Slashdot Mirror
Blogspace vs. NPR
jonkl writes "National Public Radio's linking policy at npr.org has caused a fuss within the blog community that's hot and getting hotter. The policy's simply stated in two sentences: 'Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill out the link permission request form.' This is buried, of course, in a page linked to the site's footer, but somebody noticed and mentioned it to Howard Rheingold, who passed it on to Cory Doctorow of boingboing.net. Cory wrote scathing commentary, calling the policy 'brutally stupid,' even 'fatally stupid.' The outrage is spreading; this has to be a rough day for the NPR ombudsman who's deluged with email by now... ~24 hours after Cory's report." Reminds of the KPMG policy.
So, when does NPR start suing Google, Alltheweb, and others for indexing, and even worse, CACHE-ING their site.
Damn Pirates!
Did we (slashdot) ask permission to link
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." -- Plato (427?-347? BC)
I just can't wrap my brain around something like this. What is the point of being on the web if you don't want people to visit your site? Provided, you actually want people to visit your site, don't you want to get your information out to as many as possible? (bandwidth issues not withstanding) Ergo, wouldn't you want every possible site that might be interested to link to your content?
Tough to think there is something you could refer to as "old fashioned" in regards to the web, but I can't find another way to describe it...
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
i thought the spirit of NPR was freedom of communication? or was i misled?
Hemos wrote:
"this has to be a rough day for the NPR ombudsman who's deluged with email by now..."
Oh, the irony to be found in in this statement which appears in a Slashdot headline...
My
Limekiller
So we'll /. NPR and thus demonstrate to them that linking really *is* harmless, right?
What do you wanna bet that NPR doesn't bother checking another sites linking policy before they link to it.
How many times does this need to come up before there is a conclusive precendent set? It seems there needs to be a nice hard fast ruling on deep links.
Google on linking:
Searched the web for linking suit settle.
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,500. Search took 0.15 seconds
It seems to me companies keep settling just to prevent the law from ever being decided on by a judge. Deep linking should not be a website's ATM.
Never confuse volume with power.
What if regular contributors get a barcode tattoo, and only they are allowed to link?
--
This AC post was sponsored by catboxing.com. Thank you.
If you don't want people to link to you, don't be on the web.
Really, it beggars the imagination to think that anyone in this day and age could be this fatally stupid. If you agree, drop a note to NPR's ombudsman. Link Discuss
It's trivial to block linking by looking at the referrer field and only allowing access if it's empty or from npr.org.
Why would NPR rather sue people than just prevent it at the source?
They contain some or all of the following information:
The Internet Protocol Address (IP Address) of the machine which accessed our Web site.
The date of the visit.
The time of the visit.
The path taken through our Web site.
The browser being used.
A list of files downloaded or viewed.
The amount of time spent listening to RealAudio®, Windows Media, or Apple Quicktime files.
Any errors encountered.
The amount of time spend looking at the porn you visited.
Files on your PC
Social Security Number
Credit Card Number
Mothers Maiden name
A list of pirated software
NPR reserves the right to change this policy and rape you up the ass. Any changes to this policy will be posted to this page as soon as our lazy asses feel like it, so please check this page periodically. Use of the NPR Web site constitutes consent to the 'we own your ass' clause.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
But I really don't get this whole "blog" thing. When did it become so popular, and why? Yeah yeah, there's the whole "freedom" and "empowerment" lines, but I still don't get the attraction of putting what seems to me to be a diary online for the world to see. Can anyone else provide me with a clue about this phenomenon?
I guess the web pages I put up when my wife was pregnant with our first child was a sort of blog - I should get around to re-posting that somwehere, actually... but as a geek with a wife, two kids, and a mortgage, I don't seem to have the lifestyle that would make good blog material anymore.
-----
Let "them" know you're not a terrorist
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Wait... I just deep linked to a link prohibiting deep links! Ack! My brain!
With all that legal linking nonsense, it's funny that they don't even have a robots.txt file on their site.
I keep saying you oughta be licensed to use the internet, and you should have to pass a basic intelligence test to qualify.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
This is clearly a case of freedom of speech. Let's see NPR try to bring charges against someone for linking to their site. It'll be laughed out of court. It's a basic right for someone to be able to publish publically available information, such as a universal resource locator.
Just ask 2600.
whoops
"And like that
Like that time they lobbied to prevent microtransmitters?
OK, they don't want me to link them. So istead I will set up a dynamic mirror on my server and link to that.
I'm not sure which is worse, a goofy policy like that, or that 'I' pay for NPR as a Tax-Paying citizen of the U, S, of A and am not free to utilize the information that 'I' paid for in way 'I' want to.
This is one of those written by the lawyers but who really cares / enforces it policies. Read a few other well known and established sites and I promise that you'll see this identical point ion the legalize.
When I noticed their policy about a year ago I thought it was strange too. I wonder why they don't want people linking their stuff. All it will do is get them more hits on their site.
Looks like that's been their policy for at least 6 months. I sorta understand the part about frames, but, leaving the stupidity of the linking policy aside, look at the # of fields in the form--why would they want to be saddled with reading, evaluating and storing all that information?
If I hear an interesting piece on an NPR radio station, do I have to get their permission before I call a friend and tell him to turn on his radio?
NPR's done dumb things before, such as when they fought against low-power FM.
Google must be one hell of a corporate sponsor to get away with something like that.
With the power of
anything I want from NPR's
website.
</sarcasm>
:P
/*drunk.. fix later*/
NPR
$300 a week is more than enough for me to be spending in airport bars, trying to stay drunk enough to put up with these people. It is about time the airlines took some responsibility.
Cunning linguists
These are the same people who lobbied congress with Clear Channel when the FCC was going to open up short range radio channels for public use. (Schools, community centers, public groups would be able to transmit low power FM frequencies, so your town city or whatever could put up it's own public radio station.)
NPR didn't speak up when the FCC was holding hearings asking for comments and conducting studies, they waited until after the FCC had made up it's mind to grant the frequencies, and then cried wolf, saying that they'd interfer with NPR's. The FCC said too little too late, and pointed to studies that were conducted showing contrary to NPR's unbased claim. So NPR lobbied congress and got them to stop the FCC.
NPR has always been a control freak. There's nothing new about that.
We'll have to fill out a permission form if we want to give somebody our newspaper. I can't wait until these things are seriously challenged in the courts.
Since when was it allowed that taxpayer funded endeavors can't be used with out permission? All taxpayer funded works can be used without care in any endeavor. I am not a lawyer, but one just has to look at the National Archives to see works from Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams. Go there download to your hearts content and use how you wish. Pay a little money for higher res versions of the same photographs. I would think the same would be true of the NPR site. But you never know.
m ag es.txt&id=demo&pass=&OK=OK
http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=i
Get's me a hell of a lot of page views don't it?
www.ctipowersolutions.com
www.latechcenter.com
www.ahmansonpet.net
www.petscanarizona.net
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
...if it weren't for someone (I'm assuming) breaking the linking policy, I wouldn't have been able to find out about their wonderful fleece pullover. Think of all the money NPR could be losing! Seriously, though...if valid, how far could this extend? If I need to ask their permission to link to them, would I also need to ask their permission to tell other people about the site?
NPR sucks rubber donkey dong, no one should link to them. They are tools of the global socialist goons. Want to link to good radio, radio that will broadcast the uncensored truth, link to some of the great patriot radio out there, like american freedom network or genesis communications network instead. NPR is for professional students who fawn over their marxist professors.
My opinion of course, but commercial network radio that pushes republican or democratic liars, like rush or larry king-just a pack of lies mostly. NPR-ultra socialist, just as skewed a "news" service as the fatcat corporate radio, they just play make believe they are cool.
Support patriot radio and the free broadcasters, the indies and micro broadcasters!
If you have site/server on the internet that is accessible to the public, then linking to the site is/should be allowable.
If you don't want links to your site then get off the web.
(obviously if some site is plagiarizing your work then thats another story.)
Links are what the web is all about.
-"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
When coupled with the travesty of their opposition to low power FM this is strong evidence of a total sellout on the part of NPR.
everyone head over ton d request a permission to link to them (just the amount of fields on that page tell you a lot about the rotten state of npr)
http://www.npr.org/about/linking_form.html
a
If they lose money by 'deep linking', then they should just filter by HTTP Referer: and redirect people to the front page, or maybe an interstitial advertisement or something.
/. or Fark)...
Legal policies and lawsuits are exactly the wrong approach to take. The whole point of web advertising is that you want as many people as possible to see the ads. If you forbid people to link to your site, even the front page (as NPR's policy seems to do), then you lose traffic and revenue. Not to mention the negative publicity that you'll get from web community sites (like
Their has got to be a good explanation for this. NPR is an excellent organization and I am over 90% pleased with what they produce. Vs ~30% pleased with the private radio stations which almost exclusively advertise even when they claim to be reporting...
Give em a chance to explain themselves. They would do better to just post requirements though. And in the end you are completely right, even if I totally frame out their data, its public anyway.
But then again, lets give the reporters who work on those stories a chance to maintain their credit for their work.
Plenty of suits have been settled, but I can't recall ever hearing a court actually rule on this.
Oh come on Homos, there's case law on this and you know it. Framing is illegal for good reason - I wouldn't want someone framing my site with their ads and making money off my hard work (which is exactly what the case was about).
The linking thing is silly, but I agree with the framing decision - and so do the courts.
Remember M$ FrontPage's EULA that states that you can't use FrontPage to make websites that disparage M$?
I bet this is aimed at [trying in vain] to prevent linking from websites who are attacking, not promoting them.
That's the only thing that even comes close to making sense...
Jim Harry
I can see maybe having a permission policy against framing another site, because that can seriously mis-represent the framed site. Linking, however, is the sincerest form of on-line flattery.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
But hyperlinks are one-directional pointers from other sites. Why do they get to dictate which pointers other people choose to put in their sites?
If they want control over incoming links, they should create their own text markup language, network protocol and browsers that only support bidirectional linking. They can publish their site on their new network and link up with like-minded content providers. Who knows, it could be the killer app of the new millenium. (But I doubt it.)
I believe my taxes as well as yours and their constant begging for money indicates that we are all at liberty to do with NPR as we please.
Their "linking policy" will have absolutely no affect.
Isn't linking to there linking policy a violation of their linking policy?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
By serving their site to your browser, they are in effect "publishing" their web site. NPR's linking policy is akin to having a EULA for a book that says "You may neither reference specific sections of this book by page number, nor frame sections of this book by quotation."
I can see the future now: no one will "own" books and magazines, they will just "license" them to read. Imagine writing a research paper where your only references looked something like [FOLEY96, page reference restricted by End Reader Licensing Agreement].
Here's what we should do:
:)
Distribute the information that NPR wants us to start at the beginning of their website to get what we are looking for. Hence, NPR probably wants us to not tune into their radio broadcasts except at the beginning of the program so we don't miss the title of whatever it is we're listening to. Unless you have written permission of course. Make sense?
Well the bulk of NPR's funding still comes from listeners, so we do have some influence over their policies if we want it. Be sure to mention your long time membership (if you are a member, don't lie) and how this makes you question your membership.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The perfect revenge is to put up a website explaining your policies about requiring permission to sending you cookies to your browser.
Secondly, send a cease-and-decist letter to npr.org to stop setting cookies while you browse their site.
Maybe then they'll learn, that if you put information free to the public, without authentication, what the hell are they to expect?
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
A few months ago, someone emailed me and asked me to remove a link to their site. My response. Google says I win :-).
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Problem with that is, is that I never signed a contract saying that I wouldn't deep link or frame anything they have. The only way that NPR could tell me what I can and cannot do on my page, would be if they were to host it. And since they don't, they have no say. There is no such thing as an implied contract. When you start a new job, you sign a paper form. When you buy a car, you sign papers. Unless they have actual documents that I can read, and agree to, I am not bound by anything.
Xaotik Designs
So National People's Radio web site says deep linking is "prohibited". So what? They don't say they're going to sue, they don't say anything about any force of law, they don't threaten any kind of action they don't say nuttin' except "prohibited". Talk is cheap, and the ten bytes needed to represent the word "prohibited" is even cheaper.
Big frickin deal.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
There is no requirement that ads be viewed, either on a website or on television.
There is no law mandating that viewers pay attention to certain content.
There is no implicit agreement that viewing certain content also requires watching a commercial message.
Fact is, people can ignore advertising.
The problem and misunderstanding exists because of the power of the advertising industry. Advertisers have taken for granted they can influence the pysche of the public by advertising, never realizing that, given a choice, people may not watch what they have to offer.
I just dare the government to mandate me to watch advertising....
Karma whoring blah blah blah...
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
They could theoretically just set up a robots.txt file to disallow everything and set it up so that referral links don't work, but apparently they are too stupid.
I used to work for a regional public radio network's web shop, and we had some contact with NPR. They are a fairly slow-moving, bureaucratic organization -- partly because they are controversial and always under attack, and partly because their board of directors is made up of their several hundred member stations. For both these reasons, they tend to be a bit overprotective.
However, they're not completely backwards or out of touch with the web -- not by a long shot. They were online before most companies realized it was important, and were one of the first major media outlets to start giving all their content away -- free! -- online.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the stupid policy in question was penned by some lawyer in the early days of the web, when the answers to these questions were a lot less clear.
Hopefully this exposure will wake them up, and get their policy re-grounded in reality.
STOP! THINK! Why would NPR do this?
.ra files than NPR's got a problem. I can make money off of NPR's work and cost them a fortune.
The reason is that NPR hosts high-bandwidth audio material and the website archives many of the shows. NPR doesn't care if you link to a text article, but if I create
www.bestofnpr.com
and then offer DIRECT links to the
You may agree or disagree with the policy, but at least understand that NPR has some pretty legetimate fears. Personally, though, I don't see this as a legitamate solution, but it's understandable.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Uhm, that's incorrect. The _Internet_ is not based on some kind of implied contract. There is no contract. The only way to help stop someone from linking to a page is to prevent external eyes from seeing it. That is, one possible method is authentication wherein two parties "agree" on terms of use for the page in question.
If it's possible to be found and accessed by simple link traversal that most web crawlers use now days, then it should be fair game. It is up to you as a webmaster to prevent such access.
End of the free Internet? what the hell? There are already plenty of pages out there (e.g. porn) that require you to pay to view them. On the same token there are even more free ones (e.g. slashdot). As far as I'm concerned, the Internet will always be free the way you're tralking about. It however, is not free currently because of things such as, isp charges to connect to the net, modems, ethernet cards, etc.
NPR..changing the world...heh. Sure, read a little, get a clue, and come back later.
Here's the thing I don't understand about the NPR form: They want me to tell them where the "NPR content" would appear. When does a link become content?
The outrage is spreading; this has to be a rough day for the NPR ombudsman who's deluged with email by now... ~24 hours after Cory's report.
::delete::
Oh no!
A few thousand web-heads took our legal parachute seriously and started e-mailing us! Oh no, oh what can we do?
Ahhh.. that's better.
Seriously.. this is worthy of being slashdotted how? If they authorize people to link to their sites as static pages, it implies an agreement that the page content will remain static. Which on-line news pages generally do not. It's known that most stories from the big sites are altered on a whim, all this grants them is a legal parachute against folk who quotted them in research, or any other nut-job that wants to hold them responsible for maintaining static pages.
Besides, less link to their sites, less spiders crawling in trying to archive.
-GiH
Blah, who dropped this house on my wife..
You are so far off your ass you must sit down in another county. What the hell is an "implied contract" about? When you buy a magazine, are you required by some imaginary "implied contract" to read every word, including all the articles you're not interested in, the masthead, every ad and all the blow-in cards? Oh, and when you buy a book, does your "implied contract" mean you must read the entire copyright page, preface, table of contents, not to mention a scrupulously detailed reading of the index and all bibliographic citations?
Just block queries that have offending (non-nrp) references-field. Simple as that. I've seen sites that do it. No need to go through all that legal mumble jumble.
While we're on the subject, ever notice how many "commercials" there are on "commercial-free" NPR? I hope that the executive recruiters from the Corn Fairy (is that like the Tooth Fairy?) or whoever they are die long slow deaths.
Lasers Controlled Games!
I have always felt that framing someone else's website inside yours is, in fact, something a bit vicious.
Sigged!
Plenty of suits have been settled, but I can't recall ever hearing a court actually rule on this
How about Ticketmaster vs. Tickets.com.
The judge in this case ruled "Hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.
Am I the only one who has started to equate using the word "blog" with idiocy?
It isn't public property, it's the state's property. If it were "public property" any American would have a legal right to link to the content.
Acidplanet.com has a truly Byzantine "hyperlink agreement" prohibiting, among other things, all links to pages on their site other than the main page.
Google lists 20600 pages that link to npr.org. Imagine having to approve all those requests? Argh!
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to conserve their bandwidth by limiting framing and linking. Not everyone has an SGI server attached to an OC connection, and Public Stations are on highly limited resources, and if you doubt that, feel free to volunteer your time during the next donations drive. It is their content, not yours, even when provided for public viewing; this is the very reason why we have places, like NYT, limiting user access. Properly requesting the right to linking shouldn't be considered an issue at all; it's no more taxing than getting the source code to the binary you downloaded last week.
Second, the footer isn't buried. Maybe, just like you got used to ignoring banner advertisement because they are always there, you've learned to ignore the footer of a site's pages because it contains the same legal information for just about every page; however, unlike the banner advertisement, you should bother to check out that footer the first time you visit a site. Footers have almost always contained some basic resource information, like who built the site, who hosts the site, who to write to about information of the site and the link to the terms of service. Ignoring the footer is as bad as ignoring a license or a README. The footer isn't there to make the site look professional; it happens to be there to inform you on the subject of site. Whether you're looking at IBM's footer or Slashdot's, it contains important information. Or have you totally forgotten about this:
Anyone who ignores the footer is not as competent a web user as they should be. These are the same persons who would put hot coffee in their lap, brake suddenly and blame the seller of the coffee for their scolding. Perhaps the problem with a place designed entirely around freedom of speech is that too many people will abuse it and then whine about it later.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
whats the problem with NPR's page-linking clause? this could save them a boatload in bandwith costs. plus, how many other sites dont want you "deep-linking" within their site?
the history of the world
And this is how the entangled strands of the World Wide Web come undone. Suddenly it is no longer "legal" to link (or frame, which is just another link a-la Xanadu) other sites without "express written permission."
This is no surprise. The Web was a half-assed knock off of the Xanadu Project from the get-go. It paid no attention to the real issues of copyright, attribution, and payment...and now we're seeing the result.
Xanadu covered ALL of this, including the so-called "issue" of "deep linking". Put simply, if you were to publish on Xanadu, you were giving the right for others to view, frame and link to your work. If you don't want this, then you don't get to publish on Xanadu, plain and simple. How would it work? Micropayments, of course, which Xanadu had from the start. Would NPR or whoever complain if they were getting micropayments for being "framed"? I doubt it.
Sadly, Xanadu doesn't exist (except on paper). Blame Ted Nelson if you must for not creating Xanadu, but really...the idea has been on paper for quite some time now. It IS workable, a dedicated group COULD re-create Xanadu.
I really recommend reading Ted's "Literary Machines" book. It will expand your mind and give you a much greater grasp of what could have been and what still can be. And you will come to realize that the Web is a spectacular failure (this is not flamebait--read the book, then you'll understand why I say this).
So what if I just type the text of the link and not actually link it.
http://www.npr.org
Is that breaking policy?
As in shouldn't this all be public domain anyway? Seriously its not like they're making a grip from reselling the content! I mean how many of us have REALLY sent away for the taped transcripts.
Not to mention that the site was desinged by zombie interns. FTLOG they need a google black box for the search field. I have been looking for a item I heard on TOTN SF for MONTHS and can't find it. VENT!
IANAL, but their claim seems legit.
You may not be a lawyer, and you're void of common sense.. there is nothing "legit" about this.
IIRC, other recent so-called "deep linking" suits have been resolved in a similar manner.
YDRC - US District Judge Harry Huppruled that there's nothing wrong with deep linking
Turn off Javascript and you won't see the links at the bottom of the page that take you to the admonishment.
Why is censorship becoming the answer more and more rather than creativity? If they're worried about people bypassing adds and the like by direct linking to their media files, why not build ads into those files or just mention in those files that the content you are receiving is from a listner supported organization that needs your help if (and only if) you
- appreciate
the services they provide.Spitefull fooey
ôó
OK, they must be trying to garner publicity by creating an outrage in hopes that people will start linking to them out of spite. I should have thought of this!
Either that, or they're just trying to confuse us to death.
Some of the most fascist people in the world are from the left. We all know about NPR's leftist and fascist tendencies.
Well, for one thing, they're not taxpayer-funded, aside from a couple of percent from competitive grants. For another thing, even if they were taxpayer-funded, this would hardly a unique example of access limitations to taxpayer-funded information.
(I also think it's a really dumb thing for them to do, but your objection is a bit simplistic.)
For no good reason I viewed the source of the permission form. Ironically, the form's action tag is: http://iris.npr.org/cgi-bin/watchingyou.pl
Not only that, but the high-tech folks at NPR use this form to generate an email. The recipients are listed in a hidden field on the form. So if you want to give the ombudsman a break, you can send your thoughts directly to the people who evaluate the link requests: jrichards@npr.org, bmelzer@npr.org, nprhelp@npr.org, tholzman@npr.org.
NPR is not funded by tax dollars(maybe arts endowment grants, but thats it). its paid for by members and corporate donations.
people here are acting like NPR is breaking some law, but in reality, there only trying to save bandwith costs. any of you stopped to think about that?
the history of the world
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have no problems with linking to my site from anywhere, but when other sites frame my site and try to present my information as their own, I don't particularly enjoy that. Here's how you can prevent "framing":
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
if (self.location.href != top.location.href) {
top.location.href = self.location.href;
}
// -->
</script>
--It's Pimptastic!--
What we need is a little flag in apache's conf. file that forces the server to only serve files that have a local referral page, and has an exclusion list (for the public homepage, for example). That way, even though noone ever uses the flag because it's silly, if some company starts suing people over it then we could say "well, why didn't you just flip the flag on your web server so that people COULDN'T do it and it wasn't an issue?"
:-)
Unless, of course, the people suing you don't use Apache, but that's just silly.
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway.
Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.
Some of the most fascist people in the world are leftists. NPR is proof.
All anonymous comments start with a 0. To score higher, you must be modded up. If you log in and post, you start at 1. Create an account.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Have they not done their homework, just check the http-referer from each request.
Wait, what about a bookmark. It is a link after all. Just look at netscapes bookmarks...or IE for that matter!
Hummmm, I guess they could sue me. How does that story go (Can't take blood from a stone...)
http://www.npr.org/about/linking_form.html
Instead of flooding the ombudsman's mailbox with outraged email.
Why doesn't the word get spread to simply fill out the form, and
leave your negative comments in there?
NPR is an organ of the US government, which is taxpayer funded. Someone file a Freedom of Information Act suit to get rid of the restrictions on this government information.
Assuming you are a tax paying citizen, you should be informed that even if you pay $1000 (including withheld on the W2), less than half of a penny goes into supporting both public radio and television, and even including state taxes, you still haven't paid a full cent. The funneling of tax goes to stations in need of self-support on a case by case basis, everything else, from your favourite programmes to your favourite hosts are funded by people that pledge a donation during drives. You're probably not even paying enough for the cost of electricity to parse through the database and send a copy of the article to you.
Additionally, there is a permit you may request for mirroring under most circumstance if you ever actually intend to go through with it (more so for those that actually would like to mirror, as I doubt you could).
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Yep. I quit subscribing to KQED when they a.) started pimping their members to advertisers in Focus Magazine (tm, but no deep links) as "an upscale clientele with above average discretionary income and b.) refused to let reform candidates for their board of directors have access to the membership list so theycould campaign on an equal footing.
I then subscribed to KCSM (during a double-your-pledge run -- and with an oversize pledge, at that) and dumped them when they solicited me two months later to re-subscribe.
Since they're now running full-on commercials, I'm completely finished with them. I'll now head for the bathroom just as I do with any other run of the mill commercial station.
It makes sense for an organization to dislike deep linking because
A. It can make their content appear to be someone else's and
B. They have no control over broken links when they change their content and this makes their site look broken and stupid.
C. Framing someone else's site is bullshit, and people who don't like it can do what it takes to stop it.
However, is it really all that hard to redirect foreign deep links to the main page? Is it? Or to send the not founds there so they don't just send most people to microsoft? Come on kids, read your docs! Learn your trade!
If you still want the search engines to deep link, it's a little more work, but it can't possibly be more of a hassel than a lawsuit you probably won't win.
As for the main page, I think it's as simple as asking for 'the right not to be refered to', which it's been shown repeatedly that you just don't have.
If only people would quit wasting time and just move on to something beneficial, like harnessing the power of stupidity, the earth would be a better place.
=mortimer
Linking to
Under's who jurisdiction? What is I am in another country? What a load of hot garbage.
Great Linux Site
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:26:45 -0700
To: ombudsman@npr.org
Subject: Link Permission Request
Hello,
It is trivial to tell your webserver to check the referring page of a
visitor. If the visitor is referred to npr.org from an address that is
*not* npr.org, you can deny them access, or redirect them to a page
explaining why npr.org does not allow hyperlinks.
While this is really lame, it would address your bandwidth cost concerns
without resorting to such ineffectual assertions that linking is
"prohibited". That's wishful thinking.
Love,
Jason
A very realistic option is the use of a server-side script to redirect all traffic to the main page unless the browser is following a link from another one of their own pages. The necessary infrastructure is already there. They just need to write a couple lines of code.
buegh
=ook=
"It's a basic right for someone to be able to publish publically available information, such as a universal resource locator."
That's not entirely true. There have actually been court cases where they have ruled that linking to a URL can be infringing. Some of these include Starbucks, Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, and US Intellectual Reserve Inc vs. Utah Lighthouse Ministry Inc. Here's a good article about the topic.
If you don't want just anyone linking to your web site, just make the initial page a dead end that requires a password protected account to gain access to the deeper pages. And make those all pages dynamic to that deep linking would be a waste of time. Either that or get your heads screwed straight and learn how the Web is supposed to work.
And finally, for NPR: IANAL but I suspect that you'd lose if you wanted to pursue enforcing your linking policy via the courts. At best you could just jeopardize your public funding. If I'm not mistaken, the ``P'' stands for Public, right? Not Private (as in club).
These organizations crack me up.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I work for a small local government doing web developement. From accross the state we get together once a quarter to share ideas. One time we had a bunch of lawyers come and give a presentation. I got alot of information out of it and we actually discussed this topic. The lawyers say that linking is a problem and point to some of the existing deep linking precedints (M$ vs TicketMa$ter). They recomended putting such a policy on our websites. We argued that this is against the concept of the web but they argued back (don't remember all of the argument).
I believe that if you look at a lot of sites, especially large comercial sites they will include this policy.
Wouldn't it make more sense for NPR to write a policy that OK's all links but allows them to reserve the right to block links from specific referrers?
This gives them control, allows sites to get the links you know NPR is approving, and only requires technical response to deal with abusers.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Waitasec... didn't Slashdot just violate NPR's linking policy by linking to their linking policy?
The other irony is, if everyone filled out those damn requests to link to NPR's site, NPR would be so deluged with such requests that they would quickly abandon the policy.
Ticketmaster Corp., et al. v. Tickets.Com, Inc. also reported on /.
slashdot
me karma am bad
The D.C. Circuit has ruled that copyright law is categorically immune from challenge under the first amendment. The Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled whether or they were correct.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's the email I sent NPR ..
4 3820 0&mode=nested&tid=96
Dear NPR,
I see on slashdot that NPR demands people ask permission before people link to pages on its site.
This is outrageous. I listen to NPR every weekday. I have financially supported NPR in the past. The idea that a listener-supported news source is demanding its supporters ask permission to link to its content is unbelievable and stands in arrogant opposition to what the Internet stands for.
I can understand the "don't frame our content" restriction. But the "don't link to us" restriction needs to go. If you don't want content linked to, don't post it on the web.
The slashdot article is at
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/19/1
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Blogs are a fad. NPR is not.
I wonder what these bozos think about "Ask Jeeves", which frames every site it links to? My guess is that some Internet-illiterate management-type person at NPR wrote this policy after experiencing net plagiarism or something. That still does not excuse them however.
Seems NPR has hit quite a nerve.
/. and requires a reg. Free as it is, what purpose does it serve? To see who is reading what? Or to stop people from linking directly to their stories?
/. poll, how many of those complaining pledge to NPR?
/. has ads.
What about The New York Times site? (free reg req'd, blah, blah) Their site is often linked to from
Next
Ever listen to NPR? Hear any ads? See any on their website? Even our precious
A while ago I worked for a law firm and we had a link to Schwab's (the investing company's) website from our own. Now this wasn't deep-linking, this was the front page of the site. A couple of days after adding the link, Schwab sent us a form letter requesting us to quickly remove the link, fill out some forms, put their link on a seperate page with a disclaimer, and not make the page public until they could inspect the link. One of the lawers at the firm said to just leave the link, if they were really serious about it they would send another letter. They did, we removed the link and never put it back.
I also don't see the problem. NPR is a public radio station. They aren't supported by advertising but by member contributions. If your bestofnpr.com has a nicer layout and causes more people to listen to their audio, all the better. If you make a dollar in the process (I doubt it), you will hopefully have the good sense of donating some money to them. Also, you should have the good sense of not using their trademark ("NPR") in your web address because that they can legally control.
Actually, maybe we could convince some of the search engines -- Google would be especially nice -- to simply de-list anyone with such terms, along with a friendly notice about why.
I think it'd put a stop to things like this rather quickly.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
With its pro-megacorp mentality, this draconian linking policy shouldn't surprise anybody.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Go to google and search for "link agreements". This is quite humorous. If you don't wanna type it in, go to this link instead.
If there was no protection to intellectual property, people would not be encouraged to share knowledge with others. Writers would not write, inventors would not invent, artists would not.
This is, of course, nonsense! How do you explain Mozart, Beethoven, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Descartes, etc... What intellectual property rights did they have beside general societal rules against plagiarism? You, sir, are a fool in a foolish world. You are forgiven though, because we are all fools to one degree or another.
qkjfujnaer
wlkp909q
anviukhae
lfobmjp2109
588
v
3w\h
bsk098qa
aserkgjn089-0
NPR ate my balls!
Geez, come on, let's instead of roasting NPR, perhaps try some constuctive dialog concerning their linking policy. It seems like there is a knee jerk reaction to what seems a hypocritical policy on NPR's part might actually have some valid points. Furthermore, NPR just might alter their policy if they hear sound and reasonable reasons, instead of angry and malice remarks.
Disclaimer: I DON'T have cable, so I cannot comment thereon. The commercial broadcast (and sadly, most of the print) media I see and hear outside public radio and TV are ANYTHING but diverse, friends. With media outlets being sucked into fewer and fewer hands, and news departments becoming seen as profit centers and advertising venues rather than independent journalistic operations, diversity of news is vanishing. This phenomenon is real and well-documented. If anything, we need public broadcasting MORE rather than LESS as time goes on. Mind you, NPR ain't perfect either, but it DOES fill a gap...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The only direct government funding NPR receives is through competitive grants from government agencies for specific projects. Such grants are awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, and typically represent only 2% of total revenues.
So, they get grants and some money from NSF and NEA, but it's a drop in the bucket. Most of their revenue is program fees, corporate sponsorships and endowment type money.
For all their talkign about the NSF and NEA on the credits, you'd think they had received more. So, when will they get a grant from the Free Software Foundation for clueful use of the world wide web?
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
everyone, pick an npr link, fill out the form and then send them the form. you might also enclose a note saying that you're deducting a dollar from your yearly npr donations that year for each form you send in.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
http://www.calumetcity.org
Click on "Terms of Use". I'll wager that there is no equal of this level of arrogance, along with a finely tuned lack of appreciation for the entire theory behind the Internet.
This is the same community that recently tried to severely regulate the public forum portion of the city council meetings by requiring a detailed description of the proposed topic and submittal of text if a prepared statement was to be read. Deviations from the submittal would result in ejection from the forum. "Slanderous" or "insulting" comments directed against city officials would have resulted in a $50-$200 fine upon conviction. And, no, I don't live there any more or have an ax to grind with them. Unconstitutional activity fascinates me.
because you post it *everyday*.
NPR's just making sure that someone can't deep-link so far that an unsuspecting reader misses the ads that fund the site.
Joke. Funny. Laugh. Aww, forget it.
:wq
Book publishers can't prevent you from citing a book, or even quoting it with proper attribution. IANAL, but I don't see how copyright holders on the Web have any further rights to restrict my reference to their publications. If I say that "NPR's home page is at www.npr.org," that's a statement of fact that is not affected by anyone's copyright; are we really supposed to imagine that wrapping an "a href" around that statement gives NPR the privilege of stopping my speech?
Doesn't have the right to prevent it's supporters (the listeners) from linking to their site. And, IIRC, they also receive federal funds, which means everyone is a supporter.
PLEASE! to me, it doesn't look like NPR is trying to eliminate ALL links to their site, they are just trying to exert unreasonable control over them.
They want you to get their permission, so they can make sure you aren't referring to them as The Origin of all Satanism, or gay fascists, or otherwise misrepresenting what they are trying to say.
-- The above may have once been believed by me, but any truth or application you find is your own problem.
Was going to tell NPR that I'd donate to Pacifica, instead. Then I got smart and checked - On pacifica imnotlinkingtothis .org main page:
"Copyright © 2000 - 2002 by the Pacifica Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the express written consent of the Pacifica Foundation is prohibited."
Any guesses how many other such prohibitory messages exist on user-funded websites? Sounds like we need a campaign here...
-- No No No NO, Don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to. - Buckaroo Banzai
I mean, if everyone here fills in their link request form a couple of dozen times, with arbitrary or absurd website addresses I'm sure they'll reconsider the policy.
w00t!
"A person's use of OSDN and any of its Services (as defined below) at any time is subject to OSDN's then-current Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated from time to time as set forth below."
and you have a link on your site ...
... FOR ME TO POOP ON !
often policies like this are meant to be rpesent but really never enforced unless in the most extreme circumstance. this way legally they have protected and stated the most extreme case.
then maybe if they were upset that some farm sex site decided to link them for whatever reason, they have some recourse.
on another side of this, certainly they have to know that link popularity (incoming links) is a major factor for search engine algorythms and any policy against that would push their site down in rankings on both yahoo and google among others if this policy were ever successfully enforced.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
You moron -- those issues have nothing to do with linking to a site. See Ticketmaster v Tickets.com for what the issue is really all about.
Check out
instapundit.com. Glenn Reynolds is one
of many who provide fanatastic daily
commentary and pointers to important news.
I shifted from TV news to web news a few
years ago, and now I've shifted more toward
blogs for national and international news.
As a person who has run news-oriented web sites with original content, I feel that linking to stories is good, as long as you link in a manner that gives credit to the owner of the material. To me, framing someone elses content with your ads (or whatever) is bad, if not illegal.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
You can disable the HTTP referer (tells the web server which URL you were at before you clicked the link) in Mozilla also. Just edit your prefs.js or user.js file and add:
user_pref("network.http.sendRefererHeader", x);
where x is:
0 means NEVER send the referer,
1 means send only for images,
and 2 means always send referer. Note that if you disable this, some sites won't work, specifically sites dealing with lots of images and shopping sites.
Got friends?
A web page is charging money to link to their page. Here's the agreement form with anual fee's shown. Man, this is funny.
Does anyone know if NPR -- or any website, for that matter -- has actual legal authority to prevent unauthorized linking? What can they do aside from sending a nasty letter?
I mean, sheesh, it's not like it's THAT hard to check the referrer in certain areas of the site (perhaps everything except index.html) and give the users a "We don't allow linking to this site" or better yet just redirect 'em to the front door when coming from an outside machine. Since NPR hasn't (apparently) done this it hasn't done due diligence and thus should have no legal grounds here. If they *REALLY* don't want linking then stop it technologically and just deal with the complaints therein. ... just my .02 ...
yes, as a matter of fact, so called "non profit" churches that register with the government for their status as non profit lose all their rights, ie, the minister can't talk about politics, they have to pay taxes on their employees, etc. In a sense they become governmental agencies. Independent churches that don'ty apply- citing the first amendment-get NO non taxed status, they are treated as a for-profit just like a store or something. It's a ripoff, but we ARE talking about government fine print here...
Moreover.com have publically accessible XML files updated regularly with links to free news sites. They charge companies $000s per year to use these publically available links. Is this different?
Commercial television sucking so bad is definately not a reason for govt funded TV and radio. I can't think of one thing that the govt has gotten involved in that doesn't suck really bad.
All of us can choose for ourselves if the "diverse and broad cable" (or satellite) is worth the cost. The government should not be taking my tax money so that you don't have to pay for the Discovery Channel.
this is so silly.
if NPR really wants to prevent others from linking,
they can configure their server to check the referrer
portion of the web request. if it's not from an
npr site, redirect to the policy page.
it's easy to do in apache
ob slashdot whine: this has come up before in the last couple months
"AHHH!! they have our link...they musnt give it out..no one must know about us...what will we do, oh i know we can put up a warning to them so they ask us to post our link, yeh thats it...."
/.ers that dont "ask" to post their link. Hunt each and everyone down and make them say sorry? Bwahahahaha
I wonder what they will do if they are bombarded with
-Alicia
They aren't talking about linking to a PAGE on NPR, they are talking about linking to an image hosted on NPR and stuff like that. For example, I can do this without any trouble.
It's definitely easy to control technically, including the ability to explicitly list what sites' links will be accepted. Unfortunately, there have been increasing numbers of companies out there trying to use policy statements and lawyers, and sometimes lawsuits, rather than understanding the technology and using it. The Shetland newspaper case was one of the first (one paper pointing to its competitors' stories), and unfortunately the UK judge didn't understand the issues, and other lawyers seem to think that was a good idea.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
NPR is finding itself in trouble with Jewish groups who see NPR's policy of "balance" as little more than sponsorship of Palestinian terror against Israel.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Even better: ASK them for permission. If everybody links to their site and asks them for permission to do so, they're going to get REAL tired of it real fast. Just like Jesus, when he suggested that the Palestinians carry their master's packs for two leagues instead of just one. Imagine the poor Roman soldier, begging the Palestinian to give him back his pack: "No, no, it's alright, I'm not tired--here, I'll just carry it a few more steps. Nevermind that I'm a tired old woman, older than your mother, God bless her soul. I'll be fine, you just rest in the shade."
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I do not have a TV at all. Still sane the last time I checked (and I even asked myself for a second opinion).
If you find things to watch because you have time on your hands you need to get a life - or at least read a book. TV is just a mind numbing time killer and there are better things to do. Ars longa, vita brevis.
He didn't reply to my "then dont put it on the web" remark, but here is his reply...
:) -AR]
Sent:
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 4:16 PM
To: ombudsman@npr.org
Subject: Permission for linking ?
Are you kidding me? You've got to be either kidding me or stupid. [Probably a little sharp, not reccomended. I just hate this argument.
If you dont want somthing linked to, the solution is simple.
Don't put it on the web!
Kurt Richter
Recieved:
From: Jeffrey Dvorkin (JDvorkin@npr.org)
Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 4:30 PM
Unfortunately, this is a complicated issue. Moreover, I am not a lawyer. However, a few reasons come quickly to mind. First, the NPR content is noncommercial, and for journalistic reasons NPR does not want commercial entities to use it, whether by link or otherwise, without our consent and then in only limited ways.
Second, we do not want our content associated inappropriately with issue action organizations. So we do not want the People For Left-Handed Fascists (or some such entity) to have a link on their site that somehow might be construed as associating NPR with their mission. People might misunderstand the NPR relationship.
Third, we do not want others by linking to repackage NPR content as all or part of a basis for their own Web radio site. That would be illegal and unfair competition.
Finally, NPR does not completely forbid links, only those which we do not consent to. Upon request we often allow links that do not run afoul of the above problems (and a few others).
NPR Ombudsman
Fuck that, man. I'm going to shit in the mouth of any CLIT fairy I come across!
Keep it real, my AC brethren. Booyah!
Over nothing?
We're just taking NPR at its word, like the courts would if NPR decided to sue.
Hello,
:
With regard to the following web linking policy which NPR posts at
Linking to or framing of any material on this site without
the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you
would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill
out the link permission request form.
This policy is absurd in concept and unenforceable in practice, and is completely unbefitting a fine institution of public information such as NPR. I respectfully request that you alter this policy. To assist in making the case for this change sufficiently compelling, I will be suspending my donations to NPR until this policy is no longer in force. As I expect prompt action on this issue, I trust this will not affect NPR's funds or the satisfaction I derive from donating.
Thank you for the great programming.
Sincerely,
my name
my phone
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Didn't they already outlaw fast-forward? Oh, now wait, that's only the next generation of PVRs. And possibly DVDs. Oh, and of course, this is just about the time that some larger companies are terminating their investment in VHS.
Someone who has a schmuck about "fair use" and "public domain" and "the Internet" needs to get put in public office and make some *intelligent* law surrounding this stuff to stop this kind of stupid crap once and for permanent.
I guess NPR must not like donations eh?
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Why do you expect NPR, an arm of PBS, to act any differently from any other corporation? It's the same 'survival of the paranoid' environment as any other corporation. The fact that they go on-air and beg openly for your money instead of selling your attention to advertisers changes nothing.
And despite the paranoia about their 'Intellectual Property' they don't even respect anyone elses IP. Remember Mike Nesmith's battle with PBS over their attempt at outright piracy? Check this link if you've forgotten about the Pacific Arts debacle...
He [Nesmith] said: "It's like finding your grandmother stealing your stereo. You're happy to get your stereo back, but it's sad to find out your grandmother is a thief.
PBS and NPR are both in trouble due to the proliferation of new cable channels and other competition. It's likely that neither will exist by the end of this decade. This is just another symptom of a corporation exercising its 'survival instinct'.
The linking form is relatively new, however.
One of the absurd things about the policy is that it is easily circumvented by just posting the link without a tag, like this:
http://www.npr.org
Copy & paste, modify to suite, and send to:
ombudsman@npr.org
-------
To whom it may concern-
As a frequent contributor to my local NPR station and a web developer, I find your Linking Policy as expressed on this page (http://www.npr.org/about/linking_form.html) to be offensive to my intelligence and to the foundational principles upon which the Internet has been built.
The entire idea behind Hypertext is that a document can be linked to other documents containing similar or beneficially-related information. As I'm sure you will agree, the NPR website contains a wealth of information on current world and national events, politics, and culture (among many other things). I would think that NPR would want as many people possible to be exposed to this content, for if NPR doesn't put the content online for it to be read/downloaded, why do they have a website at all?
When someone links to a website, that website is effectively receiving both FREE advertising and site traffic. In addition, having numerous links to a website can provide said website with a higher ranking in many popular search engines (Google comes to mind). Almost all websites strive to increase their site traffic and search engine ranking. Why any organization would seek to turn the same away is literally beyond my comprehension.
By placing content online, you implicitly agree to have others view/download--and LINK TO--that content. If you do not wish for that content to be viewed/downloaded, then that content should not be placed online. While I certainly don't advocate the practice of framing page content, I feel that linking to ANY website, once it has been placed on the public Internet, is the fundamental right of any web publisher.
As a contributor to NPR and a taxpaying citizen of the United States of America, I am one of the people ultimately responsible for keeping NPR on the air and online. I demand that you change this Linking Policy immediately, and until such change has occurred I will forego any further contributions to NPR.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME HERE
YOUR ADDRESS IF YOU LIKE
I personally can't stand the people who frame other peoples sites.
Have a look at this site http://www.domainbuyersguide.com/ and follow the "Website 4 Sale" link. You'll see that all this person has done is buy (or maybe not) some domains and then either stick some dumb ass header of theirs in the top frame or a 0 pixel frame and then someone elses site is in the bottom frame. If you look closely at the actual source you'll also notice that they are also using Commission Junctions "qksrv.net" click through linking to get themselves a little extra moola on the side.
To then also try and sell these as their own hard (NOT!) work. I can't imagine what people buying these sites would do once they found out that the had only bought a domain name and didn't own the content.
These guys make a mockery of the whole web design/development industry and make it really had to charge a reasonable rate, until you show your clients what the site really is.
What a scam!
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Nevermind that the entire point of a slashdot posting is for people to be able to read it, I don't want you to read this. Even though I'm seriously underfunded much of the time, and on federal subsidies, I can't think of anything better to do with what money I do have than to give it to my lawyer so I can post things on /. free from the fear that they might be read by someone.
If you object to alcohol, don't go to a bar. If you don't want your diary to be read, don't put the pages on a public bulletin board, and if you don't want people to link to your stuff, don't put it on the web.
Posting on the web, and then complaining when people ues the web in the way it is intended is an abuse of a public space. It's no different than building a house in a public park and then demanding that everyone else go away so you can enjoy 'your' 'front yard'.
OK, I don't know what planet you're on, but here in Minnesota, listener donations are the largest single source of funding for Minnesota Public Radio, and account for a very significant chunk (about half, IIRC) of the overall budget. By contrast, state funding accounts for a small amount, which they spend exclusively on captial expenditures (new antennas in rural areas, etc.). MPR is not a government entity, and they don't like to rely too much on government funding.
... and for each, you'll get a totally different answer.
Bottom line: listener dollars pay for most of programming, at least around here.
A lot of libertarian-leaning Slashdotters seem to presume that because it's called "public" broadcasting, it must be a government entity and therefore wasteful. In fact, the truth is much more complicated, and much more varied. Ask about NPR, MPR, PRI, the CPB
Public broadcasting is a nebulous collection of hundreds of separate organizations, some governmental, some private, some associated with colleges and universities, some non-governmental but relying on government subsidies and/or grants...
...kind of like the computer industry, come to think of it.
Isn't it funny how far to the left the center seems when you are way out on the right wing. Fox really panders to folks who want to make snap black and white judgements on complex topics with large grey areas. Real conservatives like Bill Buckley are not so quick to judge complex issues (check out his complex opinions on illegal drugs), and real liberals like Noam Chomsky consider NPR and the NY Times to be part of a conservative biased under-reporting conspiracy. People capable of complex thinking are almost always considered to be liberal biased simply because they insist that complex problems can't be fixed by simplistic solutions. Frankly this is something that neither left nor right wing knee jerk reactionaries respect or agree with to the point where they all consider the thinking centrist to be biased against them. Of course they are both right. :-)
No I cannot give you a link, to he site, since I would be braking the law
Like that time they lobbied to prevent microtransmitters?
I know a lot of people give NPR's director flack about that policy. _I_ do not like that policy. However, if you step back one foot it makes (a little) sense.
In big cities, NPR's local transmitter is generally a megastation. At my home, the two stations broadcast at 50,000 and 100,000 watts respectively. When I heard about that decision, it seemed bloody-minded. Why would an organization which broadcasts on those sort of transmitters give a rats about 10 watt community stations?
Then I left Seattle and started travelling in the United States.
The station where I am this week is broadcasting at a power of 2000 watts. At that power level, a 10 watt station on the periphery of your broadcast area can cut a pretty good-sized swatch out of your listening area through interference.
(if someone can find a tutorial on-line which explains the distance-squared rule and the roughly 10-to-1 rule on radiated broadcast power effectively jamming FM broadcast, I'd appreciate it).
Summary: From a freedom-of-speech point of view, it doesn't make sense. From an engineering standpoint, it does.
And it is even worse since our tax dollars are funding this liberally biased organization.
cat > .procmailrc
:0
* ^Subject.*([Ll]ink|[Bb]log
/dev/null
I'd say you give the game away when you pick Noam Chomsky, who is at the rabid fringe of the left as your example of a mainstream liberal. Certainly, most actual liberals would contest any characterization of Mr. Chomsky's inanities as `mainstream'.
As for bias in the media, I would like to point out that on a normal evening on Fox I can see representatives from a wide range of left and right groups debating the issues, while CNN (and much more so ABC, CBS, and NBC) do not seek to provide such balance. Indeed,if you tried to describe the broadcast networks as `center' or `mainstream' to most Americans, they would laugh at you -- there's a reason Bernard Goldberg's book Bias is a nationwide best-seller while the broadcast networks are losing viewers hand-over-fist to Fox.
Nope, it's not really prohibited. I just tried it and it still works.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I checked out Minnesota Public Radio's policy - they let you link, but you can't pass it off as your own (fair enough) and you can't use their logos or any such identifiers (i.e. text only). So I can rip off their content, so long as I discreetly credit them but don't advertise them?
i love public radio, but that does seem incredibly stupid. that could not have been written by anyone actually involved with the brilliant content they produce.
As soon as some idiot repeals the DMCA, which grants these sites permission to do these things.
Whenever I refer to copyright law's prohibition of circumvention of access control (17 USC chapter 12), I call it "the DMCA's circumvention ban", making it clear as to to which part of the DMCA I refer: not the search engine safe harbor, not the copyright office procedural changes, not the vessel hull protection, and not the copyright term extension that was separately enacted the same week but is often incorrectly considered by media and college professors to be part of the DMCA and/or to be required by the WIPO Copyright Treaty, but the circumvention ban.
Will I retire or break 10K?
... in the Gnome newsticker, I thought that somebody had proved the (in)equivalence of BINARY LOGSPACE and NP-RECURSIVE. Phew, am I glad this problem is still open. I've discovered a wonderfully simple proof of this, but unfortunately the text entry widget is too small to allow me to post it here.
Marklar: marklar
Jefferson once explained that the Freedom of Speech ends at yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. In the same way, the concepts of Fair Use are given limitations.
Signet books include this with the copyright:
It is the intent of Fair Use that allows for Slashdot to link to various information within NPR's site, and it is Fair Use that allows you to release a GPL'd programme that use basic pieces of the Windows Operating System. However, it is the article "Intent and Fair Use" that prevents you from writing a Star Trek® novel without getting permission from Viacom/Paramount, and is the same article that prevents from taking public domain code and reselling at as your own. And don't think for a moment prophit is the all inclusive to the limitations of Fair Use.
Let me quote from the GPL FAQ on this subject:
Fair Use also precludes "conditions of release" which would include NPR's Terms of Use and related policies. Otherwise, I could put 1984 in its entirety on the Internet, but as explained as, "All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form," which includes even quoting the first chapter. However, if I were reviewing the book and quoted a particular scene that relates to the reason why I gave it a particular review, that would be within Fair Use.
Anyone, like yourself, who treats Fair Use as a free for all must become all miffy about Google having lost the right to keep a particular article in its archive, and you probably don't understand why people are demanding that Star Trek® be made available as public domain on some level.
You obsess over the concept of "deep linking," as if, some how, this relates to anything discussed. They're not preventing linking, they're simply restricting excessive use of index referencing. This is not unlike the request by the Better Business Bureau to reduce excessive linking to their sites, particularly by those with no need to reference it at all. It was one thing to show your own record at the BBB, but just linking to it as a generic reference was unnecessary.
Half of Fair Use is dependant on commonsense and open interpretation. If Fair Use was absolute, the DeCSS wouldn't have been as large as an issue as it is.
"Creating an index or catalog is critical to all management of information, whether digital or otherwise. Without this exception, book authors could prevent libraries from listing thier works in card catalogs, because the book title and 10-20 word description would be "copyrighted" and reproducing it would be a violation of copyrights of the author. Luckily, the Founding Dads and the Courts have realized that this is absurd - that it harms no one to catalog and index information - and if a small bit of 'right to copy' is granted, well, so be it."
This statement only shows how you attempt to apply what is allowed by Fair Use (the need for indexing) and then stretch it to where it does not apply, hyperlinking. Hyperlinking is a failed form of indexing, this is why a programmer releasing their work under the GPL is required to include it, verbatim, with their work:
Yea of DotHead Foolishness. I don't know where you think you've made sufficient argument, but if this were to goto court, you would find that Fair Use would be insufficient to uphold undesired linking.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
They also tried to campaign against low-power community radio stations.
Unfortunately, that campaign worked, to a point. After the initial five landgrabs, the FCC hasn't opened any "application filing windows" for low-power FM band radio broadcast stations in over a year.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Just wondering...
Awww, damn!
Yes, but whats that got to do with the price of tea in D'ni?
I, anonymous coward, broke this story. Slashdot editors take heed: your credibility relies on the proper acknowledgement of sources.
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
Begin PGP Signature--, Oh, nevermind.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what happens if you take a huge file, like a DVD rip, rename it robots.txt, and stick it on your webserver?
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
If something is on the net, it can and will be linked to. This slashdot reply may not be read or downloaded without the prior written permission of myself.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
Fox packages the news in a neat, easily digestible package. It is clearly labeled in a manner in which anyone, regardless of effort or intellectual capacity, can decide whether they are "for" or "against" this or that issue. It may be reporting, but it wants of analysis, and only barely fits the description of journalism. Of course the same could be said of most major media outlets, but in my opinion, Fox is the worst. Whether it's "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant; it's just *bad*.
NPR by contrast suffers from no obligation to advertisers and therefore doesn't have to worry about drawing the most listeners. Their market is a set of people who are capable of thinking for themselves and realize that the news isn't a story with beginning-middle-end, protagonists and bad guys. The difference shows. Smart conservatives and liberals alike listen to NPR because they know they're being valued as an intelligent listener, rather than as a "consumer" whose sole function is to buy the products hawked on the station.
I agree completely. NPR attempts to paint itself as being different from large media companies. However, just last night they had a segment where for five minutes a reviewer raved about the glory of the DVD format without even mentioning the draconian measures taken by the RIAA against persons who try to exercise their legal rights for fair use with DVDs they have purchased.
People were actually sued because they wrote a computer program and posted it on the Internet. This deserves some mention in a discussion of how "great" DVD is.
...plus c'est la meme chose. Tandy Corp pulled this one circa 1980 when a magazine called Softside was publishing games in the form of printed BASIC code for the Apple, Atari and TRS-80. A Tandy lawyer confronted the publisher and threatened to sue if he continued to publish games for their computer. On the advice of his own lawyer, the publisher kept publishing the games but Tandy was able to keep him from mentioning the names Radio Shack or TRS-80. He substituted the name "S-80 bus", which Tandy didn't control. Tandy got its wish, of course: nobody ever mentions their computers. rj
Reminds me of this 'Link to Hotmail' policy: http://lc3.law13.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/dasp / minfo_shell.asp?_lang=EN&content=howtolink&id=2&fs =1&cb=_lang%3dEN&ct=3434423
"You may only display the Logo on a web page that makes accurate references to Microsoft or its products or services, and must display it adjacent to the reference or at the bottom of the same page. The Logo may not appear larger and/or more prominent than your own company name, Web page title, service name, product name, or other trademarks. You may not display the Logo in any manner that implies affiliation with, sponsorship, endorsement, or license by Microsoft." ...
Then why would you expect a NON-PROFIT organization
allow you to increase their (limited) bandwidth?
Unless of course their bandwidth is donated..
If that's the case.. then I'll shut up.
They will need every one them to read all the comments being mailed to them. I posted mine on the comments section of their link request page =:> Hopefully, they will listen. They depend on public good will to fund their broadcasts into every corner of these United States. One or two elections could bring down the voice of big brother.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
My only time at reviewing the income is during the donations period, in which, the only government funding directed to specific series came in at about somewhere around the average pledge, about $120. However, this was back at the time the National Institution for the Arts and Sciences (give or take some acronymnity) was still subsidized by the government...amazing what a Republican controlled legislative body can decide to be a waste of time.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
When you consider that they receive as much as 1/3rd of their funding from DIRECT taxpayer subsidy, and even more than that from inderect subsidy (the increased taxes all others bear because of their tax exempt status), to say that I don't have any right to link to any damn part of their website I want to is ludicrous.
Get out of my back pocket, NPR, and REALLY become a private company, with private property, and get back to me.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
What happens if I ignore their linking policy? More importantly, if I post a link on Slashdot, will Slashdot suffer the unnamed consequences, or will I? What if I'm an Anonymous Coward?
If this becomes a trend and begins to be followed up with legal action, will any site that allows the posting of user content be forced to strip out any links in that content for fear of being subject to the linking policies of other sites?
Just as the United States Post Office can sue over abuse of its logo, and just as you can sue over someone taking an article you wrote out of context, NPR has the right to protect its work. If you review The Copyright and Amendments Act, you'll notice that "any party that produces an original work" is allowed to protect their work.
If you don't want to follow through with their requests, you don't have to use their site...
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
By your logic, not only should they have covered the RIAA stuff, but everything else at all related to DVDs. If they're doing a piece on DVDs, they don't have to include every single piece of info on the system (be it RIAA's copy protection, how the lasers are made, or who thought up the name "DVD"). Duh?
When I worked for a month in Sweden, I heard about a concept called "everyman's right" which was basically the right of a person to walk anywhere, if they damaged nothing. Trespassing was not a crime if it was legal to walk anywhere.
I think that the Internet needs and "everyman's right" as well, to link anywhere and everywhere they choose to link, in whatever way they choose to link, provided that they cause no damage. That would mean that I could link to NPR but not from within an advertising frame. The ads could be construed as causing damage. A simple link does not cause damage.
Anyway, I put a nice fat link up on my log, and I didn't ask permission. (I hope they sue me, because my 15 minutes of fame were hogged last week by that bitch Brittany Spears and I am trying to get them back.)
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Since I pay for the US Navy, would they be so kind as to invade Cuba and bring back a few boxes of Havannas for me ?
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
Here you go
However, I visited www.npr.org/mycreditcardnumberis45431234567890and
Powered by onion juice.
from their web site:
3. Restrictions on Linking to the Home Page of this Web Site. Without limiting the provisions contained in the TOS, you may include a link(s) on your Web site to the www.bloomberg.com home page, currently located at http://www.bloomberg.com ("Home Page"); provided that you first fill out the registration form below. In addition, you may not link to www.bloomberg.com any site containing inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topics, names, material or information, or material or information that violates any applicable intellectual property, proprietary, privacy or publicity rights.
4. Restrictions on Other Linking and Framing Activities. Bloomberg is concerned about the integrity of this Web site when it is accessed in a manner solely determined by third parties or viewed in a setting solely created by third parties. Specifically, Bloomberg is concerned with activities such as linking to an internal or subsidiary page of this Web site that is located one or several levels down from the Home Page ("deep linking"), or bringing up or presenting content of this Web site within another Web site ("framing"). In this regard, without limiting the provisions contained in the TOS, you must make a specific request for, and secure permission from, Bloomberg prior to deep linking to, or framing, this Web site or any of its content, or engaging in similar activities. If you would like to deep link to or frame this Web site, or any of its content, you must request permission from Bloomberg by writing to bbLegal@bloomberg.net. Please include: (a) your name, e-mail address, and telephone number; (b) the name of your company; (c) the Web site address(es) where the proposed deep linking or framing will occur; and (d) specific details about the contemplated deep linking or framing activities, including the content or Web page(s) of this Web site to which you would like to deep link or frame.
That's not entirely true. There have actually been court cases where they have ruled that linking to a URL can be infringing.
Such as the 2600 case.
<SoundFX>Sound of joke flying over nohup's head</SoundFX>
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, you are correct: government funding affects public radio in many ways, and comes from many places.
... or just about anything else. Do you think that Microsoft isn't benefitting from tax dollars from Seattle and the State of Washington? What about government grants which fund university research which leads to new commercial ventures? Are these necessarily bad things? Sometimes; not always. The government intermingles with business in many ways, some good, some bad, some wasteful, some productive.
Like, as I said before, the computer industry
The point is this: "public" radio is not wholly governmental; it is an industry, like any other, which involves both governmental and non-governmental organizations, and which receives both government and private money. It is not a simple picture.
As for the tax-deductible argument, that's a half-valid point. Public broadcasting isn't getting a particularly special exemption on this -- it's not uncommon for non-profits to be categorized as charitable organizations. The question is really: should we encourage philanthropy at the expense of potential tax revenue? I tend to think so.
I'd laugh because describing megacorp-owned media as anything but rightist is ridiculous. The whole notion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in control of the media is a wonderfully effective strawman for conservatives, but has no basis in fact.
Fox is just more proof that catering to the lowest common denominator is the path to success.
As for Goldberg's Bias, since when has being a best-seller had anything to do with quality? His claim about labeling has http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html already been debunked (with a follow-up here).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
OK, fair enough. Here is MPR's 2001 financial audit. In case your PDF reader is acting up, I'll pull out the relevant numbers:
TOTAL SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC: $30,070k
TOTAL SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES: $4,384k
Here are the top separate sources of funding:
Membership (individual contributions): $8,406k
National underwriting (e.g. PHC sponsorship): $4,999
Grants from endowments: $4,836k
Regional underwriting (local ads): $4,062k
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $3,523k
Individual contributions are not as large as I remembered, but are still by far the largest. The top-ranking government source is fifth on the list.
a broadcast network pushing an editorial line which is pretty far out of touch with the majority of Americans.
Oh really? Ask any politician who's ever cut public broadcasting funding what kind of response they've received from their constituents.
Or just ask Land's End how much they pay for product placement on Prairie Home Companion. (Hint: you are not going to be a sponsor.)
Sure, you may personally not like NPR, and may have trouble finding people among your friends who do. If you had it your way, you'd cut their budget. Fair enough. If I had it my way, I'd cut the military's budget by about 70%, and eliminate farm subsidies entirely. But neither of us is going to get our way. Welcome to Democracy, kid!
I'd laugh because describing megacorp-owned media as anything but rightist is ridiculous. The whole notion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in control of the media is a wonderfully effective strawman for conservatives, but has no basis in fact.
I don't think anyone is claiming that their is an active conspiracy in control of the media. The truth is more insidious -- the overwhelming majority of reporters identify themselves as liberals, and they tend to hire people who agree with them. In their limited world of Georgetown cocktail parties and Manhattan soirees, they see their views not as `left of center' (which they are by any comparison with the US population as a whole), but as `reasonable', and by extension, conservative views, many of which are much more in tune with the opinions of the larger population, are described as `extreme'. The result is a steady leftward bias in reporting which shows itself in every area of the broadcast news.
As for Goldberg's Bias, since when has being a best-seller had anything to do with quality? His claim about labeling has already been debunked [prospect.org] (with a follow-up here [prospect.org]).
Wait, let me guess -- you would consider TAP to be a `mainstream' media outlet? Even the fact that they can find only one small part of Mr. Goldberg's thesis to argue with is telling, but even were it not, TAP's methodology and claims were contested in great detail in the Wall Street Journal at the time those columns first appeared.
As for the bestseller status of Mr. Goldberg's work, it suggests that his thesis has struck a chord with the general public, much as the mass exodus of broadcast news viewers -- to cable in general and to the more balanced reporting of Fox in particular -- suggests the same.
I'm no expert on these matters, but I thought that registering a server required that the server owner agree to support all the protocols for information exchange including HTTP. In that case, isn't restricting deep linking a violation of this agreement since those who want to restrict deep linking are not fully supporting HTTP?
I'm afraid you've got your facts mixed up. Those Washington journalists of whom you speak - employed by megacorps, and having incomes well over the American median - are in fact farther to the right (i.e., more conservative on economic issues) than the average American.
Well, by that measure, Micheal Moore's Stupid White Men is striking more of a chord. And Atkin's "New Diet Revolution" (which is a hideous thing to do to your body BTW) is the best health advice you can get, and "Chicken Soup for the Teacher's Soul" is the most resonant spiritual advice now available.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I'm afraid you've got your facts mixed up. Those Washington journalists of whom you speak - employed by megacorps, and having incomes well over the American median - are in fact farther to the right [fair.org] (i.e., more conservative on economic issues) than the average American.
Can you provide any credible source to back this up (no, FAIR is not a credible source -- compare their ideas of `mainstream opinion' with any credible poll of the American populace). Do you not find it suggestive that eighty to ninety percent of reporters on the Washington beat identify themselves as Democrats or independents? That the broadcast media are losing viewers hand-over-fist, with one of the major reasons people cite for switching to cable news in general and Fox in particular is that they are looking for more balanced reporting?
And by the way, you keep throwing around the words `mega-corporation' as if they mean anything, but the fact is that every survey suggests that the public (read taxpayer- and donor- funded) media are even more out of touch with the general public, and are losing viewers even faster than the broadcast networks.
The last sentence refers to the NPR reference. The rest of the argument explains why you are foolish to think that Fair Use justifies any abuse of "intellectual property."
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I concur that all properties of the government should be considered equally held by the governed; however, as you explained, the court makes a distinction, and this distinction must come from the closest thing to commonsense any government could have. I prefer to place the Supreme Court as government rather than legal system...the legal system has no commonsense.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps the intent of NPR was to keep sites from linking to them within framed pages.
Just about every comment I have read in this thread speaks of how NPR's policy doesn't make sense...and it doesn't.
IMHO, I'd bet that the person unltimately responsible for driving their linking (or lack there of) effort doesn't understand completely what they are talking about.
It's all about advertising.
The more information you have about your readership, the more you can target advertising. And a highly targeted small audience for an ad is worth a whole lot more than a large untargeted audience to an advertiser because the response rate is that much higher.
N. --
"Deep linking," a term I don't consider in anyway viable, is not protected in the way library indexing is, not in any way. Infact, if you bother to review the DMCA, it is legally questionable, and the largest reason being context.
Let me give you the make believe example you might understand:
Rob puts up an article about Maxtor making a recall.
Rob adds a mention that his own Maxtor HD was making a highly irritating noise.
I link to that article elsewhere, and in that link, I say, "Even Slashdot thinks Maxtor's harddrives are total pieces of S*."
Now, if you aren't in this discussion just to be in some argument with a random /.-member, perhaps you'll be willing to consider the next part of this argument (and do forgive the mention of the Devil's Malevolent Control Aggression).
First off, as far as the article goes, it's just reporting third party news, so, as far as the article goes, it's Maxtor saying Maxtor's HD's are errand. Second, though Rob does represent the site, and though he did make a minor complaint, he did not necessarily suggest his Maxtor harddrive was of low quality. You may even concur that the statement is entirely unjustified and misrepresents Slashdot, Rob and even Maxtor. Now, you may be asking, "But how many people actually do that?" Honestly? Many. Porportionally compared to all other links, very few, but to those who have a vendetta against either Maxtor or Slashdot, too many. Where the DMCA comes in, along with Copyright and Amendments, is the right to protect against misrepresentative context.
Perhaps you would agree that NPR is quite well respected as a fair and objective source of news? If so, their misrepresentation could result in unfair tainting of a third party, just as slashdot is respected in the geek community (though anticipation of story slanting is expected). You may understandably believe that a person would visit a link and say, "Hey! That's not true!" However, in fair-mindedness, the context the link was used in may already set a person's mind in perceiving the article in the way the writer of the referring comment/editorial/article may want them to. People have this bad habit of skimming, and you know what they'll see? "Rob CmdrTaco Malda," "Maxtor recall" and "my maxtor hd has always made this irritating noise." Sure, someone who's pro-Maxtor will say, "But this is Maxtor trying to protect its customers," and "Everyone has their own idea of irritating; just how old is that harddrive anyhow?" If I recall my curves, somewhere around one-fifth will say that, another one-fifth will automatically assume that Slashdot agrees with them and that Maxtor "sucks rubber donkey dick," and that leaves three-fifths of varyingly tainted minds reading and possibly misinterpreting that article. You know how people add hidden psychology and secret reasoning...see any conspiracy theory for more details.
Now attempting to absolutely prevent "deep linking" may fail in court, but have you considered how request-based linking would work out? You really didn't, did you? Therein lies one major flaw of your argument: Linking isn't being prevented, it's being limited and for valid reasons of context supported from the dawn of Ben Franklin's Copyrights and Patents to the DMCA. To rephrase the very first statement you countered me with, "You are foolish, and I have told you why."
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Interesting. At Google.com top 10 results for the search terms "brutally stupid" all link to stories about National Public Radio. The whole WWW has judged this "brutally stupid"!!!
This signature has eleven vowels.
The rankings of sites for the Google search engine is corrolated against the number of *links* (those bad things) to your site. If no one links to your site, then Google will find you less important and down the list you go.
In essence, you drop off the web for those of us who use only Google to search if no one links to you irregardless of your content quality.
Finger, Trigger, Hammer, Bang, Foot, OUCH.
I am an employee. The linking policy is there for a very good reason. Simply put, NPR is "owned" by its member stations. The member stations would rather see the hits go to their local stations, not the national network.
We have been working very hard to make most of NPR invisible to you - to get the content, you go to your local station, where it will be available, even if served off of NPR servers. It will just seem like it comes from your local station.
Deep linking hurts this process, and in turn hurts the local station - which is our first mission to support. Without the local station, NPR would not exist. Without the clicks going to the local station, they cannot use the statistics to help them raise funding to continue to keep their web sites alive.
So while it may seem like a stupid policy, its really not.