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.'"

Comments

Why don't they just reconfigure their server?

[LordNimon]

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?

Re:Why don't they just reconfigure their server?

[an_mo]

Well if you read their statement it's clear why they don't want to do that: they recognize that the vast majority of linking is not infringement and they want to honor that majority by not disallowing their links.

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.

Re:Why don't they just reconfigure their server?

[anthony_dipierro]

Their web server can be configured to use the referrer tag to allow whatever deep linking they accept, and reject everything else.

Should they reject hits from anonymizer.com, or from browsers not sending referrers, or from broken browsers which send referrers when the address is typed in, or from links made from randomly generated URLs?

Why do we need anti-spam laws? Wouldn't it be nicer if we paid our programmers instead of our lawyers?

Re:Why don't they just reconfigure their server?

[Anonymous Coward]

To implement the sort of policy NPR had in mind, you'd want to allow:

a. Users with referers from your own domain(s)
b. Users with blank referers
c. Users with referers from approved third-parties

Something like this could probably be done using mod_rewrite, although after a certain number of third-parties, it's going to get big and slow.

Referers are completely optional, but most of the major browsers support them. Undesired linkers would have links that would be essentially dead to most of their users. Opera, some Mozilla-based browsers and third-party utilities support sending no referer field, or faking a referer from the pages own domain. If this referer checking becomes a common practice, it's just going to stop people and their browsers from sending real referers, and ruin yet another part of the http spec. Remember when the browser id was actually the browser id and not everyone claiming to be Mozilla/*?

This is far from a win

[mouthbeef]

Reposted from BB:

NPR claims to be reconsidering its link policy, and in the meantime, it's posted more specious rationalization. Brutally, brutally stupid.

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. If you would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill out the link permission request form.

Unpacking that:

• The policy was originally intended to maintain NPR's commitment to independent, noncommercial journalism.

  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.

• We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio.

  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.

• 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.

  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.

• This is not acceptable to NPR as an organization dedicated to the highest journalistic ethics, both in fact and appearance.

  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.

• NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement.

  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.

• Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited.

  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."

Re:This is far from a win

[larry bagina]

If there were NPR stories that were indistinguishable from advocacy, this indicates that the NPR stories were not impartial to begin with.

I guess you've never listed to any "news" on NPR.

Linking Issues

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

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.

They still don't get it

[fahrvergnugen]

'NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement."

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.

Re:They still don't get it

[ceejayoz]

Deep linking's fine. What NPR seems concerned about is people linking to audio content, not to news articles. Audio content will in, for example, IE, play automatically without actually taking you to the site, and usually it won't show the URL either. Most people would assume that audio content is from the site they're on, when it is in fact from NPR.

Re:I smell fear of Congresscritters

[Mr_Perl]

You're right about the congress-fear.

I would disagree with de-funding NPR though.

Were it not for NPR and PBS I probably wouldn't be in touch with news at all. This being mainly due to my severe aversion to 5 minutes of advertising 4 times an hour (or more)

I actually expect NPR and PBS might survive on their own merits (with some trimming of the fat of course) were they to lost funding from congress. The quality and variety of programs have been increasing and improving over the years quite nicely.

I won't even point to the obvious bias you hold as shown by your homepage link. (need to remove home and put in www btw to update it =)

There's a place for commercial radio, but there's a place for publicly funded radio as well. I'd be sad if that were taken away.

Re:Great, but what is all the fuzz about?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Great, we win...

[donnacha]

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.

Yeah, but I'd hazzard a guess that /. probably represent the greatest single block of unique readers and possibly even constituted a straightforward majority of complainants to the NPR. There's also the fact that many of the Blog writers might have picked up on the story here.

As far as I can make out, Slashdot can direct a tremendous mass of attention, whereas Blogs are better at cumulatively building up a site's Google-rating.

For fast reactions like this one against NPR's linking policy, Slashdot is probably a more effective instrument, largely because of the time it takes Google-ratings to take effect.

In part, it still is a win

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Great, we win...

[interiot]

Google ratings are only a side benefit of blogs. Many actual humans actually read them.

One of Slashdot's downsides compared to blogs is that it's really pretty slow. Usually by the time one of the editors makes the decision to post a story to the front page, the story is several days old. By this time, many bloggers have spread the story among them, and many more people have read the blogger's entries. This is one of the reasons I often visit blogdex, because I usually read a story on there before the slashdot readers at work do.

Re:Great, we win...

[JamesOfTheDesert]

Attempts to propertize it will cause an extreme backlash.

When? The web has been "propertized" for some time now.

They should not use HTTP

[mangu]

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.

Re:Great, we win...

[John Hasler]

"The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print."

You misunderstand. That is not the issue. A link is not a copy and therefor the copyright status of the subject material is irrelevant.

Legitimate view my ass!

[A nonymous Coward]

(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.

NPR can go sod off.

[vegetablespork]

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.