
I agree that a keyword-context system such as this shouldn't be done as hyperlinks.
My suggestion: Select text with mouse. Right-click. Choose what you want to do with the selected text.
For example, have a "Search for ths text on Google" item, a "Lookup definition in Websters Dictionary" item, and a "Lookup definition in Oxford English Dictionary" item on that right-click menu.
Getting to a definition (from a dictionary of your choice, not MS's) or a search (again, search engine of your choice) could be VERY easy this way - but it gives up too much control, so MS won't do it.
MS wants to edit the content of the web to suit it's own purposes - it doesn't want to make anything "easier" except to give up control to them.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
/. readers considered themselves to be fairly competent with computers, and perfectly capable of editing a text file without Federal Court supervision.
Ahh...but you see...we're still in the XP *beta*. Before that sucker goes live, MS will *probably* encode it into an encrypted (aka: DMCA-protected) DLL file that you can't remove, because they threw a couple of "vital" IE functions in there as well.
I can't see MS leaving something like this user-editable - it's just not like them. They play the control game -- maybe the first version will actually be accessible - but at some point, they're going to close it off - under the guise of "innovation", or "ease of use".
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
BWAHAHAHAHA - sorry. EVERYTHING MS does, is done because it gives them an advantage. Whether it's a financial one, or a marketshare one - it's all a game for control. MS wants to control your computer, the apps on it, your 'net access, what you see, what you read - everything. That's what they want. That's their "vision" of the future. It's scary as hell.
But I was under the impression (what!) that some
Look at how many people out there don't bother changing the default start page in their web browser. Do you really think Grandma is going to learn XML so she can deduce exactly what MS is feeding her? Doubtful she'll even realize they're feeding her anything - what little she knows of the web tells her that links on webpages are a part of the page - so if that link goes to an order form for Office XP, or to a favorable MS story, or to anothe MS-owned site - well, that must be what was meant by the author of the page!
Now, you or I could be perfectly happy editing a text file - whether it be HTML, XML, BASH, PERL, or whatever. Grandma wouldn't be. Grandma thinks editing a text file is "too hard". Grandma isn't going to do it. Then again, she probably wouldn't even know that she could, unless it was all gussied up with a GUI editor with a little pulldown field for which MS-owned site you want the word "is" to link to...
The idea of automatic tags is not terrible at all. But only if there is a way for users to change their "smart tags server" so that they can pick the company they want (or perhaps merge several lists). (I think something that points at a user-generated data like everything2 would be pretty neat). The fact that MicroSoft has not indicated any ability to change the server is a good sign of their actual intentions!
PS: a "pick the server you want" with an open-source database format would be an acceptable way to implement censorware.
Those Microsoft guys are so good to be contributing this back like that. Giving up control over the protocol can't be easy. If they were evil they could, link your pages to whatever they want, make gobs of money, kill the (dumber half of) Internet with one move. Glad their on our side :)
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Do you realize it's not Microsoft who picks where you go, it's configurable? Do you realize that your stating that it's Microsoft who picks where you go shows that you don't know what you're talking about?
True, most user customizations are just appearance. But there are also things that change content - censorware and ad-blockers are the obvious examples, though they just remove information rather than alter it. What about the translation services provided by Babelfish and others?
Anyway, I don't agree that this is changing the content of the page. All that happens is that some words get purple underlining which the user _may_ choose to click on to visit some other page. There isn't any suggestion that the original author endorses these links, at least not to a user who understands what is going on. It's not much different from highlighting email addresses in plain text. The twist is that you can configure how words are mapped to URLs by downloading different sets of tags to your machine.
The only way in Microsoft is being less than honest is in having a default set of tags which favour their own sites and products.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
A while ago there was an app called Third Voice which allowed users to attach notes to websites. The notes would be shared with other users of the service. Obviously a really good moderation system would be needed if it got popular, but it sounded like a cool idea especially for websites that don't themselves have a comment facility.
Some site owners were outraged that people would be able to exchange information about their sites in this way. They threatened legal action claiming that it was a copyright violation to 'annotate' sites in this way. (Despite the fact that the annotations were shown in a separate window and clearly distinguishable from the main site.)
I had no sympathy for those over-sensitive webmasters then and I have, well, not very much sympathy for anyone who complains about his site being 'altered' by Smart Tags now. When publishing on the web, you do not and cannot expect to have control over how the user views your site. This applies to content just as much as presentation. If until now it has been mostly presentation that was customized, that's just for technical reasons, because it's easier to write programs to do that. But I fully expect that over the next few years, content personlization tools will proliferate. Like things that let users share annotations or add hyperlinks, or precis tools that filter out marketingspeak and attempt to distil a web page to a short passage of text.
I don't have a problem with these because users choose whether or not to use them. I would object if Microsoft shipped Smart Tags enabled by default with a set of links biased towards their own site. (Although isn't this what Netscape and others have been doing for years with home pages, 'Shop' icons, Internet Keywords and so on?) But as long as users are able to make an informed choice about whether to use this feature, and which set of smart tags to preload, I can't see any objection to it.
In short: bash Microsoft for crass commercialism if you want, but get used to the idea that users won't always read the content of your site in exactly the same form as you upload it.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I can't really see the problem with smart tags. One of the tenets of the web one which I expect most Slashdot readers strongly agree with - is that you cannot control how your site will appear on the user's machine.
If they choose to view it in an unusual font, that's their choice. If they disable JavaScript, that's their choice. If they run a program to filter out banner ads, it's none of your business. The same applies if they decide to run a program which adds new links to the page that you wrote.
Of course, you do have to question the common sense of the user who runs such a program, given that the standard set of links is unlikely to be impartial. But if you carefully choose which sets of smart tags to import, it could work.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Soon they'll decide if the shouting is too loud and abandon the idea ..., or not.
The same thing happened with
XP subscriptions: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/06/0038258.shtm l
Spamming: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/09/28/1341249.shtm l
Passport: http://slashdot.org/yro/00/07/29/1228209.shtml --
DWR is Ajax for Java
There is none yet. Microsoft hasn't decided on what it'll be.
They'll spring it on us at the last possible moment, so that we'll all have to scramble to "opt-out" of their little game.
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them.
Yeah, and concerned car owners can lock their doors, and concerned grocery store oweners can get video cameras, but that doesn't make stealing an open car or robbing an unguarded store alright... This all sounds pretty horrible to me. I don't want somebody sticking ads or other links onto my pages for me, making it look like I am endorsing something I may know nothing about. But since "IE won the browser war," I guess they can do whatever they monopolistically want...
Posted from the wireless couch.
Ah, it looks like Microsoft prawns have attained moderator status: this message was marked down, because it offers a solution to this SmartTags problem.
Basically, the idea is that content authors (ie. webmasters) need to implement server- or client-side blocking of MSIE version 6.
If enough people rally together to do this, Microsoft will be forced to change their ways. And that's A Good Thing, regardless what any MS-pimpin' moderator figures!
Promote this meme!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"Microsoft says site operators could insert a metatag disabling Smart Tags, so concerned publishers could avoid them."
Its like when you can reply to a spam and you'll be removed from the list. No-one cares that I didn't want to be on the list in the first place, and I don't want to work in order to be not screwd. The same applies here I think...
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
Hate to break this to you, but Microsoft did not abandon or scale back the "Passport" centralized login service. It's still around, but the reason it hasn't been heavily marketed to third-part content providers is that it's been retooled with an XML-transport protocol and is now being tested under the name "Hailstorm".
As for XP subscriptions, they've put it off for single-user shrinkwrap versions of Office XP, but they're proceeding full steam ahead on the business licensing side. The newly retooled Open Licensing contract terms now require biannual renewals. Skip one or miss a payment, and you pay a penalty amounting to the price of a full, new version of the product plus the biannual "Software Assurance" fee. Just because they don't call it a subscription doesn't mean it isn't one.
Anyone actually played with this yet, or is this idle blather?
As a technology, it's a nifty one that's been done before, but this would be the first time it would get wide distribution. And it seems like a nice enough new developer feature for Office/VBA apps. However, the way it's being rolled out in IE, with Microsoft-selected kerword/link databases, is a nasty bit of hijacking.
Besides siphoning users away from everyone's sites and effectively placing text ads on everyone's pages without payment, there are privacy issues to be addressed. Do smart-tag clickthroughs send a referer request header? If so, MS or its marketing partner(s) will be able to collect traffic and even some user data that can be used to extrapolate usage patterns on other organizations' sites just as an ad agency could, only, again, without any kind of contract or compensation.
Boo, hiss.
I find it amusing that M$ will enforce the DMCA and any other restrictive copyright technologies but ignore them whenever its inconvenient.
I own a web site. I write pages. They contain what I want them to contain, including links that I found relevant when I wrote the page.
I definitely do NOT want M$ or anybody else defacing my page by adding or altering MY links.
If they were sixteen year old european kids, they'd be hauled from their homes by the police.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
M$ in its facist wisdom will now decide to route you anywhere M$ wants you to go today (namely, to where ever someone has given them money to get their tags to the top of the list.)
There will be no possibility of garanteeing that the links that a visitor to your page has available on what they might surmise is your page are the ones that you, the author, actually placed there.
This gives M$ the possibility to redirect the entire content of the internet to their own advantage.
Imagine that you're a fundamentalist group and fork over enough dough to M$ to insure that links to your site's pages are used ahead of the competition WHEN PEOPLE WERE CLICKING TO GET TO THE COMPETITION'S PAGES!
The potential for misuse is staggering. I'm no sci-fi writer but I can follow this train of thought "five minutes into the future" and it smacks of every "benign humanitarian experiment gone wrong" scenario I've ever read or watched.
Crackers defacing a web-site for nothing but kicks have nothing on the potential for one-sided misdirection and misinformation of such a distopian web of deceit.
It make the WorldWideWeb into the WorldWideLie, by default!
I hope that we can find the moron who came up with this scheme, strap him down and McVeigh the idiot.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I suspect it wouldn't make the pages that Microsoft links to open, although it may make the links themselves open. But links are (or at least shouldn't be) the same as the content that they point to. However, if Microsoft adds slogans and logos for products, I think those could arguably be opened as well.
I do think there are legal questions here-- is microsoft "republishing" your page by changing the layout/display/presentation from the author's intentions? I dunno though if it's really a copyright violation per se.
Microsoft better really be careful about stepping on other people's logos and stuff though, because they could possibly violate trademarks (?).
Dunno. Not a lawyer.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I've resisted the urge to do something like that in the past. I may have to reconsider if I begin hearing stories about too many sites' web pages having links to inserted to MS-approved partners. I wouldn't worry too much about ignoring the users of that browser with 90-percent market share. I would rather configure a web server once than to have to go through tons of web pages inserting code to block Smart Tags.
Anybody know of a way to have Apache generate a ``666'' error so I can create a special ErrorDocument to spit out when it receives a request from IE? (heh heh heh)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
ROTFLMAO! Am I the only one that expects to see things get inserted into web pages like:
Anyone betting that something like these will not be part of the defaults?
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I first came across flyswat installed on my mom's computer. She uses the NeoPlanet shell for IE, something I set up for her in 1998. As it works, and because I can't figure out how to convert all of her email to Outlook, she is still using it. Anyway, I came to visit a year ago and found a bunch of brownish-green links on all her web pages. Links that were really commercial. After some investigation I found them coming from a program called flyswat running in the background. She didn't know how they got there, and didn't use them, so I uninstalled flyswat.
Let me say right away, the idea isn't bad. I would really use it if it didn't change the look of the document with ugly brown lines... if I could right-click on any word and get a contextual menu on it. Even information on where to buy, or similar things commercial.
And as long as it isn't turned on by default in MSIE 6, and it doesn't *replace* any functionality or links in a page I write, I'm not going to worry about it, and will likely be glad to have it as a browsing option.
On a side note, I've always wanted to set up some post-processor for adding contextual links to documents I serve. I'd especially like for all names in my Intranet web documents to be linked to people objects, and projects to project objects, etc.
Interesting...
So...if any exploit, trojan horse, or even simple "trick" exists to get smart tag files onto unwitting IE6 user's systems, someone could create a "goatse.cx" virus that puts the infamous trolling link all over not just slashdot, but pages everywhere (from the point of view of the IE6 user).
You can almost hear the goatse.cx guy frantically signing up to put banner ads on his page to cash in on all the hits he's going to get :-)
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
That takes care of client-side, but not "server-side", which I think is what most people are worried about.
The point is that people are worried that if Microsoft decides to "smart-tag", say, references to Linux to be links to Microsoft's amusing "Linux Myths" page, and the IE6 user turns on Smart Tags because he or she wants "smart tags" for their favorite stamp-collecting sites, Microsoft could then 'auto-deface' people's linux information sites with links to the so-called "Linux Myths" page, unless the operator of that site has gone through all of his or her pages and inserted the IE6-specific "smart-tag disabling" meta-tag.
In short - the concern seem to be that Microsoft is making extra work for anyone who doesn't want to accept any links that Microsoft may want to insert into your pages when displayed to IE6 users.
I'm personally less bothered by the fact that I'll have to go through and add tags to all of my pages than I am by the fact that I now have to add "Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0"-only tags, specifically. The notion that, as with file formats, Microsoft could potentially later change the format of the tags for IE 6.5, say, to add other features might "re-enable" the so-called "smart tags" for IE 6.5 users by default, until the page owners go back through and add/change "Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x"-only tags to all of their pages AGAIN probably also worries some of us...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
No...we wouldn't. We'd be wondering what the heck Linus was smoking to have inserted a web page filter into the kernel, where it really doesn't belong...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
josh
Microsoft wants them. Microsoft's shareholders want them. Microsoft is hoping that few other people will consider whether they actually want them or not.
That's the beauty of all "opt-out"-based policies, from the point of view of people who implement them. They give everybody a "choice" that they hope few people will be aware of.
Ok, I mitigate.
I didn't know this, thanks for enlightening me!
:wq!
Google does this with its search engine. As do other search engines. There should be no reason I need to have robots.txt files there should be no reason I need to add more and more meta tags to the .
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
If I create a a web page it IS MY content, even if I put it on a server and do not copyright it is is MY content. Who is Microsoft add their own links into it or google to cache the page?
I wonder how many pages Microsoft will not show or will break by doing that.....
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Fair enough, I agree. But if this new development is dangerous, then people are already in danger. Most web sites don't use https, and even when they do, it is rare within that subset for users to actually check the certificates. And that stuff even applies to non-MSIE users. For MSIE users, the risks are even higher. You never know that before going to your page, they didn't look at some other page with an ActiveX control, which MSIE thoughtfully downloaded and executed for them (or ran some trojan that was mailed to them and executed by Outlook). Their whole computer is wide open and anything they read can be subtlely and insideously altered in a way that makes this Smart Tags thing look benign by comparison.
(That might sonds fantastic and paranoid at first, but all it takes is one person to do it, and it can be installed on millions of computers for several years. Look at Melissa & ILOVEYOU stories for a hint at how far and fast a non-subtle one can spread.)
If people are using Microsoft products to look up life-or-death information, then they are already very screwed. The problem is Joe Schmoe doesn't understand this yet.
Of course it is, because this is an opt-in system. You opt in by running MSIE. Don't want to opt in? Don't run MSIE. I realize that Microsoft's monopoly and preloads make this appear futile, but that's just because users have been taught not to make choices.
And maybe this is just because most users still haven't grasped the risks yet. They don't understand things like Verisign certificates and ActiveX and other technical issues and online dangers, but this one is something that almost anyone can understand. And it even has a visible effect on the screen -- this is a godsend in disguise.
If Smart Tags gets widely deployed and publicized, it may very well be the best thing that ever happened to the security and integrity of the web, because Joe Schmoe will know that it actually matters what software he uses, and he'll have to make an informed decision. No more Smart Tags, no more auto-download-and-execute ActiveX trojans, no more email viruses, etc.
Right now, even pre-Smart Tags, you don't know whether or not users are seeing the same content that you publish. But if software integrity ever becomes a market force, you will.
But if we coddle people's ignorance, it will never happen. Integrity will never become highly valued enough to become a market force, because all products will have the illusion of integrity. If the government steps in and stops Smart Tags but leaves all the other vulnerabilities wide open, then we're left with a situation even more precarious and dangerous than before. As someone in the medical sector, this type of thinking should make you shudder: "If this medication were dangerous, then the government would have required that it only be sold with a prescription. Therefore I don't need to ask my doctor before taking it."
The only workable strategy is to encourage defensive thinking and selection on the part of the end user. Allowing Microsoft to dispel the illusion of software integrity, will help. The useability and credibility of your medical web site will increase.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ouch! I sure hope not. I'm giving arguments for allowing web browsers to implement Smart Tags. I'm strongly opposed to actually using that software. :-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think I've identified an important difference between that way I am seeing this issue, and my opponents. And it comes down to this:
Premise: X owns a computer, and uses it to lawfully download a copyrighted work, and then runs software written by Y, which then creates a derivative work on X's computer, and then displays that derivative work for X, without sharing it with any one else. (Do we all agree that this exactly matches what is happening with Smart Tags?)
Who made the derivative work?
I say it's X, and he is perfectly legally allowed this, as Fair Use. (My computer is acting as on behalf of me. I am responsible for what my computer does. It does not matter who wrote the software that my computer runs. It's my computer.)
EFF and others are saying that it's Y. And since Y is then passing that derivative work on to X, Y has just committed copyright infringement. (Microsoft is responsible for what their software does on my computer. Every time I run Microsoft's software, they (the actual company, not my inanimate box) is acting as an agent on my behalf.)
Which is it?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Dammit, I hate being on the side of MS and against EFF, but it seems like some people just don't understand what the WWW is.
You don't have any guarantee of how your page looks or acts. You might have typed in some Javascript that does something annoying, included an image tag that happens to be an advertisement, linked to a Nazi or porno site, and written your textual content in English, and included a bunch of tags that you believe specify a physical appearance and layout of exactly how your page should look. You may even believe that your web page should only be viewed on a video display screen, and never be read aloud to a blind person or displayed on a pocket pager. But you don't have any guarantee that any user agent will respect any of your wishes.
It is not a copyright violation for the user agent to heavily process your document prior to displaying it. If it were, then we wouldn't have web browsers (we would just use "wget" and "more" and read raw HTML). This is the nature of the web, and you know what you're getting into when you put a server on the Internet that replies to HTTP requests. Because the social convention for replying to HTTP requests is "anything goes" and everything is merely advisory. If the possibilities frighten you, then the WWW isn't for you. Run a dialup BBS instead, where people download PDFs. (And just hope that PDF-viewing developments remain stagnant.)
It's fine with me if Microsoft gets bitchslapped in the marketplace and press over this due to everyone simply hating it (after all, Smartlinks is a rather cheesy idea). If you don't like it, don't use it. But it's not unlawful. If we change the law (either by passing legislation, or having a judge "clarify" (*cough*) the existing law) to make this illegal, then there some other things will be theatened as well. Just off the top of my head:
- People's right to use translators
- People's right to link a web browser to a dictionary so they can easily look up
words that they don't know the meaning of
- People's right to use third-party annotations, such a Third Voice
- People's right to filter out ads or anything else they don't want to see
- People's right to use style sheets
- People's right to turn off Javascript, frames, ActiveX, Java, etc.
- People's right to use any browser that doesn't render a page exactly the same
way as whatever the market leader happens to be at the time
- And a little more indirectly (but not much): People's right to use caches,
anonymizing proxies, encrypted tunnels, or anything else that increases security
or performance
I hope Robin Gross rethinks this issue, because EFF is wrong this time.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Of course, $HTTP_USER_AGENT is just fiction anyway. You just filtered out a lot of other users too since everyone tells their browser to spoof as MSIE, due to incompetent web admins going to extra trouble to exclude non-MSIE users.
Due to a long history of abuse, that field has been rendered meaningless. Thus making any decisions based upon it, is always a bad idea.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's not too hard to tell which links are created by the content creator and which links are put there automatically by the hosting company. So your average user is already quite adept at figuring out which links are "authentic" and which are extraneous.
Don't you get it? This will allow M$ to turn ALL internet content into M$ content.
Because no one has a choice about what browser to use? Last I checked Opera and Mozilla both exist for Windows. No one's twisting your arm to use IE.
If a vendor is going to do something like this, and I don't personally think it is a good thing, then it should be opt-in, not opt-out. Web developers shouldn't have to insert a meta-tag to tell Microsoft not to rewrite their site, they should have to insert a tag to tell Microsoft it is O.K. for them to rewrite their site. Also, such a feature, if present, should be off by default, and should issue a warning to the user that it is going to alter site content for probably financial gain of the browser vendor before it lets them turn the feature on. Such a feature can also potentially infringe on the privacy of careless users. Many people strongly suspect that Microsoft is busy building a huge customer database through click analysis, and this sort of tool, where they get to put links to their site is a tremendously powerful one for that, because they can look at the referrer from sites that wouldn't normally link to them and be able to more closely track the browsing patterns of people even when they aren't on Microsoft's site or one that Microsoft already has their teeth into, such as LinkExchange member sites.
I personally am hoping that negative public reaction to this feature will get it removed, but I don't think it is something that Microsoft will give up on easily. It is features like this that really tend to make the arguments that Microsoft is trying to take over and proprietarize the Internet not look so much like conspiracy theories.
Your argument against Junkbuster doesn't really fly, because it is something the user has to choose to implement and it isn't something that is being done for commercial gain of another content publisher. It is the user choosing to opt-out of seeing banner ads, etc. Saying user's can't do that is like saying they can't fast-forward through commercials on a video tape -- oh wait. The people that make copy-protected DVDs are already doing that. Make no mistake, Microsoft isn't implementing this feature because they want to make life easier for users as much as they are doing it because they can redirect user's to their content to see their advertising, and so they can do clickstream analysis of people's browsing habits even when they aren't on Microsoft's pages. The idea of a hyperlink generator might be more palatable to me if the user had control over who they were going to be sent to whenever they went to one of those links, but not much. I think complaints about improper hyperlinking are still valid, and I don't think that this "smart tag" system represents proper linking.
If the mozilla group came up with this you'd love it.
If the Mozilla group was doing it, it wouldn't be motivated by a company trying to suck the advertising dollars away from every other site on the web. It wouldn't be motivated by a company trying to build a huge database of browsing habits of users in order to be able to make more money from them.
If it can be switched on/off in the browser (and can be switched off by those pages that really don't want to allow it - even if their reader does) then where's the issue?
The issue it should be opt-in for the web designer, not opt-out. It should be off by default in the browser, and should display a warning to the user that it will alter the content of pages for the commercial interest of the browser vendor, and that it has privacy implications to the user because it will be used to gather data from them for marketing purposes. And the user should be allowed, if the feature is enabled, to pick an alternate source for the "smart tag" references other than the browser vendor.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
You are aware that the default installation of any software under windows is the same case and that it is of enormous value even for a company like AOL that its software is part of that default?
We are talking of a unprecedent editorial power over the majority of internet users, not about the fairly competent minority
They're assuming that by default, everyone wants to participate when the exact opposite is probably true.
They're not assuming everyone wants to participate. They're *forcing* everyone to participate because it's good for their business. Microsoft never assumes anything. They do things for specific reasons.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The article linked in the story is a good example of how a piece of information could be subverted using Smart Tags:
But then again, what if someone went through this entire column and underlined words, without my permission (link to unflattering photo of author) and then put in the links to Web sites and pages that made a mockery or subverted everything I wrote (link to photo of Karl Marx)? Yes, I could see how that would really be annoying (link to high school yearbook photo of author).
Frankly, if I write a story and post it on my website, I don't want Microsoft deciding what gets hyperlinked and what doesn't. I consider the hyperlinks to be part of the content that I "approve" for my article.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Some thoughts on the Smart Tag issue.
1) Would it be getting nearly as much attention if it was being done by someone else other than Microsoft?
2) Is the basic concept a bad idea?
3) What are the legal issues?
After thinking it over, I think #1 is only partially true. If anyone was making a display-alteration system and attempting to get distributed, there would be controversy. Microsoft doing it just makes it something people will pay attention to for a variety of reasons - including (well-placed) mistrust of the company.
The basic concept however, of finding ways to enhance web delivery and use, is one I think is pretty useful. I've seen a variety of software packages meant to enhance the web experience. I think the basic idea isn't one to toss out - it's the implementation we should be concerned about.
Finally, the legal issues. To that I say - are we surprised it's already being talked about in legal issues? The internet and computer legislation of today is an utter mess - and the insanity of the DMCA is clearly displayed where companies champion it one moment, and violate it the next. I'm sure that Smart Tags will merely expose more of the pathology of technology legislation today - and, of course, I'm going to enjoy it.
In closing, I think the idea of enhancing web display isn't inherently flawed - but the company that's suddenly championing it and the legal labrynth of today certainly complicate any issues of actual usefulness.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I believe it was ReplayTV that had a multibillion dollar lawsuit sitting on their head because they had an option to zap commercials *manually* (note: I'm not up on the details, feel free to give the specifics). Recently a theater owner was found guilty of modifying a film to remove a "dirty" bit to "clean up" the movie. The film industry said that theater owners can't modify the film, and it was backed up. So, how is the web different? It's merely a younger medium without a few powerful people controlling it.
Wait a second... scratch that last sentence. Microsoft through IE and .net will shortly be controlling it.
Hehehehe... here's an *evil* profit scheme... create a free ISP (the rest have just about died), and replace all inbound 468x60 banner ads with those of your choosing.
Why not? It's just the client modifying the content, and since it pays for your ISP, it's value added, right? If you were the biggest software company in the world, you might even get away with it.
--
Evan "Grumble, grumble..." E.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
<script>2 07&mode=thread";
if(navigator.appVersion.indexOf('MSIE 6') != -1) {
window.location = "http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/12/1250
}
</script>
(If you don't grok javascript, that makes anyone using IE6 get redirected to this slashdot article)
I think this is 100% up to the end user. If I want my browser to automatically do this, that's MY choice. MS can make it a feature, it should be off by default. That's all there is to it.
I can view your web page however you like, and if I want my browser to automatically filter, link, and do other things.. that's my business.
So why don't we flip the choices and see what their responses are? Create say "Intelligent Links" on sites from within mozilla. And create a similar XML file that allows key words and links to sites that microsoft wouldn't like. So - any time there appears the words Microsoft - link to www.apple.com. M$ - link to www.linux.org. Windows - www.xfree.org or www.gnome.org, etc. travel plans -> www.travelocity.com not www.expedia.com. browser - www.mozilla.org. Internet -> www.google.com. And so on and so on.
-cpd
Because then Microsoft would have to give people an incentive to do so. By having it on by default, the incentive is built in because everyone will want it turned off.
Microsoft has some good lawyers, and I'm betting they are confident that this behavior, however, devious and malignant it is, will be upheld as legal. I think people are just going to have to deal with it and do what they can to let Microsoft know we won't accept they're heavy-handed tactics. I hate to say it, but I think the users and the Web in general lose again.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
My E-commerce site:
Hi, welcome to my commerce site I sell widgets do you want to buy some?
Click here to be brought to my check out.
My Smart Tag enabled E-commerce site:
Hi welcome to my commerce site I sell widgets do you want to buy some?
Click here to be brought to my check out
In other news today....
More Dot com failure as E-commerce sales drop to an all time low.
Analysts are puzzled by this unanticipated drop. What can possibly be the problem?
There is no
Microsoft is not the only company to use Smart Tags. UPS and LexisNexis are both going to use them. LexisNexis is going to use Smart Tags to provide LexisNexis users instant access to law cases, statutes, and other information. This is a service provided to their customers. It is not changing the content of a site, it is enhancing it for those who want it enhanced.
I realize that this new feature has been created by Microsoft, but that doesn't make it bad. I think it sounds pretty cool. It will allow companies to add functionality to their users. What is wrong with that?
If I view all websites from within a frameset, does that constitue a deriative work? I don't think so. It sounds to me like those objecting to this new feature are objecting to Microsoft earning a buck. Damn them for adding new features.
Someone using the term 'loosing' properly! Not a mistaken spelling for 'losing'! On the Internet! On Slashdot, no less! Yikes!
This is truly frightening. Perhaps something terrible is about to happen. Death awaits us all with sharp pointy teeth...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Could you code a (java|vb)script in this smart tag file that would execute if clicked or has a mouse over? Would this smart tag feature execute it?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
If they set it up such that a web-site author had to proactively adda meta tag to turn on this feature and let the benevolent Microsoft edit their web page, I think it would be acceptable. That way only the true sell-outs would use it.
To be fair, they aren't really "killing" mp3 in the new os, so much as not adding mp3 encoding. MP3 decoding wills till work great, but it will ship with a new media encoder that just doesn't contain a high quality MP3 encoder. So even then you can still view your file library and download a good MP3 encoding program if you ran windows. (Right now you pretty much have to download an encoding program anyway, so it won't make things harder, just make it easier for the unwashed to use the WMA format). Of course this smart tags stuff, along with so much other stuff is just BS. XP is just Microsoft's response to everything else being themeable and trying to fix the home series by migrating to NT style. I wonder if they'll actually do that this time. Ever since NT-4 they've been saying the next release of the home line will be based on NT. Maybe they think how nice it would be, and then figure out that there wouldn't be enough of a difference between the home and professional edition to warrant a lot of people to pay the extra cash.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
What do you mean more restrictive variable scope for classes? You mean private variables? That might be cool. What I really want is try catch exception handling and more uniform API not to mention better implementation of the HERE syntax.
War is necrophilia.
Font changes are applied universally wheas smart tags are applied selectively. To the user the smart tag adds emphasis. To you it's disaster. Your competitor will buy smart tags which will lure your customers from your site to their site.
War is necrophilia.
Which asshole MS astro turfer marked this down as flamebait. Somebody nail that bastard on meta.
The degree of astro turfing on slashdot is getting ridiculus.
War is necrophilia.
Great if you are VB or VC++ developer running windows. Sucks if you are using some other OS.
War is necrophilia.
You forgot to add.
Smart tag SDK only works on windows. You must purchase windows and windows developement tools and learn them in order to create tags to defend yourself from microsft hijacking your customers to whever pays MS the most money. Great for MS sucks for you.
War is necrophilia.
I don't know why you keep insisting that the USER is modifying the page. The users are cluless moron sheeple who have smart tags installed on their machine. It's MS who is modifying the page the user is a pair of eyeballs MS sells to advertisers.
You seem to know something about this technology so tell me this. What happens when MS tags a word and I tag a word? Whose tag appears and in what order?
War is necrophilia.
What, has everyone forgot the point of the internet?
So there's a meta tag. And when company X makes another new feature I don't want my site to participate in, I'll need yet another meta tag, and another meta tag, ad infinitum. Why can't there be a meta tag to TURN IT ON instead of turn it off. Isn't that what meta tags are for? To give browsers extra information?
Retrofitting the entire internet IS NOT going to make friends. This should be more of an opt-in than an opt-out. They're assuming that by default, everyone wants to participate when the exact opposite is probably true.
::sigh:: Embrace and extend. Yay.
--
Shaun Thomas: INN Programmer
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
This word "Real"... I don't think it means what you think it means...
Real Fact: DeCSS case, I put the link on MY
page.
"Smart Tags"(TM), somebody else put the link on MY page.
(i) Is saying that the whole thing is about where the link goes. The "Real
Issue" is not where, but who put the link their and who controls where it goes.
Not true at all. In DeCSS, you put the link on your page. With
Smart Tags, the reader puts the link (remember they chose to turn in on) on the
page as they read it. This is exactly the same as complaining if someone
goes out, buys a book and then writes in the margins. No one is touching
your page - they are annotating their own view of it.
Real Fact: The code is written, works, and
exists in Office XP already.
So what? A lot of code is written, works and never gets published.
The Office XP code doesn't link you anywhere but to the help (and in fact I've
been using it for the past 2 or 3 months and quite like it).
I've got code that will make any GPL source a binary only module. Who
cares unless I use it?
Real Fact: Since these filters are XML files
on the local user's machine that the user can edit, IE is making the user's hard
drive available to third parties!
WTF? How does the fact that the filters are XML mean that the user's
drive is open to 3rd parties? They aren't even cookies - they are not sent
to a web site, they aren't published anywhere, they are simply installed like
software. This is akin to saying that since bash scripts are files on the
local machine that you can edit then bash is making the user's hard drive
available to third parties. What utter crud!!
Real Fact: So far, it's links to stock quotes
on MSN and where to by sports memorabilia on MSN.
It's in beta. What did you expect?
Perhaps you don't know this, but all IE distros are customizable by the
supplier through the 'branding.cab' file. This file can be edited to
provide whatever you like with your download of IE, and I expect plenty of 3rd
parties to be dumping lots and lots of effort into this. In fact, I'd be
surprised if it doesn't end up like ActiveX controls where the tag engines can
be downloaded from anywhere.
On a side note, have you ever hit the "what's related" button on IE? I
just did on the slashdot page and not one of the links went to a Microsoft site.
Guess that dispels your paranoid ravings for a little.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Sorry, but that's no different from me standing in my competitor's store and handing out information about my store.
Umm... you can do this until they ask you to leave. I guess that means MS can put tags on your page until you ask them not to (use the META tag).
Aside from that, your argument is a strawman. This isn't like handing out leaflets in a store at all. It's like someone getting your mailorder catalog (your web page) and asking the postman (Internet Explorer) to scribble on any related info that he knows. As it is an optional service, the user can ask the postie to stop providing that extra information at any time.
Personally I see no problem with this. If someone else has cheaper hammers then as an end user I want to know about it. If someone is browsing Microsoft's site and 'Operating Systems' links to linux.org then is this a bad thing? You don't have to be Microsoft's partner to create a Smart Tag filter - go to msdn.microsoft.com and build one yourself if you care.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
You are correct, except for one thing: The user has chosen to put the links there. It's not Microsoft - they are providing the service, and they are not changing Bob corp.'s web site at all, just performing a reference lookup on behalf of the user.
IE already does this (in case you didn't notice) - just click on the "What's Related" button and you'll get a sidebar with everything on it.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
That aside, the choice to link or not to link is up to the web publisher, this is a different issue than responsibility for the content that was linked to.
True, but are you saying the user doesn't have the option of adding their own content to what you provide? If this is the case then you'd better also disallow scribbling on any textbook in college because that is EXACTLY the same thing.
First, probably is not good enough.
Agreed.
Second, the user can decide how my site looks, but the content is my business, hence it being MY site.
Garbage. The user has the right to do whatever they like with your site for their own personal use. They can wrap it around a three-dimensional naked sheep that sings a lewd ballad about goats if they want to. The user can decide to only look at every third word, or run a filter to remove every single link to doubleclick. You have NO rights as to what the user does with the published work as long as they don't republish it themselves.
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
To me this is one of the most disturbing issues. I don't want political, religious or any other type of special interest group to have any oppertunity to bombard me with propoganda. I especially don't want them able to bombard my web site with their propoganda.
So either include the META tag on your site. You still have no rights as to what users do once they have downloaded your site. If they want to interpret it by rearranging the words until they get Nazi war slogans then it's up to them.
And once again links are content. People choose to link or not link for specific reasons, and it is not the place of microsoft or anyone else to add or take away links. Especially when they do it in a way that may confuse users as to the provider of the content (and no, the squiggly purple lines are NOT different enough... many users won't get the distinction, and what about colorblind persons?)
Now you are hitting on something. If Microsoft doesn't give the user the option of what smart tags are in use, or even enables only 'partner' tags by default then there is an issue (especially now IE is the dominant browser). Assuming the default tags are just the benign ones in Office XP (name lookups, phone number etc.) then I don't see the problem.
The fact remains though that the user has the right to add and remove links as they like from your site for their own viewing. This is completely outside copyright restrictions and completely outside publisher's rights. If you honestly believe that Addison Wesley has the right to demand that no annotation be done on a textbook then you can feel free to continue your line of discussion.
If I was the type of insecure scoundrel that had to mod my own posts up I certainly wouldn't admit it.
Umm... you can't mod up your own posts. You can't even use moderator points in the same thread. I'm quite secure in my posts though - I believe that I should always be responsible for what I say and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
No, I'm saying a third party doesn't have the right to modify the user's experience for me. Remember the user is not creating these links for themselves, a third party is doing it. While I agree that a technical user would understand the difference and could put the smart links to good use, the typical user won't.
Ah. I agree with that sentiment. I've trimmed most of the rest of the post because we have hit what I believe is the central issue.
What I am saying is that Smart Tags as they currently stand are just fine because they don't actually do anything pro-Microsoft by default. The user has to make an active decision to turn that on. Currently the default tags (looking at my Office XP install and the SDK - I don't have the appropriate beta of IE6 or WinXP) are harmless - names, phone numbers and the like. There's no company specific things there that I can see that are enabled by default.
Given that the web browser has the ability already to rewrite your site in pretty much any way it likes through the use of filters and plugins, I don't see Smart Tags as anything but a method of simplifying the browser customization. If a company can convince users to run their Smart Tag filter then it's good for them.
If Smart Tags become an opt-in technology rather than opt-out then (IMHO) they become useless because the whole purpose is for the user to find more links to information that is relevant to the page they are currently browsing, not for the web designers to just get lazy and turn on the tags. This destroys their whole reason for existing, and as a result I'd just call them bloatware in that case.
My argument is that a third party DOES have the right to modify a user's experience IF the user gives them that right. The user has the right to apply whatever rose-colored glasses to information you provide, including the rose-colored ones provided by whatever Smart Tag filter they install on their machine.
I just don't want someone else modifying their perception of my site.
My take on this is that if the user has enabled the Smart Tag, then the user has delegated the modification of the site to that (trusted) 3rd party. I believe this is allowable.
I would say that Addison Wesley has the right to demand that Barnes and Noble can't annotate books prior to sale.
Sure, but my take on Smart Tags is that they are equivalent to the customer bringing along a representative of their choice to annotate the book before they read it, after they bought it. I believe this is much closer to the real nature, as the Smart Tag is part of the User Agent and not part of the HTTP transaction.
Umm... you can't mod up your own posts. You can't even use moderator points in the same thread.
I'm well aware of that, but by your comment I wasn't sure you were... or I figured you might have a second account with mod points waiting to mod yourself up. In regards to that comment I would say that I misrepresented you as a scoundrel. I might think you are misguided, and I'd still like to know what that line about wishing you had mod points meant, but the scoundrel comment was probably uncalled for.
Scoundrel didn't offend me at all - I've been called far worse. You learn very quickly not to take offense at anything on Slashdot, Usenet or pretty much any public forum (or you go postal in a hurry). All I meant was I had moderator points that I really wanted to give other posts on this article, but decided to post instead. I just have this incredible ability to put across a message that is only passingly similar to what I really mean, and never exactly.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Your problems doesn't exist. It's a strawman. The way Smart Tags work is the user has to enable them. Sure - it's possible that the user could turn on Microsoft's smart tags, but they could just as easily turn on Netscape's, Corel's or Sun's.
There is nothing that stops a Chevy salesman coming onto a Ford car lot except for the fact that he will be asked to leave (he's not trespassing until that point). Asking him to leave is the equivalent of putting the META tag on your site. Your analogy only serves to show that Smart Tags indeed mirror the way things work at the moment.
It is in no way illegal as the tags are turned on by the user and so the user is in control of what they are reading.
If someone wrote a perl script that did the same thing for use on an Apache or Squid proxy would you feel the same way? I think a lot of people need to get over their knee-jerk MS reaction and see the technology for what it really is - a way USERS can get more information (possibly on competitors) from a web site. The USER is in control - that is a good thing, remember?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Smart tags are just COM components. Download the SDK and write one for yourself. They are NOT controlled by Microsoft, they are NOT only provided by Microsoft.
Fact is, you don't get it and from the sound of it you didn't stop frothing at the mouth long enough to even try.
Download the SDK (it's available on msdn.microsoft.com). Have a long look at it. Figure it out. Learn something for once.
Whoever the idiots are that modded you up to +5 are just as bigoted and closed-minded. (There goes all my karma in one hit). Time to metamoderate...
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Anyway, the Smart Tags service probably will be controlled mainly by Microsoft for the main reason that most users never download updates and it's highly unlikely users will bother updating their Smart Tags with other sites information...
Besides, if MS made the word Linux go to their "Linux myth" page, do you think any users would ever download the Slashdot updated tags? And even if they did, would the MS version preempt third party SmartTags?
(Sigh). Go to MSDN. Download the Smart Tag SDK. Go to Office eServices Smart Tags page. Look at the number of different (independent) companies providing Smart Tag filters. You may learn the following:
So, in other words, your desire to believe MS is evil seems to have gotten in the way of your reasoning somewhere.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
From the information I've seen:
:-(
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
(ii) Smart Tags may or may not be included in the release. Microsoft is testing the waters to see people's reactions and if it is too bad then they are likely to can the idea.
(iii) Smart Tags will probably be disabled by default, or at the very least be an option in the Internet Connection Wizard. This means the end user is actually defining how they want to parse your web site - whether they want the tags or not.
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
(iv) This isn't about publisher's rights. Microsoft isn't changing what is published, they are effectively providing reference material on what is published. As I stated in (i), links aren't content - they are just references to other content.
...and I wasted all those moderator points I would have loved to spend on this thread to bring you this.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Create a module that will insert this meta tag in every page sent out from the server. People who don't want their pages screwed with, put them on a website run by Apache. Then you don't have to worry about forgetting that stupid meta tag, it will be inserted on all your pages.
Reminds me, I should write a proxy to detect Shakespeare and upgrade it to current slang.
"Yo, like, should I put a cap in my ass, or not? Dat's what I gotta aks myself."
- Hamlet.
No longer will we need to be constrained by the linguistic laziness of 16th-century authors.
When I write a web page, I, in my capacity as author and/or editor, decide what terms are worth (or not worth) linking to other sites.
If you don't like the way I write my websites, you can go fuck yourself and read someone else's stuff.
By the way, there wasn't one single hyperlink in your original post that suggested that you (or even funnier yet, an automated agent) somehow knew what the "right number" of hyperlinks per page was. What's up with that? Are you lazy, incompetent, or both?
Oh, that's fine then.
I mean, bundling IE as the default browser didn't do any harm to Netscape and other competitors, did it?
The reason msn.com is one of the top web "properties" is because most users are too clueless to realize their home page can be changed from the default.
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Joe Sixpack is gonna have sufficient clue to find and edit XML to remove smart tags he doesn't like and replace them with ones of his own choosing?
The whole point of "smart tags" is that they're "smart" -- as in "they do the thinking for the user". (As in, "they dumb down the user", but that's another XP thread entirely.)
Or better yet, an ActiveX thingy that'd overwrite msdnodc.xml (the client-side file that controls smart-tag appearance) with "appropriate" smart tags.
Wouldn't be a trojan, technically speaking. You'd just pop up a dialog box saying (in typically Microsoftian language):
"This link will upgrade the file that contains your smart links. Do you want to upgrade your smart links? (Yes/No)"
(OK, I'm in an evil mood today. Deal.)
Ok. So, can I apply the GPL to my website? If so, and if it turns out that M$ is creating a derivative work of my website, can I then force them to release the source code to that derivative work? And if so, what exactly would be the source code to the derivative work?
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
This reminds me, Mac OS X has a very similar feature called Services, which allow applications to export functionality that can be accessed from anywhere. For example, I can select a URL in a text editor (or terminal window, or any other app), select "Open URL" from the Services menu, and the URL opens in OmniWeb. It would be easy to write a service that would perform dictionary or Google lookups on the selected text, in fact I may do that because it's a good idea.
This technology is more flexible than a static list of words to link, and it keeps the user in control, as opposed to Microsoft's view that they know where you want to go today.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
ME: the web page design serves as a specification.
YOU: No, it serves as a suggestion. As I said in another thread, you have no control over the users' browser, and never have. Get over it.
Legally, HTML is copyrighted expression that is treated as software literary work. The very act of rendering it produces a derivitive work, just as compiling or interpreting any source code produces a derivitive work. This is copyright infringement unless explicitly authorized, however the HTML itself explicitly authorizes display consistent with its commands, which contrary to your implied assertion does not create a unique formatting requirement, but rather authorizes a whole range of derivitive renderings. Smart-tags are not in that range.
You can play wordgames if you like and call it a "suggestion", but please state where you get the legally needed explicit copyright authorization to render it in any way other than consistent with the "suggested" display. Choosing not to load images, whether by filtering ads based on the linked location or simply not providing that functionality in the browser (lynx) does not produce a rendering that is inconsistent with the HTML. Tags can be rendered in a variety of ways including not rendered, but the untagged text cannot be changed. The same thing applies to not executing javascript.
Your examples all share this trait: the browser chooses to render only a subset of the specified HTML commands. That is entirely different than rendering something not expressed.
Go write "I have no control over other people's browsers" on the blackboard until you get it.
In fact I do have a control over other peoples browsers: under the copyright Act, I have a legal cause of action against anyone who uses a browser to commit copyright infringement against me. I can petition a Court for an injunction to force compliance, and if that is ignored, eventually the government will send people with guns to get compliance to the injunction by force.
Go write "17 USC 106(2)" on the board until you get it.
Some people have made much of the fact that html is designed to allow different presentations. This may be true, but the web page design serves as a specification. Presentations of the page must vary within those bounds, other wise a derivitive work is created. In general, creation of a derivitive work is copyright infringement unless it is authorized by the copyright owner. An "opt out" strategy is not availing -- an explicit affirmation is required by law.
There can still be a defense of fair use. For example, if I write a script to add links and run it in my own browser, I haven't done anything that affects the market value of the page, because my affect as a single user is insignificant. Also such a personal script is noncommercial in nature.
Not so for Microsoft. They have been found to be a monopoly specifically in the browser market. As such, when they change your web page, it will be changed for the masses and it will alter the statistics significantly of your click patterns, which clearly affects your ability to profit from you copyrighted content.
Additionally, Microsoft is attempting to profit from this feature, whereas an individual user is probably not doing so. Thus two critical factors of the fair use equation weigh against smart-tags, however this does not mean that all modification of web pages are infringing. Fair use is a case by case analysis.
(i) If links are part of the content of a page, then the whole DeCSS case is sunk. You have to choose what you believe. Smart tags may indeed be the EFF's best friend here because if Microsoft can convince the courts that they are permitted to add whatever links they like because they are not part of a web page, then by implication you also have the right to link your page wherever you like and not be responsible for the content at the other end. So, either Microsoft and the EFF are both correct, or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Real Fact: DeCSS case, I put the link on MY page.
"Smart Tags", somebody else put the link on MY page.
(i) Is saying that the whole thing is about where the link goes. The "Real Issue" is not where, but who put the link their and who controls where it goes.
(ii) Smart Tags may or may not be included in the release. Microsoft is testing the waters to see people's reactions and if it is too bad then they are likely to can the idea.
Real Fact: The code is written, works, and exists in Office XP already.
(iii) Smart Tags will probably be disabled by default, or at the very least be an option in the Internet Connection Wizard. This means the end user is actually defining how they want to parse your web site - whether they want the tags or not.
Real Fact: Probably
(iv) Third parties can provide their own smart tag filters to link wherever they like. This isn't a Microsoft-only club. You can even have a Slashdot smart tag if you like that links to articles on the subject.
Real Fact: Since these filters are XML files on the local user's machine that the user can edit, IE is making the user's hard drive available to third parties!
(iv) This isn't about publisher's rights. Microsoft isn't changing what is published, they are effectively providing reference material on what is published. As I stated in (i), links aren't content - they are just references to other content.
Real Fact: So far, it's links to stock quotes on MSN and where to by sports memorabilia on MSN.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
There is no question that some applications of the Smart Tag technology will be illegal, and I can't believe Microsoft's legal department is letting this slide. If the meta tag were to turn on the feature (as opposed to disabling it), things would be different. However, the bottom line, is that Microsoft will be walking into serious trademark and copyright infringement. The banner-ad, the portal and the retailer companies will send a law suit so quick up Microsoft's ass that the publicity alone would not be worth it.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Perhaps I'm just a lousy reader, but I have yet to see somebody who actually tells me what meta tag I have to use to disable this - I want to put this on my web site, but I'm unable to find out how. Getting the SDK for this from microsoft.com failed miserably as well on both my Mac and NetBSD machines, so if there's a kind soul on /. that can help...
As for copyright issues, well you could say the same thing about proxy services like Junkbuster, which strip certain elements out of webpages before the user sees them.
I think there is something fundamentally different between adding information then selectively removing ads. If I post content on my site then Microsoft can alter the original intent of my content by adding "additional information" that they control. The key difference is that the information is being added and controlled by a 3rd party.
"as it will allow millions to finally venture out into the web as a whole"
I stopped reading right here. Venture out into the web? WTF? Don't you mean "venture out into MSN and other Microsoft affiliated sites"?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This is wrong, just plain wrong. Not because of copyright, not because of unfair competition, but because it gives someone else control of content I created(but not in a copyright sense).
What I mean is, let's say I make a website dedicated to exposing Scientology for what it really is, a sick twisted cult that extorts money from people.
Now, with Microsoft smart tags, if someone visits my site there will possibly be links to pro-scientology articles. What's really scary is that Microsoft actually does have an affiliation with some Scientology-owned companies.
This is the ultimate example of Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" strategy, using their web browser monopoly to create a monopoly on, well, the web as we know it.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
>then we should applaud this feature, as it will
.NET proprietary internet.
>allow millions to finally venture out into the
>web as a whole, and increase connectivity
>massively.
Do you realize that it's microsoft that picks the sites that other people can go to with this new "feature"?
So if there's an AOL page, MS could redirect you to MSN on some tricky word or phrase having to do with getting a subscription or whatnot.
(copyright)
>well you could say the same thing about proxy
>services like Junkbuster, which strip certain
>elements out of webpages before the user sees
>them.
The difference here is that you are exercising your fair use rights by removing unsightly material from the webpages you view. Whereas with Microsoft's "innovation" they are altering the copyrighted material for _commercial monetary gain_, which could be in direct competitive conflict the the very sight it's altering. You'd have to have your head up your arse not to see the lawsuits this will spurn. Maybe someone should slip an email to the appealate justices hearing the MS antitrust appeal. I hope their clerks are on the ball here, passing along important developments in monopoly abuse.
It's clear, to me at least, that microsoft is abusnig its monopoly again - on the way to turning the Web into the Microsoft
I dont think you understand the issue.
.xml file to change their redirects.
Ok let me point out something to you.
95% of windows users aren't going to edit a
Ok Clue time.
Why would ANYONE want to change a redirect file?! THAT"S WHAT BOOKMARKS ARE FOR.
Who has an interest in changing this?
1. Microsoft (obviously they have alot to gain)
2. OEM's (Changing copyrighted material to gain financially is what every OEM worth its salt guns for)
3. ISP's, again profiting from changing other people's copyrighted material..
Final thoughts.
How dare you try to deceive us? Who cares that the end user can change the redirects?! The end user has NO USE DOING THAT. It provides NOTHING for the end user, to change them himself. HE HAS BOOKMARKS for that purpose.
(sorry for the anger, but this schmuck is obviously clueless and/or deceitful).
I do believe the "feature" to disable right-clicking is a few bits of java code. Easy enough to turn off in most browsers.
off-topic, I know, but...
It's almost the same as someone loosing a worm or other virus onto the net.
Someone using the term 'loosing' properly! Not a mistaken spelling for 'losing'! On the Internet! On Slashdot, no less! Yikes!
[
I don't think the problem is really that it's coming from Microsoft. The problem is that it alters a webpage from the way it's author intended it. I've written some nice HTML before, and I've been very proud of the way it looked. I don't want some CLIENT altering the look of it. Especially if it's altering (or providing alternatives to the presented data).
I can just imagine going to consumer reports, and reading a bad review of something a Microsoft company produced, and being presented with a link to a more favorable report. It's just not kosher.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Web sites are content. Who has the right to choose how and when that content is presented to a user: the content creator, or the user? If you say "content creator" then yes, Smart Tags should be banned. Let's also say users don't have the right to use their own style sheets to alter the look of your page, and they can't use ad blockers either. IE will let users control this feature, it can be turned off, and it can be customized with add ins. So who's trying to limit user control, your site or Microsoft?
Smart Tags are a relatively benign way to add more dynamic content to a web page. All that happens is that the existing words get a special markup. It's not like you say "Save the whales" and they change it to "Kill baby seals."
Geez, if you want to bash Microsoft then you can use the old "they always steal their ideas" saw because this has already been done by programs like Flyswat for many months. Flyswat doesn't provide a way for content creators to turn it off!
Jakob Nielsen, Mr. web usability guru, has some interesting views on smart tags other than "smart tags are evil" (though he does point out they can be abused). Apparently, smart tags are a legitimate part of hypertext theory. I did not know that.
You can find it at http://www.useit.com/
I believe NBCi's little gadget worked on *all* your software, not just the browser. And as you said (or implied), the user has to take a positive action to install it. Then again, now that NBCi is gone, we don't have to worry about that...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
I just can't wait until a web-site owner with a bit of money takes MS to court on this.
- View it in Netscape
- View it in Lynx
- Derive some data and stuff it in a database (what search engines do)
- Run it through a filter that removes words I find offensive
- Have it read to me by a text-to-speech program
- Hyperlink the name Bill Gates like this.
Since I believe this in general, I can't make an exception when Microsoft provides the tool....because this stupid feature is disabled by default*. In Microsoft-land this means that 99.99% of users will never enable or even be aware of it - ala the "Don't spam everyone I know with e-mail virii" check box in Outlook.
* - This, of course, could change. That would be something to fight about.
G.H.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
...because this stupid feature is disabled by default*. In Microsoft-land this means that 99.99% of users will never enable or even be aware of it - ala the "Don't spam everyone I know with e-mail virii" check box in Outlook.
Heheheh...I'm surprised you haven't realized yet what Microsoft means by "default." They're not going to spend millions of dollars in time and development just to have something "disabled by default."
What that means is this: you install Windows XP, and near the end, you get this dialog box: "Microsoft has furthered its internet innovation in pushing the limits of technology by bringing to you a new technology known as Smart Tags! With this option enabled, you will have the power to further your web-browsing experiences by being provided with new links on existing websites, expanding your browsing capabilities within the new Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0! Push OK to enable this feature."
And as you said, for the 99.99% of users who aren't "aware" of any possible web options, they're going to absent-mindedly click OK, thinking that it's some required part of the internet.
...of course, it's still disabled "by default."
Microsoft was quick to respond to the outcry over the Smart Tags with "It seemed like a good idea." They proceeded to backup their statement with the example of Microsoft Bob.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Consider also the webmaster's perspective. Many people who browse the web don't know jack about chosing a web browser. Hell they don't even know or want to know what a browser is. They just want to surf the web. And those people will have the feature turned on, and will see links in your site, that you did not put in there.
~
~
~
~
:wq
This page should not contain any pink squiggly lines. If you see any, someone modified the page in transit, or more likely in your browser. You are reading a forgery and should not trust any links on this page, they may be added by third parties without the consent of the author, and are likely to add bias or misinformation to the page.
If this happens on a new computer you have just purchased, return it to the shop, and demand one that can show web pages without forgeries!
If this happens just after you "upgrade" your web browser or operating system, remove that "upgrade", or upgrade again to a more trustworthy system.
If this happens on a publicly accessible computer, complain to the owner of the computer that it is falsifying web pages, and have him read this notice!
In any case, do not trust any web pages this computer shows you.
In Murphy We Turst
this is EXACTLY like spam. why not go in from the other direction? disable your "smart tags" by default and allow a meta tag to ACTIVATE them.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Where is the HTML spec does is say the user agent is nothing but a dumb display? Where does it say that the user agent may not fold, spindle, or mutilate a document in any way it sees fit? Where does it say a user agent may not insert "extra" links if it so wishes?
I'm reminded of the scene in "Instinct," where Anthony Hopkins roughs up Cuba Gooding Jr. "What have I taken from you?" Hopkins asks. "I haven't taken control from you, because you never had it. All I've taken is your illusions."
You have no control over your users' browsers. Get over it.
If you want to complain about something, complain about the fact that "Smart Links" are all hard-coded to point to MS properties, and the fact that the user cannot change that. That is the kind of monopolistic, abusive practices that make me hate MS.
Anybody's grandmother could easily overwrite the defaults just by a little creative grepping through the latest MSDN docs.
Additionally, web authors can include meta tags to disable Smart Tags 1.0. Of course, nobody can guarantee that the same meta tags will disable Smart Tags 2.0 and the new, improved Smart Defaults that come with it. But hey, if you want your content to keep the meaning you intend, it's YOUR responsibility to stay on top of every patch to I.E. and every revision of Smart Tags, so you can effectively "opt out" of any editorial changes made by Bill Gates.
You have no right to say what you mean when viewed through I.E. Get over it.
Who needs smart tags? emedicine.com aleady does this. Just click on an "unexplained term" and a dictionary meaning pops up. Check it out in this Capral Tunnel article.
(btw, I am stuck with IE at work, ymmv...)
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
This article is hillarious!
What's gotten people like Winer and others (link to photo of protestors burning the flag) riled is concern that Microsoft (link to Microsoft stock chart showing how well company is performing) might, because of its OS monopoly (link to article by anti-trust expert detailing why Microsoft is not a monopoly) be able to force its technology down the throats of unsuspecting, uninformed or apathetic users (link to photo of lemmings) who might not realize the implications of the technology (link to Microsoft XP order info page).
I know more than you drink.
As was mentioned elsewhere, IE6 ships with smarttags disabled by default.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation"
:-)
That's satire, right? Having read the artical, I can see where MS is really stepping in the doo-doo here, and I'm sure that the meta-tag to turn off the Smart-Tags will change to a meta-tag to turn the Smart-Tags on for the page. Take for example my Icecream page (which btw the link above onloner works, I need to fix it; http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/Henry/Icecream/icecream. html is correct), what is stopping MS and IE 6 from linking every time I wrote Icecream to link to Eddy's or Ben and Jerry's or 31 Flavors? If I wanted them to be lined to somewhere else I'd have done the work myself.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Imagine if the next versions of Apache and Squid were changed so they inserted the "no smart tags" metadata by default. It would kill smart tags technology stone dead.
with this is that it forces everyone to opt-out. It's almost the same as someone loosing a worm or other virus onto the net. What a model!! Depending on your point of view this technology is either a) the holy grail or b) a fucking nightmare.
I chose b. I do however run a website so maybe I'll pick up the sdk or whatever developer stuff is available and make my own smart tags....:)
Any given smart tag implementation would be acceptable if, and only if it has the following properties:
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
If you use windows XP and you save the following to a file called msdnodc.xml to {driveletter}\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Smart Tag\Lists, then every time a page you're browsing contains the words microsoft, innovate, office, windows, 95, NT, XP, it will be squiglined and a right click will give you the choice to follow it to any of slashdot, red hat or goatse.
And that's a bad thing? remember, this is all client side.
just think, a single click to goatse every time you see a reference to XP... <FL:name>m s">
slashBot</FL:name>
<FL:lcid>
1033</FL:lcid>
<FL:description>
A list of MS related terms and suitable SlashBot comments on them.</FL:description>
<FL:moreinfourl>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office</FL:moreinfour l>
<FL:smarttag type="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:smarttags#msdnter
<FL:caption>
SlashBot Links</FL:caption>
<FL:terms>
<FL:termlist>
microsoft, innovate, office, windows, 95, NT, XP</FL:termlist>
</FL:terms>
<FL:actions>
<FL:action id="ODCWebSite">
<FL:caption>
&SlashDot Web site</FL:caption>
<FL:url>
http://slashdot.org</FL:url>
</FL:action>
<FL:action id="SlashdotWebSite">
<FL:caption>
Red Hat &Web site</FL:caption>
<FL:url>
http://www.redhat.com</FL:url>
</FL:action>
<FL:action id="Goatse WebSite">
<FL:caption>
Goatse &Office Web site</FL:caption>
<FL:url>
http://goatse.cx</FL:url>
</FL:action>
</FL:actions>
</FL:smarttag>
</FL:smarttaglist>
TomV
No. I don't 'realize' that at all.
Because it's simply not the case.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
But I was under the impression (what!) that some /. readers considered themselves to be fairly competent with computers, and perfectly capable of editing a text file without Federal Court supervision.
Would you like me to pick up the toys and put them back in the pram for you now?
TomV
If we could just add the meta tag to the default template in all of the non-Microsoft HTML editors, we could cut down on the impact of this "feature."
Not that it addresses all of the problems, but it's something simple and practical that you can do to avoid having your web pages altered.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Despite your optimistically high opinions of the population, 80% of them are not able to change screensavers without help desk assistance. More than 50% don't even know that screen savers can be changed. A giant screaming banner at the top of every modified page saying "DANGER: THESE LINKS ARE ADDED BY MICROSOFT, AN EVIL CORPORATE MERCHANDISING MACHINE! BY CLICKING ON THEM YOU WILL EXPOSE YOURSELF TO MICROSOFT SELECTED ADVERTISING! CLICK HERE TO CHANGE THESE LINKS" will go unclicked by that same 50%.
Any time you have a default setting, count on it being used, and used heavily. Believe me, Microsoft does.
I certainly don't want to be as offensive as barneyfoo, but you really need to leave acadamia and get out into the real world. Take a summer intern job on a help desk. Answer a few phone calls from people who are not stupid, but uninformed to a degree you cannot ever imagine until you've experienced it first hand. Go home that night shaking your head in disbelief at the questions you're asked. Then answer that phone every day for the next three months.
AOL exists for a reason. Most people simply cannot ever expand beyond what they're spoon fed. That's why Microsoft will "own" these links.
John
John
[ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jun0 1/06-04UshersPR.asp ]
The above is a parody, and isn't necessarialy meant to harm the company in question. Just in case you couldn't notice...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I've used the same thing in other software as an addon to IE5. My comments follow:
1) It slows things down. Your browser basically goes to a search engine with a list of non-common worlds, and builds hyperlinks to the results inside the page you are looking at. This takes time, so expect pages to load 2 or 3 times as slowly.
2) It's a great way for companies to track what you are looking at. The search engine they look at knows who is doing the requesting, and is used to track data for advertisers. This (besides being immoral) may be used as general data where they don't know specifically who you are, but are tracking the general population, or direct, where you start finding more spam in your mailbox about the places you've been to.
3) The references that the hyperlinks bring up rarly have anything significant, so not only is this technology slow and immoral, but it's useless.
IMHO
Bad news for JunkBuster, huh?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
What is the metatag to disable Smart Tags?
The "example" links in the article were a bit absurd, but I can envision something like that happening.
Exactly. The links in the article were absurd they were meant to be, but there will be many cases were this feature will not be funny at all..
There is no way in hell, Microsoft isn't going to miss the opportunity to cause the word travel to link back to Expedia. This is something that in no circumstances should be allowed to happen by default. Microsoft can and will use this to draw people from other travel sites to their own.
What about the word "news", will it link to MSNBC? What about people with names similar to the names of celebrities or companies? Is John Dell's personal home page going to be littered with links to Dell Computers? What about critical software reviews? This technology is not intelligent. It doesn't know when and where it is appropriate to insert a tag or not, it merely does so blindly and without forethought.
IMHO, the only acceptable use of this technology is in the form of a wizard in a MS tool. If I create a page in Front Page, I could be asked if I want FP to create links based on the smart tags technology and then modify them. This would be convenient and put full control of web content in the hands of the author where it belongs.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
1. Preferences that they set, which will mostly link to pages they already know about.
2. Preferences that Microsoft sets, which will mostly link to where MS marketing folks would like them to go. (Some of which, they might have added in return for compensation. For example, AOL might choose to pay MS to have their service linked to for a variety of words.)
In other words, this thing is a huge ad generator for Microsoft's browser, and the "opt out" feature will be one hell of a mailing-list generator as well. Win-win, if you are Microsoft. No value really added for the user.
Even in your best-case situation: most of the "update-packs" are just going to be a collection of links to commercial sites. Who the hell wants to download a database of advertisment links to "enhance" their client with?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Or how about non-html pages? Plain text stuff that you don't normally embed any tags, meta or otherwise? Will a smart tag pop up on, say, a plain text copy of the GPL or a BSD-style license redirecting the user to a Mundie tirade on the pitfalls of free software?
This smart tag thing is going to be a royal pain in the arse. I could care less about the client-side, really -- if people want to use smart tags, let them, that's not my choice. My choice is that they aren't going to be using them on any of my sites, period.
J
Have you not read about the meta tag you insert on a page to disable the smart tags? It's only been mentioned a thousand times throughout the comments attached to this article and in the article itself. I insert the tag, the smart tags are disabled. From one of the articles:
Microsoft has also created a function that will allow Web site operators to write a "meta-tag" that will disable Smart Tags on their sites, Sanford said.
That is how, precisely, I intend to stop them. Did you even bother to read the articles?
When I refer to "my" sites, I'm referring to the site I maintain. It's a company web site, a business. It's an educational site, and as such, we have to be very selective about our links. We can't have the browser linking to shit on it's own because even though we technically aren't responsible for posting those links, we're going to be the ones getting shit over the links, not Microsoft, because people are just that oblivious.
So maybe I'm not that important. But you really need to get over yourself, judging me when you obviously haven't read any of the articles.
J
Obviously Jon Erikson does not exist (read his user info, it is quite funny) but people like that do exist, and their not satires.
The answer to them is: imagine your company makes widgets. You have a page about what makes your widgets great. MS's browser inserts a link on the word "widget" to another company's site. This site has a table comparing various widgets on the market and shows, by their criteria, that you widget sucks.
Still think it's a great idea? Better insert those meta tags in ALL you pages.
The better answer is to block IE6 with a page explaining why and a link to proper browsers.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Think of how useful something like a really tough, technical document (like a scientific or engineering paper) could become if your own Smart Tag parser could rip through it, and add hyperlinks to pre-defined words and phrases to, say, an online technical dictionary, or textbook? If there's a phrase or word you don't understand, a link through to an explanatory site is only a click away
I think customised, user defined or 3rd party Smart Tag libraries could really supercharge the web...making a lot of documents even more useful and accessible.
not necessarily. i was thinking of subject-specific Smart Tag libraries, say for biological sciences. that way, any technical biological paper could be linked against the biologically specific library (which could be provided by a journal publisher, a university department, or a community effort), and terms and phrases automatically hyperlinked to the dictionary.
writing scientific papers is onerous enough without having to hyperlink through a few hundred specialist terms in every report you write.
If you're fixated on how it looked, you've already got the wrong idea. Looking pretty is all nice and good for the golly, gee marketing guys, but that completely fails to address such things as:
As the page author, you may not have considered the features, and implementing them server-side would probably result in excess linkage, but there are people who will want to be able to take advantage of them.
As a far as specifics go, I often research various mental illnesses on the web out of personal interest. While I understand that the web isn't exactly the safest place to get medical information, it's all just to satisy personal curiosity, so misinformation isn't going to hurt. While reading, it's not infrequently that I'll come across the mention of various neurotransmitters. Most of the time, it's either assumed that I already know what that neurotransmitter is (in the more sophisticated material) or the details of the neurotransmitter are glossed over. It's not that it isn't important -- it's that an author can only cover so much at a time. I fully appreciate and can understand that the author didn't want to bother with this. But to tell the end users that they can't add their own hyperlinks to fulfill personal needs is just selfish and egotistical. In my mind, it's on the par with those idiots who disable right clicking (which prevents me from doing my favorite "open in a new window"), in a lame attempt to prevent people from stealing the page source.
I already use manual smart tags when browsing the web. Using a combination of lynx, gpm, and Surfraw, I can highlight any word or phrase, switch to another virtual console, type in either "webster" (for a dictionary lookup) or "google" (for a google lookup), then paste in the term I'm interested in. I then hit return, and *BAM* I've got my results. I do this a lot. I would jump at the chance of having a one or two click process to do this for me. I might be willing to switch to IE as my Windows GUI browser for this functionality. I would be willing to start trying Mozilla if it added this feature. I would definitely be willing to install a proxy to filter out the META disabling tag, if it seems necessary. Any web authors out there who have pages that already provide Merriam-Webster and Google search links for all possible terms and phrases in the page can feel free to ignore me. The rest should get off this moral high horse of "I don't want them changing my web page."
MS would never do that, the whole point of designing this feature is that the tags will be in there by default, as 95% of people aren't going to disable them, at least not for a while.
What is the main advantage of the web over other networked forms of information? That's right, it's the fact that it is hyperlinked, allowing people to veer off from what they're reading to related sites, and then return when they're done.
People here often complain about how hyperlinks aren't used properly, and yet when Microsoft implement an automatic hyperlink generator, they complain!
Since people writing websites are often engaging in practices such as closed sites (where there aren't any external links, keeping novice users within their system of sites - i.e. AOL or Freeserve) then we should applaud this feature, as it will allow millions to finally venture out into the web as a whole, and increase connectivity massively. No longer will you have to waste valuable time searching for the meaning of an unexplained term on a page - there'll be a Smart Tag leading directly to useful information!
As for copyright issues, well you could say the same thing about proxy services like Junkbuster, which strip certain elements out of webpages before the user sees them. At the end of the day it's less offensive to copyright holders, because it adds value to their pages at no cost or effort to them, whereas Junkbuster removes any chance of them being able to fund their efforts, leading to the closure of many people's pages.
No I think this will work out well for everyone, and I hope that minority browsers like Mozilla and Opera follow suit. No longer will we need to be constrained by the linking laziness of web authors :)
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Deactiving such tags is not the operator's work.
Imagine if everybody invented new tags like this everyday !!!
We'd have to spend our days correct numerous websites.
I think Microsoft should deactivate them by defaut and document the way to turn these smart tags on.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Secondly as all coders know, if you have a feature off by default, most people don't know it ever exists. On the other hand, if you put opt-in meta tags then you run the risk of no-one using the feature. Which for a PHB, this is not a nice thought - but tends to piss people off less.
Finally, those people who complain about the site changing their design obviously never looked at it from different browsers. Every one interprets it in their own way, coupled with whatever mods the user has installed. I can make google hightlight words on the page, use junkbuster to remove adverts etc. etc.
At the end of the day, once its left the server I don't really have any control on how it is displayed. It could look how I intended or totally different (say html on avantgo or pocketie).
Finally, didn't some other company have this first? I remember using something years ago that produced a yellow line under key words that popped up a menu which would like to other "key" sites, a dictionary, the company etc.etc.
--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Yes, I agree that a page might be copyrighted even if it doesn't have a '©' symbol on it (but that character is easy to scan for), but I'm trying to make it easier for Microsoft to comply with the DMCA, after all, we do want Microsoft to comply with the DMCA (and other copyright regulations dating back to 1893 and earlier) right?
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I expect Microsoft will be forced to shift from the exclusionary tag model to an inclusionary tag model where only sites with an inclusionary tag can be modified in this way. That way content owners have to give their eplicit permission to microsoft to edit their page in ways they would be completely unaware of.
There is some middle ground. Perhaps Microsoft could check the page for the '©' symbol, and if it is found, then search for the inclusionary tag, granting them license to modify the page.
Along the same lines, has anyone thought about how much they want to charge Microsoft for such a content license?
I'll be sure to put a click-thru license (enforceable through the wonders of the DMCA) on my website, requiring Microsoft to pay some reasonable fee per page modification, per user - how about $100 per occurance
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Seriously, this is soooo close to being a good idea. Slashdotters love everything2.com - just imagine the entire WWW like it.
SmartTags could be a very powerful improvement to the WWW if done properly. And that means no concentrated authority on where these links point to. I'd be interested in it if it used an open directory for the link info instead of some corporate "money word" bucket.
As it is, who the hell wants to always be redirected to Microsoft's web site? Besides the pointy haired bosses. :-)
mozilla coders began looking into putting smarttags in mozilla, and linking them off to everything2. Slashdot rejoices.
-
Yeah, someone who sees the light!
Who else has noticed how Smart-Tags are used in OfficeXP? Well, it's actually a quite useful implimentation, automatically linking names, numbers between apps etc, could be quite handy...just like it is quite handy to have IE load almost instantly...but does it make it right or is this just the switch part of the bait?
The way this stinks to me is that they have built a useful technology that has great potential for abuse. But: First they are going to release OfficeXP which uses the same technology in a viable and reasonable fasion so when they release the feature in IE6 and all of a sudden the whole internet becomes M$ friendly and directed they will be able to say "but you didn't complain about it in Office, actually you liked it there". Gives them a mighty good platform for any lawsuits thereafter.
I have a suggestion: If IE6 ships with this 'feature', I suggest that ALL developers LOCK their pages out to this browser.
if bws == IE6 then pissoff and get a real one.
No Comment.
Isn't the lookup of smart-tags going to clog all the bandwith, or will it use a huge local database with keywords and urls which get outdated really soon? (Or can be emptied? :)
I don't see this how feature should work better than those "Channels" were supposed to, 3 years ago.
There is something to the argument that by making this metadirectory the default, Microsoft is forcing this down people's throats. But the issue and problem in this case is not the smart tags - it's just the sameold same old of Microsoft's OS Monopoly and the attendant prevalence of Explorer. Want a solution to this problem? Find another browser. Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Hmmmm, I don't know.
Some enterprising lad could write a little smart tag alterer to redirect Microsoft smart tags to some goofy, alternative OS site, maybe, or a joke-of-the-day site. Put it on download.com with full, honest documentation to what it does, and let people get it and download it.
If some lad wanted to, of course...
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
If an otherwise reasonably intelligent person (who spends 8 hours a day surfing the internet) can get suckered in like this, the affects on Joe Lunchpail really REALLY scare me :(
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
to link to Microsoft's site and see how well their server stood up
Microsoft have so many servers that they make sure they're always running at 50% capacity (until the DDoS attack, of course.)
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
HTTP allows you to determine the type and version of browser that is accessing a page. You could always write a little script that detected whether a smart-tag-capable browser was accessing your page, and redirect it to an "error" page, instructing the reader to get a different browser before visiting the page again. (For good measure you could provide a link to Mozilla and an explanation of why smart tags are evil.)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
But does this really create copyright issues? If lynx presents a website as plain HTML, stripping off all most of the formatting, does this too count as derivative work? If a browser presents visited links different from not visited without any explicit request from the author, does this count as derivative work? What if the browser underlines links (which i never explicitely asked for)? And how about a browser (horror!) displaying popup menues associated with a link that i, the author, have no control over? I think it would be hard to nail MS on the copyright issues, unless smarttags are confusingly similar to normal links, and even then it might not be easy.
So out of the millions of web pages out there, how many do you suppose are going to be updated to include the disabling metatags? Seems like it could become the norm on most pages, just through sheer inertia.
Let's be consistent here: these kinds of rulings are bad when they apply to advertising filters, they are bad when they apply to your and my ability to build applications that let us comment on other people's web sites, and they are bad when they apply to Microsoft's web browser.
That is not to say that I approve of Microsoft's actions. But the problem with this feature in IE is not the feature itself, it's Microsoft's monopoly position and their control over the feature.
What would happen if I looked at one of my web pages with IE 6.0 to determine what words were being smart linked and then added links of my own to those words that would make any resulting clicks go to a site that had absolutely nothing to do with the word? Anyone who clicked on the word Coca-Cola would be sent to a page about rhubarb farming. Better yet, we could rewrite all these words to link to Microsoft's site and see how well their server stood up. Which would take precedence in the browser - the Smart Link or the web page's link? Would people be able to tell if there were two links there? Would it be possible to disguise a regular link as a smart link by copying that little purple line under it?
I say if they're going to shove this down our throats then we should screw it up for them.
If someone in the Open Source community came out with this, we'd all be ooohing and aaaahing and getting webishly orgasmic over the greatness of it all. "It will completely change the web and strike a blow for Free Speech", says Any No'nemus. Etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Don't get so whacked out on anti-microsoft juice that you can't see some value in it. Rule of thumb: if you repackage the book to be pretty/ugly, is it still a good/bad book?