Slashdot Mirror
Ziff Davis To Website: License To Link, Updated
Rothenberg writes: "Hey! I'm the executive editor in charge of eWEEK.com -- and before this situation unravels any farther, I need to make a couple of quick clarifications about our reprint policy:
While I haven't gotten all the details about what happened, this legal warning to PocketPCTools seems to be a result of miscommunication within our company. We understand and embrace the principles under which sites such as PocketPCTools link to and excerpt our content. There are plenty of occasions when a professional media company needs to question the wholesale appropriation of its content or the use of its marks. From everything I understand about the PocketPCTools case so far, this is NOT one of those occasions!
We're moving to correct the situation now ... PocketPCTools was apparently acting within the appropriate bounds of Web etiquette -- actually, doing us a favor by sending us the traffic -- and Ziff Davis was apparently mistaken in issuing this warning.
My personal apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this error. We're investigating the situation now and will act accordingly."
Did Slashdot get permission to link to this story?
I'm going to make a very obvious statement and ask what this means for blogs. If you can strongarm anyone into un-linking something, then where will blogs be able to go?
Also, what the hell was ZDNet thinking, the folks at pocketpctools.com were sending them traffic!
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
They have no case because you provided only and excerpt, gave the source, and provided a link. If it were pay-for-use content - it would be different. Sounds like they are just trying to bully the small guys of the net.
Well, either ZDnet people don't know the difference between a product, and press coverage or that other guy is not officially.. press.
... let's boycott ZD websites for the next month or so.
/. crowd stopped visiting ZD et al. for a month or so, they would realize the err of their ways.
I'm fairly certain that if the
A tech mag/publisher should know better.
Anyone have a list of Ziff/Davie sites we shouldn't visit for the next few weeks?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
For the record: In 2001, CNET bought ZDNet. Ziff-Davis magazines were spun off to another company, Ziff-Davis Media. eWeek is Ziff-Davis, not ZDNet.
ZD-Net
These aren't the sigs you're looking for.
Slashdot just posted a snippet from pocketpctools.com, and a link to their site. Let's hope pocketpctools.com doesn't threaten legal action.
There is no way this will stand up. No laws are being broken (IANAL), and it would kill pretty much every postnukey news site
www.gaian-mind.org - eco-punk/crust coop and collective | www.anarchistfederation.org - so cal anarchist federation
I find this hard to believe, let's see the emails that they 'might not be allowed to post'. Otherwise, it's just them trying to get attention and traffic, in my opinion.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
There are easy technical means to stop people from linking to you. You check the referer header, and if it's from a site you don't like... you block it! Yes, a few people will have blank/fake referers, but they are in the minority.
Example... Mozilla's Bugzilla doesn't want Mozilla to link to their bugs, so they block them! Easy.
That's just the kind of thinking that gets stuff done (with no excessive legal fees, either). Screw ZDnet, if they're going to act like bullies, I'm taking my mindshare elsewhere.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I say boycott ZD until they stop smoking crack.
with a password, then yes, you should need permission/a license to link to the article. However, I believe posting snippets for editorial/review purposes is _always_ legal. It's fair use and newspapers rely on it daily.
If there's no password protection then it's publically available information. As long as you're not cut and pasting, you're not copying, so copywrite doesn't come into play. Heck, as long as the data comes off ziff's servers, the only copying taking place is onto the users computers (which you have an implicit right to do so). This is kinda like me giving a speech in the park and sueing passers-by for infringment.
Now, in the fscked-up world of US copyright law, all the common sense outlined above probably doesn't mean much. All I can say is, good luck to these guys.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
After reading Slashdot for a while, I get the impression that these things happen all the time, and most of them are due to an overeager employee/lawyer who can be easily shut up with a polite letter pointing out why you aren't breaking the law, or, if that doesn't work, then a letter from a law firm which says the same. This isn't DeCSS-like infringement
It's unfortunate you have to do this, but this kind of stupidity seems like something web-authors will have to live with no matter what kind of copyright laws your country has.
I think the most important thing is just to know that this happens, and not to panic.
Your days are so totally numbered.
ZDNet must be going bankrupt or something to do something this dumb. If you can sue someone for referencing something from another source other than thier own or even mentioning them, a lot of people would be broke right now. Isn't this why the concept of "Works Cited" was invented? As long as you tell where you got your information from, it should be ok, right? Apperently not.
This should give the the press they want.
Assholes
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
What's it matter what the internet was designed to do? It's the duty of corporations to bend laws and technological infrastructure to suit their own needs, right? ZD is only doing what any good corporation looking out for their shareholder's interests would do. /sarcasm
This is absurd. If it's just a snippet of information from the website, given proper credit to the source, what could be the problem?
What happens when Google News takes the first sentence of one of their news stories and uses it on their front page?
The point of making news is for people to actually read it (along with the ads displayed along side it). Barring access to this news doesn't make much business sense. Sounds to me like Ziff-Davis has an overzealous legal team, which acts in self-interest rather in the interest of the company as a whole.
They followed MLA spec for literary works! ZDMedia has no right to demand removal when it's been properly quoted.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
That and otherwise stop linking to them altogether.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I'm sure ZDNet itself has links to other news sources in many places... maybe they should set a standard and pay some royalties to those sites also .. ;)
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
This is just the kind of unenlightened ignorant self-destructive money-grubbing BS I've come to expect from them... demanding a nickel in cash over internet traffic worth a hundred bux.
Dipsh!ts.
I thnk pocketpctools has a pretty solid stance. If they cannot give a short quote with a reference then why is it legal for me to do the same in a research paper? How will anyone ever be able to do a book review? This type of useage is what makes research and debate possible. I mean Bush can quote Kerry (and often does) in order to make a logical debate, and he does not need a license from Kerry. This is an example of our failed system, where corporate thugs can make any demand and win because the system is too difficult and costly to use to defend one own legitimate rights.
:)
PS Any one who laughs at Bush being logical should get -1 offtopic. Of course, I should get +5 funny for saying it
Maybe someone needs to invent a click-through email license. Microsoft will probably produce it and thereby force all recievers to install spyware and viruses on their computers to read email.
They can help you fight this. If they turn you down, please post why.
Even if they don't have the money to fight this, perhaps someone does. They should ask someone to do something about it.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Idiotic accusations made by an idiotic website run by idiots, and trusted by idiots.
I never visit their site anyways. Idiots.
The image is a dream, the beauty is real. Can you see the difference?
I used to read zdnet a while ago when David Coursey was there, but ever since he got squeezed out it totally sucked. They have this self-promoting Esther Dyson working there whom they interview every now and then and headline her on the front page for a whole week or so; she's such a bore to listen to and her "release 1.0" monthly newsletter is priced at ~$800 yearly subscription. She made me hate the word "visionary".
I've been saying for years that copyright and patent are stealth fascism, but would you listen? Well, yeah, actually, most of the time people do listen, but then still go do amazingly dumb stuff.
Oh well. NUKE THE USPTO!
National Public Radio a while back ago...
Just got a postcard asking me to renew a subscription to one of their mags.
Really have to think about it now.
Holy cow, Somebody is gonna get sued big time.
or better yet, mod it and you both down for trolling or offtopic, yea, that w00d be FuNNi3z d00dz.....
(god damn, l33t wannabes suck)
What are you supposed to do when Slashdot links your smalltime site...you get a ton of hits and suddenly have a huge bill for gigs of transfer...
Meanwhile, the guys at OSDN made $400 or more serving ads on the comment links while your server is a smoldering ruin?
Is it fair for one commercial site to link to another sites content - producing a leech effect - and not compensating the other site for linking?
-Electrawn
This is not about linking. This is about Ziff-Davis (or probably a bot) catching pocketpctools.com (over-)quoting their article. They claim it was plagiarism, ppctools claims it was fair use.
Note that pocketpctools.com still links to the article in dispute at the end of their statement. So linking is obviously not the issue.
That is all. Carry on.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Pocket PC Tools quoted a short passage (which comes under "Fair Use") and gave full credit. They were also giving free publicity to Ziff Davis and guiding traffic to their web site. Threatening legal action? Ziff Davis should be saying "thank you" -- or, at the absolute worst, "Thank you, but please ask us first in the future."
That's his last name? "Schnitzel"?
ZD isn't objecting to the link, which everybody here has decided they are. Instead, they are simply objecting to their copyrighted content (the "snipper") being posted on another site.
This is much more reasonable than the news post and the responses to it make it out to be. There is no mention in the article about ZD objecting to the link itself.
The bad guys in this case are Ziff-Davis Media, publishers of the print magazines and the www.eweek.com/ website that was linked to in pocketpctools.com's article.
ZDNet, which originally was Ziff-Davis's umbrella web prescence now has nothing to do with Ziff-Davis, and thus ZDNet is an innocent party here, so mentioning its name (as the story summary does twice) is completely inaccurate.
In fact, as it stands, the Slashdot story summary is highly actionable, as it places ZDNet in a very negative light for the misdeeds of a totally unrelated company. But, despite the fact that they're almost certainly libelling ZDNet here, the chances of the Slashdot editors actually doing something about it and changing the story summary are minimal.
Yes, confusing Ziff-Davis Media and ZDNet is a mistake that pocketpctools.com themselves make but the Slashdot editors should know better. Some basic fact-checking on their part wouldn't go amiss but that would involve an actual editorial review process, something that Slashdot has never really had, hence the dupes, fakes, spelling and grammar mistakes, inaccuracies, etc that plague virtually every story summary.
Maybe ZDNet initiating legal action against Slashdot would be a good thing. It might actually wake Taco and co. up to the fact that getting it right does matter.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Why don't they just check HTTP referrers?
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
I'm sure like many busy professionals, I don't have time to sort the wheat from the chaff on all the different computer news and magazines sites. I've come to rely on a couple of specialist/niche weblogs to point me to the stories that I need.
ZD's actions are going to result in nobody linking to their material, and thus ZD will effectively disappear from the eyeballs of people like me.
The real question, the business question, is how long it'll take them (or their advertisers) to figure that out.
--Rob
Jon Katz's last name is Schnitzel?
Gentoo?
the olds saying:
"Lawyers are the suck"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Everyone on the internet should quit linking to Ziff-Davis.
Albuquerque PC
You bet!
Glad to see that Ziff-Davis Media's legal department is as incompetent as its writers.
From the same company that brought you PC Magazine and Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine comes this next bit of inanity.
I'm actually surprised the company has lasted this long - the entire corporation seems to exist in a no-competence zone. Ziff Davis shines as a beacon of light to the incompetent organizations of this world, for it proves to the mediocre masses of corporations that talent, skill, and hard work aren't required to succeed in the world of business.
Oh yes - http://www.ziffdavis.com/press/inthenews is pretty much a page full of links to articles on websites that are in the same huge-ass media conglomarate that Ziff Davis is a member of - many of which link to other sites on the internet that AREN'T on their websites.
Durr...
Mozilla's Bugzilla doesn't want Mozilla to link to their bugs, so they block them! Easy.
...doesn't want slashdot to link to their bugs...
Copying a snippet might be questionable (if that) but linking is just not debatable, a link is the same as a book reference and there ain't no way in hell anyone is going to pry that bit of free speech out of our hands.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
There is no absolute yardstick for fair use. The law doesn't specify that quoting anything below a specific percentage of a copyrighted work is fair use, or that anything above is not.
That's why copyright is a civil, not criminal issue. Ziff-Davis probably sends these letters to hundreds of sites every year. (And, it seems to work. When was the last time you saw someone pointing, regularly, to Z-D sites?) Most sites lack the money and means to challenge Z-D in court. Z-D knows they might lose a Fair Use case, but also knows that the recipients won't take them to court. Hence the letters.
It's a silly thing to do -- driving away potential traffic -- but Z-D has the right to do this. And, they will keep on doing it until someone takes them to court and wins.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
like this? http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5300317.html
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
Wasn't there a story a year or two ago about NPR (National Public Radio) doing the same thing?
Not to nitpick, but I think it should be illegal to use 6 point fixed-css-based font sizes. Dear lord, I'm still in the 18-24 age bracket and I could barely make out the text, and that's on a 19 inch monitor at 1024x768.
Well ZDNET might say watterever they wan't, it's not because they are preparing a syndicated news service (paid of course) that they can bypass law.
... so if it's front page or second page you're safe.
The fact is, you have the right to link to their story as long as you cite the source and you have the right to give an exerp of the story as long as it's not a condensed version of the story (meaning that if you understand the whole thing w/o going to ZDnet this means that your exerp has gone too far)
Usualy a 2-3 line expert is considered ok by copyright law.
You're gonna talk about deep linking heh ? Well deep linking has been defined as roughfly more than 4 clicks to the story (there is no magical number)
This is JUST the sort of thing that very much needs to be settled in a court of law.
It appears that the pocketpctools site was totally within the law, and that Ziff-Davis has gone well beyond their legitimate ownership rights into harassment. I suspect they are depending on the difference in size to make the smaller opponent simply fold rather than fight them.
We need one of the organizations (EFF?) with the ability, muscle, and money to push this one right back into Ziff-Davis' face. This sort of abuse needs to be stopped, and needs to be stopped hard.
Since this particular incident appears to have clear, clean boundries it might be an ideal one to clear up the legal questions, and to set hard limits.
--
Tomas
I thought (and I could be wrong) that when you published a commercial, publically available website, you try to get more people to look at it.
You can do this through search engines, through placements in other web sites or in print.
When then, would you not want a site to link to you?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
That's how I understand it. "Schnitzel". Grotesque, isn't it?
Ester Dyson is mainly known as the inventor of the word "vaporware". She was relevant about 20 years ago, but I don't think she's come with anything witty or relevant since.
I think her pitch now is "I knew Bill G and Steve J when they were just starting" kind of thing. I suppose that nets you $25K speaking gigs, but you wouldn't take their advice for anything that involved money...
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Odd. However, I always suspected that he was actually a spy for the Third Reich.
What do you say to that, Herr Schnitzel?
Contact Ziff-Davis and tell them what you think about this foolishness. Tell them you will let all discussion groups in the computer indusatry know about it. The potential loss of subscribers(revenue) will change their mind fast.
When dealing with a commercial interest, a threat to the bottom line gets the most results. Because it's the only thing they care about.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
it's all explained here: Internet Yzzerdd(How boastful). Best viewed with IE, go figure.
It doesn't say so or not but perhaps they were using a picture from the story and linking to that also. I didn't see the original story and the one they showed didn't have a picture. But, linking to pictures is a no-no isn't it? Perhaps they are taking that point of view a little to far on something like this.
Um, nobody (I think) has posted this yet, so here goes...
I always thought that linking to your website was a GOOD thing, especially when it's your JOB that's depending upon people visiting your site. If all websites started doing this, search engines would be out of business and nobody would be able to find anything on the web.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
Putting up a web site is inherently a public thing; sites that are private or require a membership generally require some sort of authentication to gain access. So lets assume that isn't true and that a web site exists with no passwords and all the world can go to it.
1) If you are a commercial site, presumably you want traffic because you benefit somehow. Selling ads, selling memberships, brand-awareness. This kind of site probably enjoys the mention
2) If you are a private website that talks about your hobby, then I can see a problem, but that's the risk of running a public site.
I look at it this way...If I put a circus in the front yard, free for whomever stops by, I can't be shocked to find out a bunch of people show up to see the circus. If I wanted better control, I'd put the circus in the backyard with a fence around it. I mean, you can't have it both ways.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
But, despite the fact that they're almost certainly libelling ZDNet here, the chances of the Slashdot editors actually doing something about it and changing the story summary are minimal.
;)
I guess you just provoked them into it.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
The link thing is a non-issue. You can't threaten legal action over this. Yeah, some don't like deep links. Too bad! The sad thing about deep links for some sites (ahem, newspapers mostly) is that they die within days if not hours.
The quote thing is a measurable entity. From what I've seen there's probably not a case. Just a twitchy legal dept. inspired by the likes of SCO...
As the Jerky Boys said, "sue everybody!"
Here's what I am going to do (replied earlier):
I'm cancelling my subscription to EWeek over this. I know that many of the writers there probably cringe at this sort of foolishness (not the linking, the "fair use" quoting). So it's sad when the lawyers decide to crush the little guy in the name of stockholders... BUT, there it is. How can I be sure their reportage is accurate when their grasp of the 1st Amendment is so slippy?
Good thinking jr. college lawboy!
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
Improving Your Odds for Positive Press Coverage
Getting your messages in front of the right audiences requires an integrated approach, blending a range of marketing communications vehicles. So, how do you improve your chances for media coverage that puts your company or product in a positive light? Mary Jo Foley, editor of Microsoft Watch, offers the following advice for those who want press coverage for their products and services.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
In many situations (such as writing academic papers), quoting sources and citing them (with exact URLs) is REQUIRED. While we could simply stop using ZD as a source, if this sets a legal precedent, it might spell the end of using the web for research.
"Too quick to judge"? I think not: the weaknesses of Slashdot's editorial processes have been there for years. I may not have bothered creating a Slashdot ID until way after you had but I've been reading the site since 1998. In all that time how often do you think these flaws have been pointed out to the Slashdot editorial team (by dozens if not hundreds of people) yet how much have they actually done about it?
As for your first point, well, there are a bunch of us that are way ahead of you. And it's ironic that you call me a grammar-Nazi, because it's the arrogant, condescending and totalitarian attitude of the Slashdot editorial team that's the driving force behind a collaborative effort to form a serious alternative site.
So, you've got it totally wrong on both counts. Even the most polite attempts to communicate with the Slashdot editors is ignored or rebuffed and the situation has gotten so bad for many long-time regulars that they're looking at setting up on their own: the former has forced the latter.
(And, by the way, if pertinent observations, relevant criticisms and honest answers offend you so much then I suggest you look to yourself for answers, because clearly nothing I say or do will provide them for you.)
Lastly, it's interesting to see that this is one of the comparatively few occasions where a totally inaccurate story submission has been edited after the fact. I guess the idea of legal action against them does occasionally frighten the Slashdot editors into activity after all.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It amazes me the sheer level of pedantry that goes on here...and how quickly being right stops being important as soon as you're wrong...
If this stands, /. will own billions to a lot of companies. How many sites have been quoted here?
No I'm not serious, so please point that flame thrower elsewhere
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It's a mistake - not exactly an obvious one and could certainly be forgiven - yet you have to bring up some crap about it being "actionable". Why? Are you even someone who knows whether or not it's "actionable"? Or are you just someone with false delusions of importance? I suspect the latter.
Browse the comments and see just how many other people have made the same mistake. I did too. Perhaps ZDNet should have, like most bought out spin-offs, rebranded to avoid confusion and association with their old parentage, for exactly this reason.
I see from your comment history you're a frequent troller here. I hope all that accumulated karma eventually gets you an orgasm, it's probably the only way you can.
"A frequent troller"? Is that what you call anyone who's opinions don't agree with yours? A personal attack on my beliefs and views: that's rather rich coming from someone who hides behind the Anonymous Coward option.
And, by the way, the whole point in CNET buying ZDNet.com (and ZDNet.co.uk, etc) from Ziff-Davis was to acquire the brand and its established customers and readers. Immediately rebranding it would have been rather counter-productive, don't you think?
Am I someone who knows whether something is actionable or not? Well, I've worked in publishing for some considerable time, and I know basic libel law. I was even once involved in a case where libel law was raised by someone who felt that an article printed by a publication that I was working on defamed his character. I think that first hand experience has given me good idea of what's libel and what's not, thank you very much for asking.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
And learn what a "web" is.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Get the LiveHTTPHeaders extension. It'll track all headers for each request (along with response headers) and you can replay any of them. When you choose to replay it, you can also modify any of the existing headers that were sent.
:)
Just tested it on the link to bugzilla above. At first the link didn't work, as expected. Clicked replay and blanked out the referrer and then the page loaded.
Very handy, indeed.
---John Holmes...
I'm wondering whether the mailing sent to pocketpctools.com wasn't the result of some automatic web spider looking for copyright violations. Hasn't this come up before here, about corporations automatically sending cease-and-desist orders to anyone who even looks like they're violating copyright? Such automatic letters are obnoxious, but not as obnoxious as some ZD lawyer looking at the pocketpctools site, seeing the Fair Use, and still threatening them.
:-)
I think pocketpctools.com should have written back for clarification rather than caving. Of course, if ppt.com's intent is to boycott ZD to stop them then it would be boycotting instead of caving, and that's another strategy. But letting the big boys know that you've caught them in the act, even if you just push a little bit before caving, is probably a better thing to do.
ObKarma: Geez, IP law is all screwed up, ain't it?
"arrogant, condescending and totalitarian attitude of the Slashdot editorial team that's the driving force behind a collaborative effort to form a serious alternative site."
Bahaha.. good fucking luck.
Back in the PC Magazine days, anytime I read their reviews, Microsoft always comes out on top. It's as if Microsoft and Dell pay off their reviewers with lots of ads. Has anyone felt the same way?
Hey! I'm the executive editor in charge of eWEEK.com -- and before this situation unravels any farther, I need to make a couple of quick clarifications about our reprint policy, both here and on PocketPCTools: This was a total screw-up involving an overzealous legal intern, not anybody on our online team. There's still some education that needs to happen within our company about what constitutes fair use on the Web -- and unfortunately, this warning went out without the knowledge or approval of our online team. There are plenty of occasions when a professional media company needs to question the wholesale appropriation of its content. Nevertheless this is manifestly NOT one of those occasions! In fact, I didn't know that this hornet's nest had been stirred until it hit Slashdot. That's clearly a breakdown of communication, since I'm the guy running the site! :-)
We're moving to correct the situation now ... PocketPCTools was obviously acting within the appropriate bounds of Web etiquette -- actually, doing us a favor by sending us the traffic -- and Ziff Davis was obviously mistaken in issuing this warning.
My personal apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this error, and I'm personally going to see that it isn't repeated in the future.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Hey! I'm the executive editor in charge of eWEEK.com -- and before this situation unravels any farther, I need to make a couple of quick clarifications about our reprint policy, both here and on PocketPCTools:
This was a total screw-up involving an overzealous legal intern, not anybody on our online team. There's still some education that needs to happen within our company about what constitutes fair use on the Web -- and unfortunately, this warning went out without the knowledge or approval of our online team.
There are plenty of occasions when a professional media company needs to question the wholesale appropriation of its content. Nevertheless this is manifestly NOT one of those occasions!
In fact, I didn't know that this hornet's nest had been stirred until it hit Slashdot. That's clearly a breakdown of communication, since I'm the guy running the site! :-)
We're moving to correct the situation now ... PocketPCTools was obviously acting within the appropriate bounds of Web etiquette -- actually, doing us a favor by sending us the traffic -- and Ziff Davis was obviously mistaken in issuing this warning.
My personal apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this error, and I'm personally going to see that it isn't repeated in the future.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
I was tempted to link to story in my blog, but decided against it; I wouldn't want to incite the wrath of 'teh slashdot'.
Computers are useless. They can only give answers. --Pablo Picasso
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This also happened to Linuxtoday. CMP media (Dr. Dobbs, EE Times, etc) stopped all referrals that originated from LinuxToday. (I can't find the link now.) I let my subscription to Dr. Dobbs expire and decided to subscribe to LWN. It's a shame, becuase I had been subscribing to Dr. Dobbs for at least 8 years.
Is if the person or blogger quoting is making money as a result of the other persons work. The IDEA of the internet is NOT to steal anyone else's work. If the article is FREE then there will be no suit.
Your little impersonation trolls are neither clever nor amusing, and they add nothing to the discussion of this important subject.
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
I've been aggregating news headlines and links on the Net for longer than I care to remember (I'm in my tenth year) and I can tell you that this is nothing new.
:-)
:-)
Way back in 1998 I had a battle with The Nando Times when I was running 7am.com which was one of the most successful aggregators of all time.
Nando said "pay us $100 per month for the right to link or we'll sue"
I said "bring it on"
They said "um, err, well okay we won't" and then attributed their back-down to the fact that I was in New Zealand and they were in the USA so such a legal battle would be too hard to wage.
The reality was that I formed an informal group of other online publishers and aggregators who simply stood up to these ridiculous tactics. Seeing they were outnumbered and copping a heap of flack in the media, they gave up their ill-conceived efforts.
When I asked the head of Nando.Net why they were averse to me effectively extending their reach and delivering huge numbers of eager-eyes to their ad-laden pages I was told that their ad revenues weren't enough to cover the cost of serving up those pages so more traffic meant more cost.
Someone ought to have taught those guys how to run an online publishing business!
I've also had similar battles with other publishers such as Television New Zealand here in NZ who simlarly threatened me with all manner of dire consequences if I didn't stop linking to them.
Once again I invited them to do their worst and they backed down.
At one stage I was involved in (and winning) so many battles over the issue of hypertext linking and the intellectual property rights associated with such things that I regularly was invited to talk to the legal profession (some of my stuff even scoring a mention in the US Bar Association's Journal) and other online publishers.
I should point out that at all times I linked ethically -- this meant no framing, full attributions and only ever using the headline and sometimes the first line of the article.
One thing *all* publishers should do is publish a linking policy on their website so as to let other sites know what they consider to be fair and reasonable. I do this on my Aardvark daily internet commentary and I also continue to aggregate headlines (including some from eWeek when they're running something worth a mention). The funny thing is that these days, nobody tries to pick a fight with me
But, if Ziff Davis/eWeek are thinking about doing so, I once again say "Bring it on! And let the good times roll (again
if they're overzealous enough to take action like this that substantially harms your company's reputation, and does it without your knowledge or approval, then they obviously need to go.
Something tells me that somewhere at this very moment, an intern is being fired.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Everybody please notice and read parent.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
But I have this nagging feeling that only about 1/4 of the story is here.
Yeah, I know, ZDnet is a corporation therefore it's evil and should be burninated, but, for a community that's supposedly based on questioning the Conventional Wisdom, there's a rigid adherence to the dogma that:
1. All corporations are evil.
2. Copyrights are all wrong. All knowledge is public domain.
3. Except knowledge about you. In that case, it's an evil plot by an all-knowing group of shadowy government agencies.
4. Any claim by a web site must be true, if it adheres to Sacred Teachings #1-3.
5. Based upon these indisputable facts, the EC (evil corporation) must be punished.
6. This justifies ignoring all intellectual property laws, with, of course, the sole exception of Sacred Truth #3.
Somehow I find this interesting:
Current moderation of first post (poorly spaced): 100% Informative.
Current moderation of second post (spacing fixed): 70% Interesting, 30% Informative.
I'm not sure that the sample size is really large enough to draw any conclusions, but still... Does
adding spacing
to your posts make
them
interesting (or, conversely, less informative)?
"While there are many good blogs out there with unique, original content"
No, there are none. At best, they are self-indulgent crap. At worst, they epitomize the worst of the web. They make me wish only big corporations were allowed to use the internet.
Not bad. I've used the old "overzealous legal intern" one back in the day as well.
What you've really got to consider here is your audience. This is Slashdot, home of the "you forgot to capitalize Internet! Now my beowulf cluster and I shall mock you into oblivion!" These people don't take incompetence (or "lack of communication") lightly and, as such, require extra planning.
Personally I'd go for the misdirection via dead hooker(s). Completely discredit PocketPCTools, claim they were spiteful due to you not publishing one of their stories, and then sue them for defamation claiming the event never took place.
Little do-gooders like you are the bane of civilization.
Not necessarily. A "professional association" I once belonged to finally put up a website in 1998 and threatened *everyone*, including its own membership, with legal action if they linked to the association's website without permission. Guess they don't need the traffic.
Is that a legal 'intern' has no clue about US Copyright law, if indeed it was actually a legal intern who started harrasing PocketPCTools. I mean, you would think that someone in Law school would know about fair fucking use. I guess not.
Do we like Ziff-Davis now ... or hate 'em?
I've been getting eWeek for years now, and it's got some good articles and reviews. I think I'll stop. Everyone here should stop. Cancel all your Ziff Davis crap that comes every week. Call them and tell them why you're doing it. It may be free, but it just became worthless to me.
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Is it, like, against your policy to Delete?
Put up a notice "Info Incorrect" or something, and quietly delete this thread?
I mean, look at the poor sods who posted like it was real. How do you think these idiots feel with egg all over their face?
First off, it is misleading to call this a "warning": the letter was, according to the site admin "pretty much 'cease and desist' or we will come after you." That's a threat.
Wonderful to know how easy it is for lawyers to make up these letters. They mean nothing and are written as easily as ordinary people burn toast -- but they can sure intimidate. For those willing to give Ziff Davis a pass, I wonder if the Pocket site admins are willing to post the content of the e-mails they received? Perhaps you'd feel a little differently about "legal mistakes" when you see what they're really like.
It's ridiculous that companies have such power; were it not for slashdot, I wonder if Ziff Davis would have done a thing after the fact? The mere fact that Ziff Davis employees can fire off a letter that can effectively force sites to censor themselves should be a wake up call to folks everywhere.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Oh please, oh please, oh please. How I'd love to get back to the days before those two (especially Michael), when most of the stories here were relevent and interesting, and when you didn't actually have to go out of your way to *avoid* /. over the weekends...
a. We'd be kinda DUMB; and
b. We'd have to expect that people would take umbrage, right?
c. PROFIT!!
And the excuse sounded so nice at the time.
It's really nice to see that eWeek both is fixing their screwup and *admitted* doing so *AND* admitted to doing so promptly *AND* on Slashdot.
That being said, this reminds me of when a Lucasarts lawyer idiotically sent a C&D to the ScummVM people (yeah, that was bright -- the only reason Lucasarts sells any copies of their classics any more is because people can run them on the ScummVM engine). The Lucasarts people retracted what they said once things filtered around a bit.
Companies really need to have better policies in place regarding C&Ds and warnings. I personally think that threats regarding copyright infringement and similar, which is a threat made *on behalf of* and *in the name of* the company, should need to run through the top person at the company before going out. I've gotten a bogus C&D before, and it's very annoying.
May we never see th
So you hire "interns" to managerial positions over there at Ziff Davis? (Rights & Permissions Manager, specifically)
Either you do, which means you're a fucking moron, or you don't, which means you're a fucking liar.
So, which is is? Moron, or liar?
Given that poorly composed paragraph of spin and slant you managed to barf up, my bet is that you're both.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Bravo :-)
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4
Am I someone who knows whether something is actionable or not? Well, I've worked in publishing for some considerable time, and I know basic libel law.
As one who has worked in publishing for some considerable time, are you saying that Slashdot is publishing?
My own impression is that Slashdot throws up some Headlines, links, and some provocative commentary to start the discussions, hardly what I'd consider to be publishing. In less that three hours of inital posting, which clarifies the situation as to someone within ZD-whatever overreacting to seeing their content elsewhere. Regardless of your view of what Slashdot should be doing, they seem to be doing very well just as they are, with possible quibbles about color schemes.
this person needs to be led out the door.
that is if ZD actually cares about their reputation, which it is entirely possible they may not.
Ya fuckin retard.
Anything less would ring hollow, and just be yet another case of a corporation playing the 9-year-old on the playground, "Just kidding -- I take it back."
"Davis is threatening pocketpctools.com with legal action for posting a snippet from and link to a Ziff Davis story. Is it just me, or is this sort of the IDEA of the internet?"
You just don't get it, do you? That Ziff Davis website (which I haven't ever heard before) gets posted on the Slashdot front page every bloody time they change a little miserable bit of their laughable license. They get more of our attention than Linux kernel point releases did in 1995, for God's sake. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't get the "IDEA" of Internet, does it? The sad think is that they only have to say "don't link to us, or else!" and we all, myself included, promptly do what? Of course we link to them! Why not! We post their link on the front page of one of the most visited sites on Earth, we give them publicity and all the traffic other honest people have to pay lots of money for. We act like some childish morons, which I feel we all are. What next? Someone will start shouting "don't send me money, or I'll sue you!" and Slashdot will gladly spend all of their money on them and proudly say: "Heh, we showed them!" What a waste of time.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
It's good to see that someone in Ziff Davis/eWeek is willing to make a reasonable apology. I'm still surprised to see a media company that should be used to the way the net operates has people working for it that don't fully understand the concepts and operations of such.
Just goes to show that we have reached Nirvana on the Net yet.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Although it flies in the face of a well thought out and reasoned argument from Pharmboy, let me just with some joy shout at the top of my lungs: WHAT IDIOT MODERATOR MODDED THIS AS REDUNDANT - yet another bad moderator who just likes to strike something down as opposed to finding something to mod up - sheesh!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
What's hard to believe is that your tinfoil rant gets moderated to 5
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dvorak is all that remains. The last straw was when they suddenly wanted top dollar for thier freeware. Freeware that the readers spent considerable effort upon. The same utilities we beta tested, suggested and discussed to death. Then after my utility was finally working well, they decide to ony sell it only to those overly affluent first world people who could cough up additional cash, without any regard for the efforts of the contributors. This was also done with zero consultation and despite much opposition. Their reputation evaporated before my eyes. Never trust overlords. /. are you listening?
Words to men, as air to birds.