Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Newspaper Charging $150 License Fee To Publish Excerpts
dakohli writes "Michael Geist has pointed out an interesting development at the National Post's website. 'If you try to highlight the text to cut and paste it, you are presented with a pop-up request to purchase a license if you plan to post the article to a website, intranet or a blog. The fee would be $150.' He notes that even if you are highlighting a 3rd party quote inside an article a pop-up asking if you want a license will appear. Mr Geist points out this might be contrary to Canadian Copyright Law's fair use provisions."
This will definitely work.
We should embrace their spirit of experimentalism and their desire to try potential new revenue streams, and start charging money for posting as an A/C on slashdot.
The fee should start out as two cents, natch.
Crap newspaper, nothing worth quoting. They give out free subscription that are impossible to cancel.
I right clicked > view source and copy pasted from there? ...
but then couldn't the newspaper find the content I copy pasted and come after me for theft or something? ...
what if I posted as AC? :) ...
what if AC posted it and I copied it not knowing the source?
They have a computer. If you ask their computer nicely, it will send you some bits.
They're free to send me whatever bits they like in response to my request (so long as they don't materially misrepresent what they are, as in the case of malware etc.). In turn, I'm free to do whatever I like with the bits they send me. If I want to interpret them as instructions for rendering a webpage, as is conventional, I can do so. I can also print out the HTML and wipe my ass with it if I like.
If that webpage has some Javascript that says "Ooh, you highlighted some text, pay me please!" I am free to turn off Javascript and cut and paste that text, or render it in Lynx, or grep the HTML, or whatever the hell else I want.
If they didn't want me to have access to the text they sent me, they shouldn't have sent it to me.
copy, remove html tags, ?, profit
As good Canadians we will just roll over, take it, then apologize for existing.
Since this is trivial to get around....
News for nerds, or news for zealots?
NoScript or some variant should take care of it.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Just use the personal web page archival service, www.permamarks.net.
I use it as a distributed bookmark replacement. It's awesome for this sort of stuff.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
I'll bet this this screws up screen readers.
and surf the web like a man.
A real man, from 1995.
"Print Screen" should be able to circumvent this crap. Oops.. Is that going to be illegal now?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Your iCopyright plugin [for Wordpress] is automatically configured with a default set of business rules that grant users permission to use a limited amount of your content for free, and to license the rights to use your content for a fee. You can modify these services and prices by logging into the iCopyright Conductor console and changing the settings for your publication. From within Conductor you can also use the Discovery infringement detection service, execute syndication agreements, and run reports on licensing activity and revenue.
the horrors!
Obviously, it isn't exactly news that a number of copyright holders have...expansively optimistic... interpretations of what rights exactly they hold. Some of this seems to be pure self-righteous delusion. Some of it seems to be deliberate spin aimed at shoving the discourse(and state of law) in their preferred direction.
In the specific case of talking about 'fair use', while trying to sell licenses, though, I have to wonder if they are incurring any responsibility... If a mechanic or a plumber gave you false advice as to the nature of the repairs you needed, in order to sell them to you, they'd be well into 'sleazy at best, open to legal action for fraud at worst' territory. Is it OK if you are pseudo-providing legal advice? (They would obviously deny being in the position of providing you with legal advice; but a 'here is when you need a license or you just might be unprotected when we sue you' statement sure sounds like legal advice to me...)
Not only did NoScript completely defeat this system, but it actually revealed which company they hired to create it:
http://info.icopyright.com/
Palm trees and 8
Too many bastards act like there is no fair use and no public domain. And the term of copyright is ever extending. This has to stop!
There's nothing in the Copyright Act that says the author can't ask others for compensation when republishing part of their work, fair use or not. So the National Post can automatically offer to sell you a license, but you're free to ignore it if you believe your copying falls under fair use. They can also make it hard for you to copy the text, it's a waste of time but not illegal.
It's all a bit used-car salesmanish, but overall not a bad idea, if someone wanted to republish an article entirely now they can do it much more easily, instead of figuring out who to contact to negotiate a license.
Even easier: turn Javascript off. Or will allowing websites to run arbitrary programs on your computer become a legal requirement too?
Palm trees and 8
I clicked 'Quit asking me', and then it let me copy it anyways.
Sometimes there are simpler solutions than disabling javascript or copying it from the HTML.
For NoScript!
Don't hack the page...Natpost won't get all that money for those duplicated electrons they need to remain carbon neutral. Instead select, then click-drag and drop onto your favorite text editor - this clones the electrons, reducing unnecessary waste and it appears the natpost is perfectly happy for you to do it this way.
Just click "Quit asking me" and ignore it. Or determine the offending script and NoScript it.
Or just avoid any site stupid enough to try this idiocy.
Raenex is a dickhead
So, we wonder why print newspapers are going the way of the Dodo? The dinosaur? People this clueless deserve to fall into the abyss of the unnecessary and unwanted...
IF a Canadian Newspaper charges subscriptions (Globe and Mail) to read their content or requires a license fee to cut and paste, when there is better written, less biased, more accurate reporting available from many other places, at no charge, with no licensing required THEN economics 101 says Joe Blogger will dump the offending Canadian newspaper from his bookmark collection, and move on.
OTTAWA â" Opposition MPs who sit on a key House of Commons committee are poised to ask the government to turn over key financial documents in the run-up to the federal budget.
Copy-paste, no popup, no problem.
To when web sites tried to disable right-clicking to "hide" their source code. I was in middle school and knew that was baloney...
Actually, this reminds me of web sites hosting lyrics, too, that either attempt to disable right-click or insert their website in tiny text between words of lyrics.
Reading the article tells me that this sort of "fee" doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. I've never been to the web site in question, but if I ever needed to and wished to copy some text, nothing prevents me from doing so (heck, I'm running NotScript now, so I'd get no pop-up anyway)...
The National Compost.
Let 'em rot in hell.
This post is just plain wrong. You are in no way free to do "whatever [you] like" with copyright protected works. The fact that this post has been modded 5 Insightful is a testament to the wishful thinking that takes over when IP try ons like this come up. If you want to be free do something to change the law. Wiping your arse with an infringing copy is an extremely low level of freedom to aspire to.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Have gnu, will travel.
This doesn't seem to be popping up for me, not at all on any browser I've tried, nor do I see any references in any script relating to said company on any page that I've looked at. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada?
Om, nomnomnom...
geesh the gall of some people.....
I just tried it on the Taylor Swift article. Running Firefox v20 (beta) with Noscript and it worked without any problem.
The Web developers need to do some work. Yes, dragging to select text activates the popup. But clicking on the page and hitting Ctrl-A to select everything in one fell swoop doesn't activate the popup.
Oops. Did I just describe how to break a Digital Lock? Oh noes... Harper and his gang will be after me....
Mr Geist points out this might be contrary to Canadian Copyright Law's fair use provisions.
The National Post is a conservative rag. And just like those in the US, Canadian conservatives believe legal accountability is only for the little people.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
There's no such thing as "fair use" in Canada. Up there it's called Fair Dealing. If you are going to copy a story from Dr. Geist's page at least the get nomenclature correct, eh, hoser.
I would view source and copy those values whilst running through the wind with my middle finger in the air...
It's the honor system.
I doubt there's any law against asking someone for money in exchange for a license to use copyrighted material. Nor is there any law against using copyrighted material without paying under the fair use exemption. You could pay money to use material even if you think it is covered under fair use, if you feel like it, but you don't need to.
There's no law that says people holding copyrights have to give you the capability to copy-paste the material. I know, cause one time I tried to sue someone because I couldn't copy-paste their print book. If you don't like it, type a copy, or copy-paste it after disabling Javascript, or blocking the ***holes at icopyright.net via adblocker or hosts file.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
On free speech and Canadian politics William Watson,writing in the Ottawa Citizen, [external] argues that Tom Flanagan’s ordeal has been “Orwellian,” except inasmuch as “it wasn’t organized by the state” which rather takes some of the sting out of the term, doesn’t it? We certainly agree that Flanagan didn’t say anything that should instantly torch the career of an academic or a CBC commentator, and that it’s healthier to explain forcefully why he’s wrong than to demand “firing” or “shunning” —but then, if he wasn’t also Tom Flanagan, hard-bitten political strategist, his remarks wouldn’t have caused such a furor in the first place. As for the notion that Flanagan was “surreptitiously videoed” or somehow entrapped, we’re just a bit baffled. The problem is what he said, surely, not why or how we came to learn that he said it.
Offer them a $150 license per item for the privilege of writing their block of text to your PC. That won't be sufficient to guarantee that you'll read it of course --- guaranteed reading will cost them an additional $150 per item.
You should also include in your small print that you levy a mandatory extra charge of $150 per item which you require as compensation for being required to support their business plan without your standard 2-week term of prior notice.
[Citation Needed]
I don't see a problem. They can ask all they want. Bad copyright notices and unjustified license fee demands have been around for as long as copyright.
I mean it does have a pop up, but it doesn't try to stop you from copying (which would be silly as people would just disable javascript.) It pops up and asks if you want to buy a license, but you can click a button that says "stop asking me this" or something and then it just lets you copy it yourself. Go try it.
I do not believe this is a fair use problem. You can still quote the articles by just reading the text and typing it in yourself. Quotations are not meant to be large chunks anyway.
It must have cost them quite a few loonies to change their web site for that. Money down the tubes really, since no-one in their right mind will ever pay for it.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
... then paste into whatever you want.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
This will go over about as well as the :Cue :Cat
I just tried it in Opera and had no problem copying text from a current article.
Much ado about nothing apparently
It looks like my adblock plus in Chrome is blocking this already
AccountKiller
Journalists get their quotes and their stories for free from the people that make them. I.e., police officers and chiefs, Presidents, victims, accused, soldiers, generals, cabinet secretaries, etc.
They reproduce their words in their newspapers without paying them.
How is that not freeloading? Where's the MAFIAA when you need them?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I say, let them go ahead an dig themselves a hole. If they want to knowing choose to limit any exposure that potentially drives traffic to their site, so be it. They won't get traffic. Perhaps they could explore the option of good old fashioned print. That gives them the control they seek in a medium that supports these silly notions.
Most of the stolen content that they should actually be worrying about is automatically parsed by a program, which does not even load javascript? You would be better off trying to detect the programs parsing the site and leaving the real readers alone
Try it with Curl and PHP ;)
I just tried copying with Chrome browser. No problem here...