Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CBC Threatens Podcast App Makers, Argues that RSS Readers Violate Copyright (boingboing.net)

Posted by msmash on from the copyright-conundrum dept.

Cory Doctorow, writing for BoingBoing (condensed):The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) publishes several excellent podcasts, and like every podcast in the world, these podcasts are available via any podcast app in the same way that all web pages can be fetched with all web browsers -- this being the entire point of podcasts. In a move of breathtaking, lawless ignorance, the CBC has begun to send legal threats to podcast app-makers, arguing that making an app that pulls down public RSS feeds is a "commercial use" and a violation of the public broadcaster's copyrights. This is a revival of an old, dark era in the web's history, when linking policies prevailed, through which publishes argued that they had the right to control who could make a link to their sites -- that is, who could state the public, true fact that "a page exists at this address." But the CBC is going one worse here: their argument is that making a tool that allows someone to load a public URL without permission is violating copyright law -- it's the same thing as saying, "Because Google is a for-profit corporation, any time a Chrome user loads a CBC page in the Chrome browser without the CBC's permission, Google is violating CBC's copyright."We hope it was all an accidental mistake from the CBC, because it seems like a very stupid thing to do otherwise.

25 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Fine by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Block all CBC podcasts. When someone enters, have a dialog box pop up explaining the reason CBC podcasts can't be accessed. See how they like it when their numbers tank. This is the only way some people will learn...

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  2. "We hope it was all an accidental mistake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something something malice something something something stupidity

  3. Punish people that read your content? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CBC publishes an RSS feed, then complains when someone uses it?

    Just remove the feed.

    Oh, what, now nobody is reading your site? Too bad.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Punish people that read your content? by r1348 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When Ayn Rand gets cancer, she uses public health care.

    2. Re:Punish people that read your content? by guruevi · · Score: 2

      No they are complaining that developers are including RSS feeds in commercial apps in clear violation of their ToU. If you profit by including their work, you have to license it for commercial use: costs for commercial content start at about 10k/year but could easily surpass several 100k if you want stuff like ESPN or other high profile content.

      Just because something is public doesn't mean it doesn't have copyright or associated licenses. The question is obviously whether a data feed added by the user is "commercial use" but passing the content off as your own, implying endorsement or a particular license by including it in your app is typically considered commercial use.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Punish people that read your content? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      When Ayn Rand gets cancer, she uses public health care.

      Not these days. You're better off going to the US and getting private health care. When my grandmother was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, the doctors and nurses were amazed she was in for treatment so fast. See normally that takes upwards of 3-7 months. Her belief, and many of the doctors is that since she was once a head nurse, someone in the system "bumped her along." Especially since the diagnosis and treatment began just under 14 days.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Punish people that read your content? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You're better off being rich enough to afford high quality private health care.

      FTFY.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Stupid by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 2

    Seriously? Have they ever thought of not publishing the RSS feed then? They have to go out of their way to make one. It's not something a magical fairy does that they can't stop.

    1. Re:Stupid by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      This is what I was thinking.

      Other possibilities:

      1. Make some ACL's in the 'ol firewall which only grant access to authorized IP's
      2. Use some kind of authentication scheme to grant access
      3. Create a custom API for getting podcasts out there
      4. Lock down access to everything and create a custom app yourself or just grant access only through a web interface
      5. Fuck off

      The control is entirely in their hands.... what are they complaining about?

      They are, almost certainly, spending more in lawyer fees than most of their other available options.

      Boggles the mind that a company would rather play a game of legal whack-a-mole than actually pursue a solution to the root issue (which is "unauthorized" access to their content).

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  5. Then why did they publish the content? by TWX · · Score: 2

    If the CBC doesn't want people to retrieve the content with readily available tools using protocols designed by independent or semi-independent standards-bodies for the express purpose of fostering open communication, then why are they publishing their content using protocols designed for this express purpose?

    If they want to limit access to entirely within their control they are perfectly free to write an end-user application that retrieves encrypted content and displays it solely within their application. Indeed, before HTTP and Gopher this was a very common way to retrieve content. EBSCO and other Library Retrieval software was quite popular.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  6. Depends on the app by phorm · · Score: 2

    I don't see an example of the apps in question, but the only case where CBC's argument might be valid is if it's not actually an RSS app, but something that has pulled the feeds from RSS and is specifically distributing them for pay (e.g. a compilation on disk or some audio archive). Alternately, I suppose if they were selling access to CBC's feed when it should be free, it would be somewhat like hijacking a FOSS project.

    The article is a bit light on details of the app in question and/or what it actually does. Certainly it shouldn't apply to a generic RSS browser.

  7. What a relief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    On this day when people look to the United States as filling the category "News of the Dumb", our friendly neighbors to the north sail in to our rescue.

    1. Re:What a relief by c-A-d · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, and You're welcome. We're just trying to help.

      Also, #defundthecbc.

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
  8. CBC Ombudsman by Luthair · · Score: 2

    Seems like I'll be writing to the CBC Ombudsman after work as well as the supervising minister...

    1. Re:CBC Ombudsman by Imazalil · · Score: 2

      Maybe wait to hear the reasons why CBC sent the letter. Maybe the app is injecting ads into the podcast playback or something shady. We literally have no idea, just one guy saying one developer got a letter.

    2. Re:CBC Ombudsman by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you follow the link trail to the original reddit post this is indeed the case. On twitter they've commented:

      We’re proud to offer CBC podcasts free on most 3rd-party apps/services. But it's not OK to sell ads on our content w/o permission.

  9. It's one reddit post people! by Imazalil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know you've got your pitchforks our already, but this is all based on one reddit posting.

    Not saying it's wrong, not happening or anything, but jesus, at least wait until two app makers have been impacted. We don't even know which app this is all about.

  10. DUH! by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If CBC doesn't want just ANYONE downloading their podcasts, they already have an internet standard mechanism for restricting that. It's called "Authentication". CBC, the onus is on *YOU*.

    1. Re: DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this might be related to apps that display advertising while using CBCs content.

  11. The CBC is being destroyed from within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The previous prime minister Stephen Harper appointed the new board for the CBC, and now that the conservatives are out of power their mandate has become destruction instead of control.

    An example:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-donald-trump-groping-allegations-1.3834612

    Jan Wong has violated section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada by publishing this. (wilful promotion of hate against an identifiable group) Pre-Harper, the CBC would never have published such garbage.

    The CBC has become very Fox Newsish. Radio survives mostly unscathed but the web and tv properties have been on a steady decline.

  12. Re:not everybody : google by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

    You might want to look up "stupid" in the dictionary.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  13. So then web browsers are illegal by mbeckman · · Score: 2

    The CBC argues in essence that web browsers are illegal, since anyone bookmark any link in their browser. It's just Canada though. The world won't notice their absence from the web :)

  14. Is somebody punking the CBC? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm tentatively calling BS on this. FTA, some quotes from the warning that the CBC supposedly issued:

    ... you have agreed to our our Terms of Use located at ...
    ... I would ask to cease immediately the use of our unlicensed podcasts ...
    ... If you interested in CBC content and podcast, we can discuss a license fee model ...
    ... I would be happy to have a call to discuss further our content and services ...

    This is a legal matter, and I very much doubt that the Ceeb would send out such a warning without first having its wording vetted by legal staff. It seems that this little missive wasn't even vetted by anyone whose first language is English. Somebody, (perhaps an insider), may be about to lose his or her job over this.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  15. Re:Depends who is using it by CCarrot · · Score: 2

    The CBC wants to make sure someone isn't reselling their freely available content (either through purchasing an app or through in-app ad revenue) without a license.

    It's CBC content, they can set of terms for using it... without knowing what the app developer was trying to do, it's hard for me to fault CBC.

    If I put a poster up on the community bulletin board, do I also get to say who gets to read it and under what conditions? It may be my content, but even if someone sticks tacky little ads all around my beautiful, pristine, artistic poster so as to monetize the shit out of it, I'm pretty sure I don't have any recourse other than taking it down. Then nobody gets the benefit of worshiping my sublime poster-making skills...and therein lies the real tragedy.

    Hey CBC: suck it up, buttercup.

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  16. Re:Depends who is using it by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Just because something is freely available for downloading, doesn't make it legal to use for any reason you want.

    I would get in trouble if I made and distributed my own proprietary OS based on the Linux Kernel and didn't abide by the terms in the GPLv2 license.