Ziff Davis To Website: License To Link, Updated

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently Ziff 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? From pocketpctools.com: 'We are currently being threatened with legal action by a large organization that produces news stories (I am trying to find out if I am "allowed" to post the emails they have sent me). A while back (about a month and 70 posts ago), one of our admins posted a story that introduced you to one of their stories. Needless to say, there was a small editorial about the said story, a short quote from the story, a link to, and full credit given to them for the story.'" Update: 08/08 23:55 GMT by S : To clarify, Ziff Davis/EWeek (and not ZDNet, as the submitter and linked story suggest) are involved in this story. Update: 08/09 02:08 GMT by T : Matthew Rothenberg of eWEEK writes with a clarification (below); it seems like this is just a tempest in a teapot, and linkers can breathe easy.

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."

Comments

Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Slashdot get permission to link to this story?

Blogs

[Scalli0n]

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!

Re:Blogs

[the_mad_poster]

Well, it's an obvious sign that they don't want people reading their publications.

So, I canceled my eWeek subscription.

Re:Blogs

[siliconjunkie]

While I agree with the gist of your post, what you fail to acknowledge is that blogs of the nature you are referring to simply aren't bookmarked/linked to/visited again.

While there are many good blogs out there with unique, original content, there are also many blogs that are creative in the way that they cross-reference and explore a given topic by linking to several external sources and providing insight into how those sources are connected philosphically/intellectualy/topically/whatever. On a good day, I would say Slashdot is a good example of that concept.

The beauty of a well-crafted blog is that it can elaborate and further external articles so that the "whole is greater than the sum of it's parts"

I agree that there are MANY blogs out there like you illustrate in your post, but these blogs are avoided by those who appreciate what a good blog (original content or not) have to offer.

Re:Blogs

[Pharmboy]

Instead, I sent this letter to randy_zane@ziffdavis.com who handles media relations at ziffdavis, according to their site.
---
Dear Sirs,

According to a recent article on Slashdot.org, you are demanding licensing for sites to link to material on your site (specifically pocketpctools.com). They say they linked to the article proper, and gave proper credit for the material in their review.

If the article was briefly quoted and proper credit given, via Fair Use Doctrine, then I would consider this to be a misinterpretation of Copyright law on your part, and would see this as an agressive action against weblogs in general. As someone who subscribes to your magazines, I find this very disturbing that you would act to suppress free speech in this way.

I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion since they claim the original article was removed and can not be examined by myself, but I wanted to ask that you please explain further so that I can make an educated decision whether to cancel my subscriptions and discontinue use of your website.

Because I consider this to be an important issue, but do not want to assume your company is guilty of this type of activity, I would request a reply as soon as reasonably possible.

Thank you in advance.

[name, city, state]

----

We shall see if I get a response to what is a polite and reasonable request by a customer.

Re:Blogs

[FFFish]

Just want to say THIS IS WHAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE!

Y'all see how easy it is to become an activist and make changes for the better? It takes so very little effort, and makes such a big difference!

Re:Blogs

[Pharmboy]

I think the key to a successful writing campaign is to be:

1) Polite
2) Respectful
3) Objective
4) To the point
5) Request a reply
6) Use your real name and city/state and send from the same email address they can reply to.

Name or quote your sources, express your concerns, DONT assume it is correct, GENTLY explain what you are considering in response to their actions if true, and give them the opportunity to explain. Remain objective and fair if you want a response, or at least to have your letter actually read by someone that matters. I am sure many can do a better job of writing this letter, but thats great: do it and send it.

I really DONT know if this article is true, so assuming would not serve anyone anyway, and just make me look like an ass for being wrong and loud. Fake articles HAVE happened before, after all. What matters is NOT "I will unsubscribe", but "I have reason to question your companies ethics or actions" since most people are not subscribers anyway. You should always act like you really WANT to hear their opinion or side of the story, even though it is unlikely you will get a reply. These are the letters that get read in the boardroom.

You will never know if your particular letter made "the" difference but it doesn't matter. The sheer volume of intellegent, thoughtful and concerned letters speak for themselves.

Re:Blogs

[MatthewRothenberg]

I second that emotion ... At least, it's my M.O. when fielding correspondence from readers.

Pharmboy: Thanks for the reasoned response. I don't have all the facts yet, either -- although I assure you, that's Priority One tomorrow morning!

Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg

Let's send a message...

[bergeron76]

... let's boycott ZD websites for the next month or so.

I'm fairly certain that if the /. crowd stopped visiting ZD et al. for a month or so, they would realize the err of their ways.

A tech mag/publisher should know better.

Anyone have a list of Ziff/Davie sites we shouldn't visit for the next few weeks?

Re:Let's send a message...

[foidulus]

boycott ZDnet India!

Ziff-Davis != ZDNet

[buzzdecafe]

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.

Hard to Believe

[Scalli0n]

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.

If the content's protected

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:If the content's protected

[TWX]

Remember though, the courts are stupid. They ordered 2600 Magazine to not link to anything ever having any remote thing to do with DeCSS. That looked like a pretty damn clear cut case of violations on 2600 Magazines' rights to freedom of speech, and also was kind of contrary to the entire point of HTML, but the courts did what they did anyway.

Is this really a big deal?

[TROLLCmdrTaco2]

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.

Watch out slashdot!

[Muerto]

Your days are so totally numbered.

It's Fair Use . . .

[HrothgarReborn]

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 :)

zndet sucks now

[mantera]

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".

As always, the summary is wrong.

[xigxag]

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.

So, in simple terms, the story summary is wrong...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Boss of eWEEK.com here ...

[MatthewRothenberg]

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

Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here ...

[MatthewRothenberg]

You're obviously free to think what you want, but I think our track record speaks for itself.

Besides, if we seriously wanted to prevent linking:

a. We'd be kinda DUMB; and
b. We'd have to expect that people would take umbrage, right?

So tell me again, what would be the percentage in engaging in this behavior, even if they didn't post their concerns to Slashdot?

Unless making people mad and losing traffic were part of our business strategy, it sounds like kind of an asinine plan to me! :-)

Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg

Boss of eWEEK.com here

[MatthewRothenberg]

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

Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here

[Almost-Retired]

Greetings Matthew;

It rather sounds as if we're in violent agreement here.

I think I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the offices come tomorrow morning. I think I'd find I was living in some of those "interesting times" Confusious was fond of refering to. :-)

Can the air conditioning handle the expected smoke?

Mmm, I suppose I'd better put in the obligatory smiley here, you might need it tomorrow. :-)

--
Cheers & good luck, Gene

Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here

[MatthewRothenberg]

I certainly need to get a better read on what happened here before I sign up for that plan, but your comments are very well-taken.

There are a whole raft of interesting and contentious issues that BigMedia companies like ours continue to feel their way around. We chew over many of them every day -- and clearly, still more mastication is in order.

The bully pulpit of Slashdot certainly garnered my undivided attention this evening, but these are precisely the sorts of situations that make my job interesting (if not always relaxing). And yes, I think the issues they reflect are well worth exploring editorially.

Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg

Nothing new, Nando did the same

[NewtonsLaw]

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 :-)