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.
Did we (slashdot) ask permission to link
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." -- Plato (427?-347? BC)
So we'll /. NPR and thus demonstrate to them that linking really *is* harmless, right?
Wait... I just deep linked to a link prohibiting deep links! Ack! My brain!
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
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.)
Why don't this just do away with their domain name npr.org and have everyone visit them with via their IP address instead. No use making it easy for anyone.
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
This could otherwise be summed up as a "failure to understand the environment you operate in" and thus a "flawed business model".
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
Calling NBC competition for NPR is like calling triple fudge ice cream competition for a nice salmon steak with steamed asparagus and new potatoes. Depends on how you define competition, I suppose.
Well, both the ice cream and the salmon will make a turd.
This part is interesting:
"Fowl"? What does Calumet City have against content about birds?