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.'"
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.
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.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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!
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.
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!".
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
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.
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....