Slashdot Mirror
NPR Reconsiders Linking Policy
jfruhlinger writes: "Slashdot wasn't the only site I saw that commented on NPR's stupid linking policy, but I'm sure it generated a lot of traffic and comments to NPR's site. Now NPR has issued a statement that they are reconsidering that policy. The statement goes into the reasons why the original policy was established -- it looks like it was an overkill response to a legitimate problem. It concludes with the encouraging statement that 'NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR.'"
Why do they even need a policy? Their web server can be configured to use the referrer tag to allow whatever deep linking they accept, and reject everything else. Wouldn't it be nicer if they paid their programmers instead of their lawyers?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
NPR claims to be reconsidering its link policy, and in the meantime, it's posted more specious rationalization. Brutally, brutally stupid.
Unpacking that:This policy does not serve this commitment. The end-product of independent, noncommercial journalism is public discourse, which on the Web takes the form of links. If you're committed to journalism, you must endorse linking.
Was this infringement? If so, why didn't you seek redress in the courts? It's my opinion that someone who constructs a directory -- commerical or non-commercial -- of references to locations on the web no more infringes than someone who produces a tourist map to a city that marks the location of major attractions.
You are lying. There is no way that one could link to a stream of a fair and impartial newscast (links to streams must be to the whole stream, from beginning to end, remember) such that it can't be distinguished from advocacy or opinion. If there were NPR stories that were indistinguishable from advocacy, this indicates that the NPR stories were not impartial to begin with.
No other journalistic organization of note has a parallel policy (NPR's ombudsman's defamatory fabrications about CBC and BBC notwithstanding). The idea that linking must not be permitted because it would compromise the appearance or fact of ethics is a fantasy concocted by NPR's representatives.
How grand of you. All linking on the web is not infringement. The recititation of public facts -- this document exists at this location -- is never an infringment. Promulgating this myth is purely wrong, especially from a journalistic organization that prides itself on its ability to seek out and deliver the truth.
In the words of Patrick Nielsen Hayden, "Of course, it isn't 'prohibited.' Or rather, it's 'prohibited' with exactly the same legal force as I have when I say 'False legal claims designed to intimidate the public are hereby prohibited. Signed, Me.' This is the web. If you put a public document onto it, it's linkable. If you don't want to be linked to, use some other means of putting your information online."
I can identify with NPR and web businesses concerning the issue of deep linking. The business model of "free content with revenue generatioin via paid ads" is unable to handle deep linking from other websites. By having deep links bypass a website's splash page and index, the struggling website loses views of the paid ads. Since those paid ads are the only things that keep many websites in existence, I can see how they would take exception to deep linking.
On the other hand, maybe this situation is showing just how flawed and vulnerable this business model really is.
What is interesting is how the building block of the internet, IE, hypertext, does not lend itself to commercial advertising in this manner...Methinks someone needs to cook up some profitable web business models, and fast. Paid ads based on page views aren't working.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
(keep clicking the "response" links to see the story unfold)
Thgey are well intentioned. Read their explanation
Request Permission to Link to NPR.org
"To those of you who wrote to us about our linking permission policy, thanks for your many comments. Many of you offered thoughtful insights that have prompted us to reevaluate this policy.
The policy was originally intended to maintain NPR's commitment to independent, noncommercial journalism. We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio. We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause. This is not acceptable to NPR as an organization dedicated to the highest journalistic ethics, both in fact and appearance.
However, NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR. We will post revisions soon at www.npr.org.
Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. "
Should be an int4eresting discussion here!
I emailed a webmaster in '95 to ask permission to link to their site. They were astonished that someone would consider that. Let's hope it stays this way, though I fear it will not.
Wrong. A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple.
I'm glad they're re-considering the policy, but until they do away with it altogether, and realize that the only viable linking policy is to have no linking policy, we shouldn't let up the pressure.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
If they don't to be linked, well, don't link them.
Don't link them at all.
Throw them out of any search engine/web guides/etc.
After some months they'll see the effects of their linking policy.
And change it...or sell their servers.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
The thing that really got me was this line in their statement:
"Many of you offered thoughtful insights that have prompted us to reevaluate this policy."
Thoughtful insights? From the flood of Slashdot readers? Wow!
jf
I'd say that NPR is committing patent infringement every time they use a hyperlink!
This all sounds pretty stupid to me, agreed... but who listens to NPR anyway?
It just reminds me of Alec Baldwin's "Schweaty Balls" skit on SNL. I never cease to crack up when I see that. "...no one can resist my Schweaty balls."
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
We clicked on the links you provided and were exposed to a horrible gaping anus.
Fear of netizens harranguing their Congresscritters with complaints of "If they want to take the RIAA stance on IP they should get out of my wallet" is the cause of this.
That is the closest thing to the fear of God they have over there.
DE FUND NPR! If the listeners want it, they will pay for it. If there aren't enough listners who will, it should die, period. I don't have Clear Channel, another company that spreads automated, NON LOCAL radio stations all over the landscape taking money directly from my meger paycheck each week. NPR does.
Our local NPR station, WOUL, Ironton is a 50,000 watt, 100% simulcast of another NPR station 50 miles away. How is THAT serving the community?
As bad as our local Clear Channel corporate radio is, at least they aren't staffing whole 50,000 watt stations with computers and satellite receivers to repeat a station from outside the market...
De fund the bastards, and maybe someone LOCAL will take over that station and actually SERVE Ironton, Ohio with it. What a concept!
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
During my time browsing, i have noticed that many sites out there have a "no deep linking" policy, including hobby sites and private sites. TBH i agree with them, as most deep linking does not give the owning site credit for what is shown, especially if the link is to something that should be in frames. If you want to link to something, provide a shallow link and tell the user where it is, then they can see for themselves the site that actually owns the article otr whatever.
NPR claims to be reconsidering its link policy, and in the meantime, it's posted more specious rationalization. Brutally, brutally stupid.
A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple.
If they're linking to, say, audio content, and making it seem like it's their own content, then they're on shaky legal grounds, though.
On the other hand, maybe this situation is showing just how flawed and vulnerable this business model really is.
What is interesting is how the building block of the internet, IE, hypertext, does not lend itself to commercial advertising in this manner...Methinks someone needs to cook up some profitable web business models, and fast. Paid ads based on page views aren't working.
However, NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR.
I'd say that NPR is committing patent infringement every time they use a hyperlink!
you are violating it by linking to their site in the story. what beautiful irony.
More than five years ago, the German zine 'Radikal' published instructions on preventing nuclear-waste transport by rail, which have since been placed onto the internet. Deutsche Bahn, the German rail operator has responded with lawsuits against the original host, search engines, and Indymedia-NL. Indymedia-NL had links to mirrors of the zine, indirectly linking to the instructions, which were published as a comment on its open-publishing newswire.
On June 20, a Dutch judge ordered Indymedia-NL to remove the links, requiring "Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal article."
Indymedia-NL has responded with a press release, stating that they consider "the ruling a dramatic limitation of the possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech."
(c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere, for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author.
There is an amazing article that deal with deep linking and it impact at every level of the internet community it can be found at a href = "http://www.... Oh wait I can't do that anymore can I? Damn.
Oh well, it wasn't all that good.
Read Errant Story.
NPR gets hit with a brick named reality, and they'll reconsider their policy, what a laugher.
If you don't want your stuff being linked to DO NOT PUT IT ON THE NET, on a public web server.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
NPR, and the rest, should accept that the web is a forum that belongs to the public domain. Attempts to propertize it will cause an extreme backlash. I only wish there would be legislation to reaffirm what has been the case from the moment the internet was open to the public. The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print.
Actually, I saw a far more hubaloo on the blogs than I did on Slashdot. And I'd hazard a guess that there were many more links (or readers, if you lean that way) to the original BoingBoing post than there were to the Slashdot story.
It seems to me that they have a legitimate concern: entire sites made up with links to npr, advocacy sites linking to NPR stories without disclaimers explainin that NPR does not advocate a specific position... I don't necessarily support their views but it's a legitimate view and if they want to support it they have to do it the legal way.
Linking to a story is the BEST form of fair use. You are not reprinting parts of it, you are letting a reader read the WHOLE ORIGINAL on their site, so that they may read it and contrast it with what you think it means.
On the other hand, maybe this situation is showing just how flawed and vulnerable this business model really is.
We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio. We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause.
Can someone point out to me some examples of these violations? I'd like to see for myself what these "companies and individuals" are doing, that caused NPR to implement this policy! I'd also like to see how stupid one has to be, to confuse Random Joe's site with NPR's site. And finally, if these said sites are copying the 'look and feel' of NPR's site, there are other time-tested remedies available.
From my experience, these may not be actual offenses, but 'theoretical possibilities' that NPR's lawyers may have raised. It is common for the lawyers to say "Geez.. yaknow, what if XYZ happens? We better protect ourselves just in case!".
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
It has been said elsewhere in this forum, probably much more eloquently than I could put it. But it's true: don't put your stuff on a public HTTP server if you don't want it linked to. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY!!!
This kind of stuff makes me angrier still, because people who want to prevent deep-linking could easily do it in a more acceptable way. Instead of suing & complaining, you could design your website to prevent it! Just use a handful of PHP scripts, which check (via cookies, or the REFERRER value, or a generated seed value, or a combination of simple methods) to make sure you have come from a valid page!
If people want to prevent deep-linking, well, it's their own funeral! But they should take responsibility for doing it themselves.
The creators of the NPR website, that is, those who wrote or WYSIWYGed the HTML and so forth, are probably well aware of the fact that deep linking simply can't be prohibited in a legally binding fashion. The people who decided on the linking policy may not be so well informed. Perhaps these people are outside the scope of their careers at a primarily radio, not internet, organization, or perhaps their lawyers simply aren't up to date with the legal decisions that have established deep linking as legitimate. I can certainly understand their desire to not be seen as promoting certain groups, and of course having leeches create website that are nothing but deep links to your content is a problem many website owners run into. It's understandable that they would want to solve these problems, even if their method is ignorant of their legal rights (or lack thereof) in the matter. We'll have to see if they change their policy, but I think that most of the antagonism towards NPR, all of it for a policy that was made out of naivete, not malice, is uncalled for. Of course, if they don't change their policy, perhaps some antagonism would be in order.
Well, well. Just Wednesday put up a story on the Jazz Journalists Association 2002 Jazz Awards winners and linked from each of the winners to the best page I could Google for them. A few of those were on NPR. Those pages don't have any notice or request about not linking to them. So NPR expects, in making this empty "prohibited" claim, that someone like me would have even seen it? We are supposed to search sites we find a page to link to on to be sure that somewhere they haven't claimed links are "prohibited"? Fsck that! We sure won't do them the favor of any links in the future, but I'm not about to do additional work now to remove links that were made in the normal way and without any warning from them that they'd be offended.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
to prevent deep linking, its their fault for not implementing them....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
NPR has said they will "re-evaluate" but has made *NO* commitment to actually changing anything. Please promote more discussion on this and submit "Request Permission to Link to NPR.org" seeking permission to link to the "Request Permission to Link to NPR.org" If enough people ask for permission from the page to link to that same page, NPR might get the hint how inapprobate this policy really is.
The ethics of linking should be this: Give credit in the link, if it is not your site's original work. The problem is that more and more of the people link without giving explicit credit to the originating site. This is generally tolerated by most sites. The real problem comes when the link is misleading the viewer to think that it is the linking website's original work rather that of NPR (or whatever the originating/linked site is). Those should be prohibited in some manner.
Considering ethics are something that comes from inside a person and is part of a person's make up (the values the person acquired from parents, books, movies, friends and what not) and are not enforcable in any manner, the law should step in to a limited extent and make it a requirement. Having a short but explicit statement on the link ("link to " is not an onerous requirement on a website operator that is doign the linking.
I say we give them what they want -- if users in the Blog/Slashdot/etc communities requested permission from NPR to put a few links on their personal sites, they would be overwhelmed with thousands and thousands of requests. Either they would have to drop requests, or automate permission approvals.
I'm not being facetious, either. One of the things that makes the web what it is today (besides all the porn) is the ease in which you should be able to link not just to sites, but to portions of content within that site.
That said, framing I'm opposed to (barring fair-use reasons). Look at an analogy: linking is like writing a newspaper article, and making a reference to a magazine article (i.e.: "for more information, see Time magazine June 12, p. 34"). On the other hand, framing would be like photocopying that Time magazine article and pasting it into the middle of your own without permission.
One last thought: I wonder if NPR asks for permission when they link to other sites?
_______
2B1ASK1
Hope that link isn't too deep
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
I started out just giving these sites 127.0.0.1, but later I thought it would be more interesting to redirect the request to some other annoying host. Like 216.35.221.77, or 64.124.140.181.
Now, I wonder, what do these requests look like in the server logs, and is it enough to make the owner thing somebody is "illegally" deep-linking?
i mentioned that often companies need strong legal rulings that go unenforced unless of some specific rare occurence, just so they have their legal butts covered here:
7 31 827
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=34457&cid=3
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
HTTP stands for "hyper text transfer protocol". "Hyper text" is, by definition, text with links. Last time I looked, their site was accessible by HTTP. To enforce their policy they should change that.
This was on slashdot very recently.
They still say
"Linking to or framing of any material on this
site without the prior written consent of NPR is
prohibited."
which is still wrong. A link is a reference, not a copy, and therefor cannot infringe a copyright and therefor cannot be prohibited by a copyright owner.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
NPR has a valid beef, but they are trying to apply the wrong law. The unauthorized copying of information is not what distinguishes the abusive linking cases to which NPR alludes from the benign ones. What distinguishes them is that the offending websites are framing the information in such a way as to make it appear that they are the originators of it. In other words, they are claiming authorship, committing a sort of plagiarism without actually copying anything. It is as though I were to start propagating, in an effect manner, the idea that I had directed the movie Minority Report, and figured out an angle to make money off of the ruse. As far as I know, the copyright law does not address this. It also seems close to the kind of act that trademark law guards against, but in a reverse sort of way. Trademark and servicemark law tries to prevent the confusion of the public as to who is the purveyor of merchandise or services. The typical violation of trademark, however, involves the offendor applying someone's trademark to his own product. But in these cases, the offendor is in effect applying his own trademark to someone else's product. It does appear to me that this could dilute the trademark. But do the current US trademark laws actually reach this kind of case?Perhaps someone with detailed knowledge of the relevant laws could enlighten us on that question.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"You are foolish, and let me tell you why..."
The full bitch-counter-bitch process explains why you are wrong and npr is right.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
And where is the problem with that?
We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause.
Does NPR support any causes? If not, this shouldn't be a problem, since neither the content itself nor its use could then be misinterpreted as "supporting someone's cause". If NPR does support some causes, maybe they shouldn't, given their funding and mandate.
By linking to a site, be it shallow or deep, you are making a mere pointer that others can follow to further information. This should always be allowed, it's how the web works.
If you frame a site, you are possibly mis-representing or commiting a copyright violation. This is where things can be troublesome for organizations like NPR and they need to be vigilant to protect their image and content.
To sum up: linking good, make web go! Framing gray, still make web go, have to work with it.
If NPR wants me to have permission to frame their content, I'd be okay with that, but not for a mere link.
(With that subject, I should of course link to that you-know-where, but I won't.)
It is NOT a legitimate concern that some site links to them. There is no reasonable reason to ever prevent any linking. If some other site makes it look like NPR content is their content, then sue them, send a cease and desist letter to their ISP, etc. Why is NPR so special that links to NPR appear to falsely claim that NPR advocates some opinion, and not for anybody else? Why can I link to MSNBC or The Register or the New York Times, but not NPR?
If someone is so weak willed that a mere link misguides them into thinking that proves advocacy, tough shit.
Infuriate left and right
"Links to other Sites
It is important to note that npr.org contains links to other sites that may not follow the same privacy policies as npr.org. For instance, clicking on a sponsorship notice on npr.org will take you to an entirely different site. These sites may use cookies, collect data, and use the data in ways that npr.org would not. NPR is not responsible for the privacy practices or any information or materials on these other sites."
Okay, so we don't link to the NPR page, we just *type* the link. Then our new keeping-up-with-the-fascists browsers automagically 'linkify' it for us. (Opera has no trouble heating up URIs sent to me by email, for instance.)
NPR is showing an "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood and therefore a witch" degree of technical qualifications on this issue. (They must have hired Dvorak.) To prevent linking, they would have to prevent us from even *mentioning* the URI. Maybe we should make sure no one mentions any URIs at all, anywhere, ever.
Hmmm, maybe it's not a mistake. NPR is Democratic/liberal, right? As opposed to Republican/conservative? I know one group wants my money and one wants to tell me what I can say, but I can never remember which is which.
Ellen
mods metamodded as "Unfair"
I would like to know is why they didn't just used the crawler mechanisms existing to handle where can and can't crawlers go peek...
...And issue the normal link provisions as seen everywhere...
Cheers...
If they want to act like a commercial organization, they can quit suckling at the teat of the taxpayer and begging patrons for money. Until then, they are a public asset and damn well should start acting like one.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
NPR is Democratic/liberal, right? As opposed to Republican/conservative? I know one group wants my money and one wants to tell me what I can say, but I can never remember which is which.
The myth that "Conservatives are for economic freedom but not civil liberties, while liberals are for civil liberties but not economic freedom" is just that: a myth. Pure bunk.
Both sides want your money and both sides want to tell you what to say.
It wasn't the liberals that took us off the gold standard & signed the Clean Air Act. And it wasn't the conservatives that made up the PMRC record burners & gave us Political Correctness on college campuses.
Future: Good policy implemented poorly!
;-)
I responded in the last story that NPR surely was afraid that it's large audio file would be unfairly used by other sites. That is a legitamate fear.
I agreed, however, that I disagreed with such a blanket policy and that if it is backed up legally, it could cause massively bad things.
But I'd like to now say. Thanks Slashdot et all! We've forced NPR will to "do the right thing" which is tell its servers to block ALL "deep links" instead having a rarely-enforced policy to block the abusers!
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Oops, I guess it shows I haven't been reading the site lately. Sorry.
Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited.
Yeah, right. And I prohibit anyone from using the letter "E".
You can't do it or else... err... or else something! It's prohibited! So there!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
From their position, you'd think that all surfing stops at NPR. But, they have links themselves. Do they get permission from every site they link to? Nope:
It is important to note that npr.org contains links to other sites that may not follow the same privacy policies as npr.org.
I wonder if they actually check the privacy policy of every site they link to, and that they link to, and that they link to....
This might be a naive viewpoint, but I don't think NPR can own anything any more than NASA owns space pictures. I like their programming but they tend to be quite self-righteous, and I think what we're seeing is that same mentality that whatever they say is so. Just ignore it.
A person who visits a site via deep link today is likely to skip the commercials in a taped TV program tomorrow, or read just the articles from a magazine and not the ads.
Where will it all end?