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."
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.
We clicked on the links you provided and were exposed to a horrible gaping anus.
"'d say that NPR is committing patent infringement every time they use a hyperlink! [slashdot.org]
This all sounds pretty stupid to me, agreed... but who listens to NPR anyway?"
Outside the very large markets, not many. I've seen the raw Arbitron numbers for my area, and NPR, despite being on THREEE 50,000 watt radio stations gets fewer listeners than one of the religious AM daytimers...
If you hate Clear Channel, for it's practice of using out of market voicetracking and satellite automation, you have to hate NPR, the SINGLE LARGEST satellite automation network in radio.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
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.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
NPR isn't particularily tax-supported. It receives minimal competitive grant funding ($0.000001058/US taxpayer). See this discussion board.
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
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.
(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
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"