Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Newspaper Charging $150 License Fee To Publish Excerpts

Posted by samzenpus on from the cut-and-pay dept.

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."

18 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Conrad Black needs money, it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This will definitely work.

  2. Embrace the experimentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Embrace the experimentalism by Alranor · · Score: 5, Funny

      We apologize for the fault in the Dice Holdings content standards. Those responsible have been sacked

  3. What if... by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:What if... by pesho · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or you can add "license.icopyright.net/rights/" to your adblock filter list and never see the stupid overlay ever again.

  4. They're certainly free to do this... by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Unless that counts as 'circumventing a digital lock' according to the Conservative Party's draconian copyright legislation. Then you become a criminal.

    2. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You turned Javascript off, potentially committing a crime

      No, I turned Javascript off for security reasons. There are a number of attack vectors involving Javascript, and it is pretty straightforward to see that running arbitrary software you receive from a website is a potential security problem.

      Newsflash: your website does not have any right to run whatever software it pleases on my computer, and I am not under any obligation to run your software regardless of what you claim it does.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by flayzernax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually he is free to do whatever the fuck he wants short of some arm of the military or police dictating otherwise at the behest of some assholes like you.

      To believe that he is not free is a foolish assertion.

    4. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmm... That is rather interesting. Can you illegally circumvent a digital lock through inaction? By not running this script, or if we remember back to the Sony fiasco, by not running the autoplay root-kit, is that criminal?

      Are you supposed to wrap yourself in the chains that bind you?

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    5. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by tftp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmm... That is rather interesting. Can you illegally circumvent a digital lock through inaction?

      As matter of fact, circumventing of locks, doors, gates, and other access control mechanisms is most commonly done by not going through them. Latin roots of the word mean "go around." Can't be much more obvious.

      For example: see a locked gate? Find a hole in the fence. See a locked safe? Find someone who knows the code. Have an encrypted DVD? Point a camera at the screen.

      In this case, noscript can be seen as a hacking tool because it modifies the programming that the web site sends to you. The characters of the content are to be seen together with the programming to create the presentation as you are expected to perceive it by the content creator.

      You cannot claim inaction because most browsers (and perhaps all that the site is designed for) run JS by default. You did act when you installed NoScript. The fact that you did it ahead of time changes nothing. Perhaps you won't be fined for using Lynx; but if you use FF and then load it with ad-blocking extensions then you acted plenty.

      If you disagree and claim that the ASCII content can and should be treated apart from the instructions on how to present it, then you will also have to claim that the encrypted DVD bits are to be seen as plaintext and the key - and as long as you have the technical ability to separate them you are in the clear. The DMCA seems to have a differing opinion on that.

      As an intermediate step, to muddy the water a bit more, you can imagine an HTML page that consists of the ciphertext of the content and of the JS that locally generates the plaintext. Will extraction of the plaintext be legal under the DMCA, if JS prevents you from right-clicking or selecting? In this case JS is even specially designed to inform you that copying is not free. Any copying you do will be explicitly against the license. And it can be argued that you accepted the license by accessing the site and copying the data. Don't like the license? Read, but you may not copy.

    6. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is already firmly established in USA law that ineffectual DRM measures (such as pdf passwords) that can be trivially bypassed by methods such as using software that does not actively support the measure do not qualify as anticircumvention measures under the DMCA. Accessing a Web page which is "protected" only by JS and so can be accessed by Lynx or Firefox with NoScript does not violate the DMCA. Saying "Please don't copy this" is not DRM.

      > And it can be argued that you accepted the license by
      > accessing the site and copying the data. Don't like the
      > license?

      To bind me to a contract you must show me the contract and condition my receipt of the document on my acceptance of the license.

      > Read, but you may not copy.

      Fair use does not require the copyright owner's permission.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:They're certainly free to do this... by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go back and read the GPL. There's a clever little idea in there:

      It says: "You don't have to agree to this license to use this software. However you got the copy you've got, you're welcome to do anything you want with it which is otherwise permitted to you. However, you're not allowed to redistribute this software, since I've got a copyright on it, unless you agree to these terms."

      A license is a thing that lets you do something beyond the rights that you have by default. What you're claiming is that it's legally enforceable to give someone a book and then putting a note inside the front cover saying "You can't read this book unless you do X". No, you sold me the damn book -- it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it, so long as I don't violate your copyright.

  5. Just disable Javascript by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

    and surf the web like a man.

    A real man, from 1995.

  6. Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...)

  7. Not only that... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. Simple solution by margeman2k3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Insightful my Arse by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can also print out the HTML and wipe my ass with it if I like.

    Wiping your arse with an infringing copy is an extremely low level of freedom to aspire to.

    Well look at that. I end the last sentence of my post with a preposition and I get modded down as a Troll. My bad.

    At least it reaffirms my faith in the quality of the moderation here. Keep it factual, keep it fair, keep it grammatical.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke