Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

NPR Reconsiders Linking Policy 135

Posted by timothy from the of-all-things dept.
jfruhlinger writes: "Slashdot wasn't the only site I saw that commented on NPR's stupid linking policy, but I'm sure it generated a lot of traffic and comments to NPR's site. Now NPR has issued a statement that they are reconsidering that policy. The statement goes into the reasons why the original policy was established -- it looks like it was an overkill response to a legitimate problem. It concludes with the encouraging statement that 'NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NPR Reconsiders Linking Policy More

NPR Reconsiders Linking Policy

Comments Filter:

  • Great, we win... (Score:5, Funny)

    by donnacha ( 161610 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:06PM (#3749183) Homepage

    Now NPR has issued a statement that they are reconsidering that policy.

    ... upon which poor sucker do we unleash the /. effect next?

    • The thing that really got me was this line in their statement:

      "Many of you offered thoughtful insights that have prompted us to reevaluate this policy."

      Thoughtful insights? From the flood of Slashdot readers? Wow!

      jf

      • Translation (Score:5, Funny)

        by paule9984673 ( 547932 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:28PM (#3749235)
        Translation:

        We clicked on the links you provided and were exposed to a horrible gaping anus.

      • "Many of you offered thoughtful insights that have prompted us to reevaluate this policy.

        "Thoughtful insights? From the flood of Slashdot readers? Wow!"


        As a former working reporter/editor, may I translate? This is the same language govermental diplomats use.. It is easy to understand without error as long as one understands the vocabulary.

        Wide-ranging and frank -- Hurling peronal insults.

        Cordial and friendly - Drank whiskey together and reminisced about hookers they shared.

        Useful - useless.

        Difficult - One guy smashed the other in the face.

        Thoughtful insights - Rants.

        It's easy once you get the drift....


        ______

        Don't be judgmental. It is wrong!
      • "Thoughtful insight" is a journalistic euphemism for "flame". :)

    • Re:Great, we win... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by uncoveror ( 570620 )
      NPR, and the rest, should accept that the web is a forum that belongs to the public domain. Attempts to propertize it will cause an extreme backlash. I only wish there would be legislation to reaffirm what has been the case from the moment the internet was open to the public. The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print.
      • Attempts to propertize it will cause an extreme backlash.

        When? The web has been "propertized" for some time now.

      • "The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print."

        You misunderstand. That is not the issue. A link is not a copy and therefor the copyright status of the subject material is irrelevant.
      • I only wish there would be legislation to reaffirm what has been the case from the moment the internet was open to the public. The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print.
        So, you want laws to say there can't be any laws? And all posesions are owned bye the group at large? Right... as long as there is some value in the infomration on the web, people are going to want compinsation for producing it, and there going to want recussions for people who try to steel there work. Go back to your commune and pick some more berrys for the leader.
        • You Rite Dat Marikan Reel Good! Did you mean steal? Or is steel a verb now? Just because I think the web should be a free and open forum doesn't mean I poo poo on the very idea of property. By the way, you also misspelled possessions and compensation. Why don't you go back to school and learn some English. Is recussions what you meant to say? Was it, perhaps, repercussions? The good thing about free and open forums is that even cretins like you are free to have your say. It gives the literate a good laugh.

    • Re:Great, we win... (Score:4, Informative)

      by interiot ( 50685 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:37PM (#3749263) Homepage
      Actually, I saw a far more hubaloo on the blogs [weblogs.com] than I did on Slashdot. And I'd hazard a guess that there were many more links (or readers, if you lean that way) to the original BoingBoing [boingboing.net] post than there were to the Slashdot story.

      • Re:Great, we win... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by donnacha ( 161610 )

        Actually, I saw a far more hubaloo on the blogs than I did on Slashdot. And I'd hazard a guess that there were many more links (or readers, if you lean that way) to the original BoingBoing post than there were to the Slashdot story.
        Yeah, but I'd hazzard a guess that /. probably represent the greatest single block of unique readers and possibly even constituted a straightforward majority of complainants to the NPR. There's also the fact that many of the Blog writers might have picked up on the story here.

        As far as I can make out, Slashdot can direct a tremendous mass of attention, whereas Blogs are better at cumulatively building up a site's Google-rating.

        For fast reactions like this one against NPR's linking policy, Slashdot is probably a more effective instrument, largely because of the time it takes Google-ratings to take effect.

        • Re:Great, we win... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by interiot ( 50685 )
          Google ratings are only a side benefit of blogs. Many actual humans actually read them.

          One of Slashdot's downsides compared to blogs is that it's really pretty slow. Usually by the time one of the editors makes the decision to post a story to the front page, the story is several days old. By this time, many bloggers have spread the story among them, and many more people have read the blogger's entries. This is one of the reasons I often visit blogdex [mit.edu], because I usually read a story on there before the slashdot readers at work do.

          • One of Slashdot's downsides compared to blogs is that it's really pretty slow. Usually by the time one of the editors makes the decision to post a story to the front page, the story is several days old.
            Actually, they can be pretty fast. I've seen one of my submissions posted after just ten minutes. Twelve hours is about the longest delay I've personally experienced between submission and actual posting. At the moment I have a submission pending about Greg Allan's tragic death [postnuke.com], it'll be interesting to see how long that takes although there might be some sort of personal politics I don't know about that stops it getting posted at all. Hopefully, however, they will post it soon enough for people to send their condolences in time for the funeral. Christ, it's a pretty bleak day.
            Google ratings are only a side benefit of blogs. Many actual humans actually read them.
            Yes, but I would argue that a far higher number of people read Slashdot than the the technically-oriented blogs. Having said that, the kind of people who spend enough time online to consistently follow blogs, to have developed the blog habit, are sufficiently ahead of the curve to represent a higher "quality" of reader, one reason why Google rates links that spread via blogs so highly.

            One thing that I wonder about is Slashdot's searchability, how it's rated by Google and other search engines. I've never once been directed to a Slashdot thread as a result of a search which is a pity because there's such excellent information and insight here at times. I wonder if Slashdot have taken steps to improve the searchability/URL indexing of Slashcode-based sites.

            BTW, thanks for pointing out Blogdex [mit.edu], looks very interesting; I'm one of those who haven't yet developed the blog habit.

            • daypop [daypop.com] is another good blog scourer, with searching functionality too.

              There were 25 hours elapsed between when the boingboing post [boingboing.net] was made and when the first slashdot story [slashdot.org] appeared. And since I don't have any overall statistics, I may have to stop arguing this one.

              (although there were a lot of blogs [daypop.com] that picked this up before Slashdot did.)

              • daypop [daypop.com] is another good blog scourer, with searching functionality too.
                Interiot, that is such a useful site, thanks. Used together, Daypop [daypop.com] and the other site you mentioned, Blogdex [mit.edu], are an excellent introduction to the whole phenomenon of blogging.
            • One thing that I wonder about is Slashdot's searchability, how it's rated by Google and other search engines. I've never once been directed to a Slashdot thread as a result of a search which is a pity because there's such excellent information and insight here at times. I wonder if Slashdot have taken steps to improve the searchability/URL indexing of Slashcode-based sites.
              That's just because of Google's ranking algorithms. It ranks sites based on how many other pages link to them. I've seen links to the main /. page everywhere, but not many links to individual stories.

              When mainstream journalists have picked up stories that first appeared on /. or other independent sites they rarely, if ever, attribute where they got the lead. I'm not saying they plagiarize, just that they get story ideas from /. and elsewhere and do their own research into the story.

              If you do a Google search [google.com] with your /. handle, it comes up with some of your older comments. So Google does index /. but they just rank too low to see if you use overly general wording in your search.

              • When mainstream journalists have picked up stories that first appeared on /. or other independent sites they rarely, if ever, attribute where they got the lead. I'm not saying they plagiarize, just that they get story ideas from /. and elsewhere and do their own research into the story.
                I guess /. is a pretty big rock in the memepool.
                If you do a Google search with your /. handle, it comes up with some of your older comments. So Google does index /. but they just rank too low to see if you use overly general wording in your search.
                Fascinating, it never occured to me that my spur-the-moment bullshit here was actually being indexed somewhere!

                What would be interesting, though, would be some sort of feature within Google that stored and presented comments from /. and other forums, taking into consideration how that particular comment was peer-ranked within it's forum. For instance, a highly ranked /. comment on a given subject, particularly the ones deemed "informative", tend to be a good way of finding links to a bunch of relevant resources all in one go. Perhaps Google could create an optional side panel that would throw up such comments, harvested from established forums and the Google Groups archive.

                Anyway, thanks for pointing out how Google does currently index /.

                • What would be interesting, though, would be some sort of feature within Google that stored and presented comments from /. and other forums, taking into consideration how that particular comment was peer-ranked within it's forum. For instance, a highly ranked /. comment on a given subject, particularly the ones deemed "informative", tend to be a good way of finding links to a bunch of relevant resources all in one go. Perhaps Google could create an optional side panel that would throw up such comments, harvested from established forums and the Google Groups archive.
                  That's a pretty tall order, but possible. It might have been a good entry for the Google programming contest [slashdot.org]. Also, one could use Google's API to hack something like this.

                  The difficult part would be writing modules to deal with the plethora of rating systems on different sites. Advogato, kuro5hin, /. & lots of other sites each have their own system.

                  • That's a pretty tall order, but possible. It might have been a good entry for the Google programming contest. Also, one could use Google's API to hack something like this.
                    I can't help but feel that the programming contest was just a way for Google to get some coding done on the cheap; you can be sure that the Google engineers have an excellent sense of what can and should be done. For something like this, an enhancement of results by specifically drawing from the collective IQs of forums, Google should put some serious inhouse investment into action.
                    The difficult part would be writing modules to deal with the plethora of rating systems on different sites. Advogato, kuro5hin, /. & lots of other sites each have their own system.
                    Actually, there's an idea: Google should weigh in behind one of the open source CMS/forum projects, preferably PostNuke, and contribute programmer-hours to help evolve it into a eminently searchable sysytem. I honestly believe that, once they mature, Content Management Systems like PostNuke are going to play a leading role in the future of the 'Net; that's Google's future too, so, they should get onboard in a major way now.
                    • I can't help but feel that the programming contest was just a way for Google to get some coding done on the cheap; you can be sure that the Google engineers have an excellent sense of what can and should be done.
                      Except that outside talent can come up with ideas the people at Google would never have dreamed of.

  • Why don't they just reconfigure their server? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:10PM (#3749192)
    Why do they even need a policy? Their web server can be configured to use the referrer tag to allow whatever deep linking they accept, and reject everything else. Wouldn't it be nicer if they paid their programmers instead of their lawyers?
    • Well if you read their statement it's clear why they don't want to do that: they recognize that the vast majority of linking is not infringement and they want to honor that majority by not disallowing their links.

      It seems to me that they have a legitimate concern: entire sites made up with links to npr, advocacy sites linking to NPR stories without disclaimers explainin that NPR does not advocate a specific position... I don't necessarily support their views but it's a legitimate view and if they want to support it they have to do it the legal way.
      • (With that subject, I should of course link to that you-know-where, but I won't.)

        It is NOT a legitimate concern that some site links to them. There is no reasonable reason to ever prevent any linking. If some other site makes it look like NPR content is their content, then sue them, send a cease and desist letter to their ISP, etc. Why is NPR so special that links to NPR appear to falsely claim that NPR advocates some opinion, and not for anybody else? Why can I link to MSNBC or The Register or the New York Times, but not NPR?

        If someone is so weak willed that a mere link misguides them into thinking that proves advocacy, tough shit.

    • Their web server can be configured to use the referrer tag to allow whatever deep linking they accept, and reject everything else.

      Should they reject hits from anonymizer.com, or from browsers not sending referrers, or from broken browsers which send referrers when the address is typed in, or from links made from randomly generated URLs?

      Why do we need anti-spam laws? Wouldn't it be nicer if we paid our programmers instead of our lawyers?

      • Re:Why don't they just reconfigure their server? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        To implement the sort of policy NPR had in mind, you'd want to allow:

        a. Users with referers from your own domain(s)
        b. Users with blank referers
        c. Users with referers from approved third-parties

        Something like this could probably be done using mod_rewrite, although after a certain number of third-parties, it's going to get big and slow.

        Referers are completely optional, but most of the major browsers support them. Undesired linkers would have links that would be essentially dead to most of their users. Opera, some Mozilla-based browsers and third-party utilities support sending no referer field, or faking a referer from the pages own domain. If this referer checking becomes a common practice, it's just going to stop people and their browsers from sending real referers, and ruin yet another part of the http spec. Remember when the browser id was actually the browser id and not everyone claiming to be Mozilla/*?
    • Referers aren't always sent. What would be smart is to use PHP or something similar to validate a referrer via a token. For 99.99% of all cases, this would allow NPR to put up a disclaimer page about the content.

      The ombudsman seems to confuse linking with endorsement, partly because NPR makes all its streams available. If the streams were inside a PHP wrapper, a user trying to clickthrough to a stream would first see a page that said, "Hey, this is NPR. We don't have anything to do with where you came from. Click Listen to proceed." The Listen button would use a PHP session token to authenticate to the wrapper.

      From within NPR, the site would always just pass these tokens.

      The tokens don't have to be secure; most users wouldn't try to bypass them. Those that did for whatever reason would clearly know they were bypassing them. Solves the whole problem. Uses technology instead of lawyers.
    • NPR could include a brief audio disclaimer at the beginning of each story when posting it to the web. Problem solved.

  • This is far from a win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mouthbeef ( 35097 ) <doctorow@craphound.com> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:10PM (#3749194) Homepage
    Reposted from BB [boingboing.net]:

    NPR claims to be reconsidering its link policy, and in the meantime, it's posted more specious rationalization. Brutally, brutally stupid.

    The policy was originally intended to maintain NPR's commitment to independent, noncommercial journalism. We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio. We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause. This is not acceptable to NPR as an organization dedicated to the highest journalistic ethics, both in fact and appearance.

    However, NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR. We will post revisions soon at www.npr.org.

    Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill out the link permission request form.

    Unpacking that:
    • The policy was originally intended to maintain NPR's commitment to independent, noncommercial journalism.

      This policy does not serve this commitment. The end-product of independent, noncommercial journalism is public discourse, which on the Web takes the form of links. If you're committed to journalism, you must endorse linking.

    • We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio.

      Was this infringement? If so, why didn't you seek redress in the courts? It's my opinion that someone who constructs a directory -- commerical or non-commercial -- of references to locations on the web no more infringes than someone who produces a tourist map to a city that marks the location of major attractions.

    • We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause.

      You are lying. There is no way that one could link to a stream of a fair and impartial newscast (links to streams must be to the whole stream, from beginning to end, remember) such that it can't be distinguished from advocacy or opinion. If there were NPR stories that were indistinguishable from advocacy, this indicates that the NPR stories were not impartial to begin with.

    • This is not acceptable to NPR as an organization dedicated to the highest journalistic ethics, both in fact and appearance.

      No other journalistic organization of note has a parallel policy (NPR's ombudsman's defamatory fabrications [wired.com] about CBC and BBC notwithstanding). The idea that linking must not be permitted because it would compromise the appearance or fact of ethics is a fantasy concocted by NPR's representatives.

    • NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement.

      How grand of you. All linking on the web is not infringement. The recititation of public facts -- this document exists at this location -- is never an infringment. Promulgating this myth is purely wrong, especially from a journalistic organization that prides itself on its ability to seek out and deliver the truth.

    • Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited.

      In the words of Patrick Nielsen Hayden [nielsenhayden.com], "Of course, it isn't 'prohibited.' Or rather, it's 'prohibited' with exactly the same legal force as I have when I say 'False legal claims designed to intimidate the public are hereby prohibited. Signed, Me.' This is the web. If you put a public document onto it, it's linkable. If you don't want to be linked to, use some other means of putting your information online."

    • Re:This is far from a win (Score:4, Insightful)

      by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:17PM (#3749207) Journal
      If there were NPR stories that were indistinguishable from advocacy, this indicates that the NPR stories were not impartial to begin with.

      I guess you've never listed to any "news" on NPR.

    • In part, it still is a win (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      NPR, and the rest, should accept that the web is a forum that belongs to the public domain. Attempts to propertize it will cause an extreme backlash. I only wish there would be legislation to reaffirm what has been the case from the moment the internet was open to the public. The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print.

      Actually, I saw a far more hubaloo on the blogs than I did on Slashdot. And I'd hazard a guess that there were many more links (or readers, if you lean that way) to the original BoingBoing post than there were to the Slashdot story.

      It seems to me that they have a legitimate concern: entire sites made up with links to npr, advocacy sites linking to NPR stories without disclaimers explainin that NPR does not advocate a specific position... I don't necessarily support their views but it's a legitimate view and if they want to support it they have to do it the legal way.

      Linking to a story is the BEST form of fair use. You are not reprinting parts of it, you are letting a reader read the WHOLE ORIGINAL on their site, so that they may read it and contrast it with what you think it means.

      On the other hand, maybe this situation is showing just how flawed and vulnerable this business model really is.
    • All linking on the web is not infringement. The recititation of public facts -- this document exists at this location -- is never an infringment.
      ...whereas a direct copy-and-paste job like you did most certainly can be infringement.
    • Still shows that they are idiots....
    • Well, well. Just Wednesday put up a story on the Jazz Journalists Association 2002 Jazz Awards winners [jazzhouse.org] and linked from each of the winners to the best page I could Google for them. A few of those were on NPR. Those pages don't have any notice or request about not linking to them. So NPR expects, in making this empty "prohibited" claim, that someone like me would have even seen it? We are supposed to search sites we find a page to link to on to be sure that somewhere they haven't claimed links are "prohibited"? Fsck that! We sure won't do them the favor of any links in the future, but I'm not about to do additional work now to remove links that were made in the normal way and without any warning from them that they'd be offended.
      ___
    • We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause.
      You are lying. There is no way that one could link to a stream of a fair and impartial newscast (links to streams must be to the whole stream, from beginning to end, remember)
      You are ignorant. RealMedia servers will accept parameters such as "start=hh:mm:ss:f" (and possibly a matching "length" parameter) in the query string of a request. You can create a ram file that shuffles the news however you want it, and further insert your own clips with sound-alikes. So, my little politician, it behooves you to learn what's possible and what's out there instead of making these idiotic little assumptions to score points on your high school debate team.

      -jhp

    • Yup, all good points. I can't believe that NPR is saying stuff like this:

      However, NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR.

      What the hell do they need to "work on"? Just delete the whole stupid linking policy. If you find someone wrapping your content in a frame, or something that tarnishes your NPR name, or confuses people, send a LawyerLetter.

      I always like to imagine if books did this: "Don't make bibliographical references to page 34. Only page 1. Because someone might read your article, go to the library, and read our book starting on page 34, and get the wrong impression." What nonsense!

      The difference is, of course, you don't get a log entry when someone "links" to your book in an attribution in another book. That's the curse of the internet: all the stuff people were doing before in the offline world (like swapping music) now suddenly can be logged with precision.

      My respect for NPR went down several notches, and this reply knocked it down another notch.

    • NPR's lockdown seems to equate linking with framing. These two are similar, but not the same.

      • Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited.

      By linking to a site, be it shallow or deep, you are making a mere pointer that others can follow to further information. This should always be allowed, it's how the web works.

      If you frame a site, you are possibly mis-representing or commiting a copyright violation. This is where things can be troublesome for organizations like NPR and they need to be vigilant to protect their image and content.

      To sum up: linking good, make web go! Framing gray, still make web go, have to work with it.

      If NPR wants me to have permission to frame their content, I'd be okay with that, but not for a mere link.
    • well, as someone who has spent a fair amount of time dealing with issues of impartiality in journalism, I think they actually make a fair point. The reason that most of us tune into NPR news is that we KNOW that NPR's strings aren't being pulled by phillip morris, and their ilk. The major selling point of NPR is that it is non-commercial, and if that image is tarnished, they would lstand to lose listeners.

      Now, you may ask why that matters if they are non-commercial. Two reasons, the first being that they depend a great deal on donations from individuals, the second being that the people who work for NPR tend to be the altruistic, ethical type. It is damaging to NPR if their impartiality is compromised, yes, but it is far more damaging to a public who can no longer trust one of the few mostly objective news sources left.

      The way I read their reaction in this light is a little like Canada's response to a botched Isreali assassination attempt about 5 years ago. The Israeli agents were using Canadian passports, which were (and still are) regarded as one of the safest passports in the world. To protect its image, the Canadian government was forced to lay down some smack. This way, if anyone accused them of taking sides, etc., they could point to actions taken to punish Israel. Likewise, NPR needs to take action yo protect its reputation by ensuring that their name is not used in a way that would lead to their reputation being tarnished.

      This may seem stupid to all of us, but from the speaking from the standpoint of an altruistic journalist trying to protect one's good name, NPR has a very good point.

  • Linking Issues (Score:2, Insightful)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 )
    I can identify with NPR and web businesses concerning the issue of deep linking. The business model of "free content with revenue generatioin via paid ads" is unable to handle deep linking from other websites. By having deep links bypass a website's splash page and index, the struggling website loses views of the paid ads. Since those paid ads are the only things that keep many websites in existence, I can see how they would take exception to deep linking.

    On the other hand, maybe this situation is showing just how flawed and vulnerable this business model really is.

    What is interesting is how the building block of the internet, IE, hypertext, does not lend itself to commercial advertising in this manner...Methinks someone needs to cook up some profitable web business models, and fast. Paid ads based on page views aren't working.
    • Leaving aside whether there is a legitimate interest in Web businesses preventing deep linking, such an interest wouldn't apply to NPR. NPR is not based on a "business model of 'free content with revenue generatioin via paid ads.'" NPR radio and NPR online do not carry advertising. NPR derives its revenue from private donations.
    • TROLL, TROLL, TROLL, TROLL.

      C'mon. As a slashdotter, surely you're aware that it's possible for a site to *force* people to move through the splash page by, say it with me now, *techno-LOG-IC-AL means*, not by some stupid, nearly unenforcible "no deep linking" policy.

      Use some cookies. Go check out the setup of some random porn site if you don't know how to set it up. Many of them are rigged so that you have to click through all of the thumbnails to view the full size pictures (not that I'd no from personal experience or anything ;-) ).

  • Fair enough... (Score:2, Informative)

    by effer ( 155937 )
    Thgey are well intentioned. Read their explanation
    Request Permission to Link to NPR.org

    "To those of you who wrote to us about our linking permission policy, thanks for your many comments. Many of you offered thoughtful insights that have prompted us to reevaluate this policy.

    The policy was originally intended to maintain NPR's commitment to independent, noncommercial journalism. We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio. We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause. This is not acceptable to NPR as an organization dedicated to the highest journalistic ethics, both in fact and appearance.

    However, NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR. We will post revisions soon at www.npr.org.

    Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. "

    Should be an int4eresting discussion here!
    I emailed a webmaster in '95 to ask permission to link to their site. They were astonished that someone would consider that. Let's hope it stays this way, though I fear it will not.
    • Thgey are well intentioned. Read their explanation

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      • The road to hell is paved with crappy keyboards and mutton-fingered folks like me! Thanks for the embarassment. I'll crawl back under my rock.
        Ooooh there seems to be some woodwork to crawl into over there! (kidding of course!)

  • They still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrvNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:16PM (#3749205) Homepage
    'NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement."

    Wrong. A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple.

    I'm glad they're re-considering the policy, but until they do away with it altogether, and realize that the only viable linking policy is to have no linking policy, we shouldn't let up the pressure.

    • If they're linking to, say, audio content, and making it seem like it's their own content, then they're on shaky legal grounds, though.

      • Here's what I don't get though - how can linking possibly be "infringement" of anything? It's obvious to anyone who checks where the link leads to who is really providing the content and if you don't recognize the site there are easy channels to follow to find out.

        The whole point of the Web, at least orginally, was transparency between individual pages and files, not boxing people into the specific index and user interface provided by content owners.

        IMHO if you don't allow deep linking the Web ceases to exist as a useful tool and becomes just something akin to interactive television, a tool for passive consumers.

        • "The whole point of the Web, at least orginally, was transparency between individual pages and files, not boxing people into the specific index and user interface provided by content owners.

          IMHO if you don't allow deep linking the Web ceases to exist as a useful tool and becomes just something akin to interactive television, a tool"

          Simple solution... If NPR wants to prevent linking, which EVERY .GOV seems to allow (and NPR is tax exempt and taxpayer funded), TAKE IT DOWN.

          Hey, firing the webmaster and cancelling the hosting contract will cost the taxpayers a little less, won't it?

          If you want MY MONEY as a taxpayer, to fund your satellite automated radio stations, then you at least should offer me as much FAIR USE of your website as the Constitution allows...
        • Deep linking's fine. What NPR seems concerned about is people linking to audio content, not to news articles. Audio content will in, for example, IE, play automatically without actually taking you to the site, and usually it won't show the URL either. Most people would assume that audio content is from the site they're on, when it is in fact from NPR.
    • "You are foolish, and let me tell you why... [slashdot.org]"

      The full bitch-counter-bitch process explains why you are wrong and npr is right.

  • What's the fuss all about ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @12:16PM (#3749206) Homepage
    If they don't to be linked, well, don't link them.
    Don't link them at all.
    Throw them out of any search engine/web guides/etc.
    After some months they'll see the effects of their linking policy.
    And change it...or sell their servers.
    • "If they don't to be linked, well, don't link them.
      Don't link them at all.
      Throw them out of any search engine/web guides/etc.
      After some months they'll see the effects of their linking policy.
      And change it...or sell their servers."

      I agree. As an enemy of NPR (and any kind of government funded broadcasting) I never link a NPR story except as a critique on my own website (www.wvradio.net). Which is and SHOULD be protected speech. Especially when you consider that I will be sent to PRISON if I were to withold the taxes that I pay that go to them.

      I've always thought that linking a story, particularly in critique is a FAVOR to the author... For one thing, I'm not just quoting in ways that support MY argument, I'm giving the reader the chance to read the original and see if he comes to the same conclusion I did...
  • I'd say that NPR is committing patent infringement every time they use a hyperlink! [slashdot.org]

    This all sounds pretty stupid to me, agreed... but who listens to NPR anyway?

    It just reminds me of Alec Baldwin's "Schweaty Balls" skit on SNL. I never cease to crack up when I see that. "...no one can resist my Schweaty balls."

    • Re:Actually (Score:3, Informative)

      by mikethegeek ( 257172 )
      "'d say that NPR is committing patent infringement every time they use a hyperlink! [slashdot.org]

      This all sounds pretty stupid to me, agreed... but who listens to NPR anyway?"

      Outside the very large markets, not many. I've seen the raw Arbitron numbers for my area, and NPR, despite being on THREEE 50,000 watt radio stations gets fewer listeners than one of the religious AM daytimers...

      If you hate Clear Channel, for it's practice of using out of market voicetracking and satellite automation, you have to hate NPR, the SINGLE LARGEST satellite automation network in radio.
  • Fear of netizens harranguing their Congresscritters with complaints of "If they want to take the RIAA stance on IP they should get out of my wallet" is the cause of this.

    That is the closest thing to the fear of God they have over there.

    DE FUND NPR! If the listeners want it, they will pay for it. If there aren't enough listners who will, it should die, period. I don't have Clear Channel, another company that spreads automated, NON LOCAL radio stations all over the landscape taking money directly from my meger paycheck each week. NPR does.

    Our local NPR station, WOUL, Ironton is a 50,000 watt, 100% simulcast of another NPR station 50 miles away. How is THAT serving the community?

    As bad as our local Clear Channel corporate radio is, at least they aren't staffing whole 50,000 watt stations with computers and satellite receivers to repeat a station from outside the market...

    De fund the bastards, and maybe someone LOCAL will take over that station and actually SERVE Ironton, Ohio with it. What a concept!
    • You're right about the congress-fear.

      I would disagree with de-funding NPR though.

      Were it not for NPR and PBS I probably wouldn't be in touch with news at all. This being mainly due to my severe aversion to 5 minutes of advertising 4 times an hour (or more)

      I actually expect NPR and PBS might survive on their own merits (with some trimming of the fat of course) were they to lost funding from congress. The quality and variety of programs have been increasing and improving over the years quite nicely.

      I won't even point to the obvious bias you hold as shown by your homepage link. (need to remove home and put in www btw to update it =)

      There's a place for commercial radio, but there's a place for publicly funded radio as well. I'd be sad if that were taken away.
      • NPR isn't particularily tax-supported. It receives minimal competitive grant funding ($0.000001058/US taxpayer). See this discussion board [64.247.33.2].
        • "NPR isn't particularily tax-supported. It receives minimal competitive grant funding ($0.000001058/US taxpayer). See this discussion board"

          It receives tax funds. It receives TAX EXEMPTION, which means that any money taken from underwriters, beggathons, etc is ALSO tax free.

          Which is also tax funding. Every dollar they don't pay in income taxes is a dollar paid by someone else FOR them.
      • "I won't even point to the obvious bias you hold as shown by your homepage link. (need to remove home and put in www btw to update it =)"

        My homepage has been down for some time, as I've had to make room for the increasing traffic of the WCMIFM.COM discussion board. I will change that, I forgot to do that here.

        "There's a place for commercial radio, but there's a place for publicly funded radio as well. I'd be sad if that were taken away."

        WRONG!!!! There is NO PLACE IN A FREE SOCIETY FOR GOVERNMENT PRODUCED BROADCATING. All such content is ALWAYS pro government. Objectively look at NPR/PBS, and ask this question:

        "Is their point of view consistently in favor of things that increase government funding, power, and influence"

        And it is. Why? Self interest. Government employees are pro government expansion just as private employees are pro expansion of their company. Self interest.

        I see no need for government broadcasting when there are so many private companies willing to do it at no cost to the taxpayer and even PAY taxes for the priviledge. Not that I am at ALL in favor of our current deregulated scheme that has produced such radio abortions as Clear Channel...
        • WRONG!!!! There is NO PLACE IN A FREE SOCIETY FOR GOVERNMENT PRODUCED BROADCATING. All such content is ALWAYS pro government. Objectively look at NPR/PBS, and ask this question:

          Actually, in the UK, the BBC is usually less pro-government than the independant TV / radio channels.

          I think that has to do with the fact that the BBC is guaranteed fundage, while the independant channels need to keep government sweet or they lose their license...

        • you do realize that NPR is not produced by the government? npr is a non profit group that receives some government funds, but is primarily funded by listener donations and grants.

          and if you've ever listened to npr (it is apparent that you haven't) you would know that they can be hardly characterized as "pro government." NPR is a refreshing change from the ClearChannel top 40 crap. As always, it is up to the listener to determine what the reporters bias is (and there is ALWAYS a bias). NPR just happens to provide more information to be sifted than your average ClearSuck station. Good stuff, if you are intelligent enough to extract information.

          by the way, as soon as you started bragging about your "130 IQ", you lost. IQ tests are meaningless if you know anything about "intelligence testing".
          • "...if you've ever listened to npr (it is apparent that you haven't) you would know that they can be hardly characterized as "pro government.""

            I listen to NPR a great deal and I would definitely characterize them as "pro-government". Don't confound "pro-government" with "pro-current administration".
        • NPR isn't government produced. The US government has zero influence or input into programming decisions.

          It isn't even really governement funded. Public radio stations, which include far more than NPR, recieve about 15% of their revenue from the federal govennment. By far, the largest percentage of funding for public radio comes from individual listeners, like me.

          NPR isn't a govenment run broadcasting network. And comparing them to Clear Channel is just plain nonsense. NPR stations are a loosely affiliated group of stations that purchase content from NPR. NPR doesn't directly own any radio stations. If local public radio stations aren't getting any listeners, then they won't get donations and they'll go off the air.

          And the local stations choose exactly which programs they want to put on. One local station here, WSHU, plays their own classical music programming during the day and then plays the NPR news shows during morning and afternoon drives. They also play the news program "Marketplace" from NPR's competitor, PRI. Boy, that sounds a lot like Clear Channel, doesn't it?

          It is obvious to me that you know less than nothing about public radio or NPR. Yes, this linking this is dumb idea and yes NPR has become too corporate of late. But, public radio provides an important alternative to commercial controlled news media.

          Maybe you'd like to try educating yourself before posting on this topic again

  • During my time browsing, i have noticed that many sites out there have a "no deep linking" policy, including hobby sites and private sites. TBH i agree with them, as most deep linking does not give the owning site credit for what is shown, especially if the link is to something that should be in frames. If you want to link to something, provide a shallow link and tell the user where it is, then they can see for themselves the site that actually owns the article otr whatever.
    • "During my time browsing, i have noticed that many sites out there have a "no deep linking" policy, including hobby sites and private sites. TBH i agree with them, as most deep linking does not give the owning site credit for what is shown, especially if the link is to something that should be in frames. If you want to link to something, provide a shallow link and tell the user where it is, then they can see for themselves the site that actually owns the article otr whatever."

      My website, www.wcmifm.com, which is the largest discussion site for radio in my region has no such policy. Link all you want. We discuss things there (such as Clear Channel's destruction of local radio) that I WANT disseminated. Why would I want to put restrictions on redistributing what I WANT to be spread?

      NPR has a corporate mentality. But they are publically funded and tax exempt. They can be corporate all they want about their IP of they remove the latter.

  • Great, but what is all the fuzz about? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    NPR claims to be reconsidering its link policy, and in the meantime, it's posted more specious rationalization. Brutally, brutally stupid.

    A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple.

    If they're linking to, say, audio content, and making it seem like it's their own content, then they're on shaky legal grounds, though.

    On the other hand, maybe this situation is showing just how flawed and vulnerable this business model really is.

    What is interesting is how the building block of the internet, IE, hypertext, does not lend itself to commercial advertising in this manner...Methinks someone needs to cook up some profitable web business models, and fast. Paid ads based on page views aren't working.

    However, NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement. We are working on a solution that we believe will better match the expectations of the Web community with the interests of NPR.

    I'd say that NPR is committing patent infringement every time they use a hyperlink!
    • "NPR claims to be reconsidering its link policy, and in the meantime, it's posted more specious rationalization. Brutally, brutally stupid.

      A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple."

      I agree. If they don't want people READING IT, which is what a link allows someone to do, why post it?

      I mean, what IS the Internet but a large collection of hyperlinks to content?

      I say, shut down NPR's website limit what they say to their increasingly irrelevant, satellite automated radio stations.

      Linking to a story is the BEST form of fair use. You are not reprinting parts of it, you are letting a reader read the WHOLE ORIGINAL on their site, so that they may read it and contrast it with what you think it means.

      Your point is the whole argument... If they don't want it linked, DONT PUT IT ON THE NET.

    • Re:Great, but what is all the fuzz about? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      NPR, and the rest, should accept that the web is a forum that belongs to the public domain. Attempts to propertize it will cause an extreme backlash. I only wish there would be legislation to reaffirm what has been the case from the moment the internet was open to the public. The web belongs to us all. If you want to protect your "Intellectual Property" Publish it the old-fashioned way, in print.

      Actually, I saw a far more hubaloo on the blogs than I did on Slashdot. And I'd hazard a guess that there were many more links (or readers, if you lean that way) to the original BoingBoing post than there were to the Slashdot story.

      It seems to me that they have a legitimate concern: entire sites made up with links to npr, advocacy sites linking to NPR stories without disclaimers explainin that NPR does not advocate a specific position... I don't necessarily support their views but it's a legitimate view and if they want to support it they have to do it the legal way.

  • More than five years ago, the German zine 'Radikal [xs4all.nl]' published instructions on preventing nuclear-waste transport by rail, which have since been placed onto the internet. Deutsche Bahn, the German rail operator has responded with lawsuits against the original host [xs4all.nl], search engines [politechbot.com], and Indymedia-NL [xs4all.nl]. Indymedia-NL had links to mirrors [xs4all.nl] of the zine, indirectly linking to the instructions, which were published as a comment on its open-publishing newswire.

    On June 20, a Dutch judge ordered Indymedia-NL to remove the links, requiring "Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal article."

    Indymedia-NL has responded with a press release [indymedia.nl], stating that they consider "the ruling a dramatic limitation of the possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech."

    (c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere, for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author.

  • NPR gets hit with a brick named reality, and they'll reconsider their policy, what a laugher.
    If you don't want your stuff being linked to DO NOT PUT IT ON THE NET, on a public web server.
    • "NPR gets hit with a brick named reality, and they'll reconsider their policy, what a laugher.
      If you don't want your stuff being linked to DO NOT PUT IT ON THE NET, on a public web server.
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?"

      This is about as silly as having a policy that their listeners can't tell anyone about what they heard on their huge, tax exempt, corporate satellite automated radio network, right?

  • Where's the beef? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @01:03PM (#3749322) Homepage Journal
    From their page:
    We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio. We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause.

    Can someone point out to me some examples of these violations? I'd like to see for myself what these "companies and individuals" are doing, that caused NPR to implement this policy! I'd also like to see how stupid one has to be, to confuse Random Joe's site with NPR's site. And finally, if these said sites are copying the 'look and feel' of NPR's site, there are other time-tested remedies available.

    From my experience, these may not be actual offenses, but 'theoretical possibilities' that NPR's lawyers may have raised. It is common for the lawyers to say "Geez.. yaknow, what if XYZ happens? We better protect ourselves just in case!".

  • It has been said elsewhere in this forum, probably much more eloquently than I could put it. But it's true: don't put your stuff on a public HTTP server if you don't want it linked to. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY!!!

    This kind of stuff makes me angrier still, because people who want to prevent deep-linking could easily do it in a more acceptable way. Instead of suing & complaining, you could design your website to prevent it! Just use a handful of PHP scripts, which check (via cookies, or the REFERRER value, or a generated seed value, or a combination of simple methods) to make sure you have come from a valid page!

    If people want to prevent deep-linking, well, it's their own funeral! But they should take responsibility for doing it themselves.
  • The creators of the NPR website, that is, those who wrote or WYSIWYGed the HTML and so forth, are probably well aware of the fact that deep linking simply can't be prohibited in a legally binding fashion. The people who decided on the linking policy may not be so well informed. Perhaps these people are outside the scope of their careers at a primarily radio, not internet, organization, or perhaps their lawyers simply aren't up to date with the legal decisions that have established deep linking as legitimate. I can certainly understand their desire to not be seen as promoting certain groups, and of course having leeches create website that are nothing but deep links to your content is a problem many website owners run into. It's understandable that they would want to solve these problems, even if their method is ignorant of their legal rights (or lack thereof) in the matter. We'll have to see if they change their policy, but I think that most of the antagonism towards NPR, all of it for a policy that was made out of naivete, not malice, is uncalled for. Of course, if they don't change their policy, perhaps some antagonism would be in order.
  • to prevent deep linking, its their fault for not implementing them....

  • Give them what they want! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eyeball ( 17206 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @01:29PM (#3749416) Journal
    I say we give them what they want -- if users in the Blog/Slashdot/etc communities requested permission from NPR to put a few links on their personal sites, they would be overwhelmed with thousands and thousands of requests. Either they would have to drop requests, or automate permission approvals.

    I'm not being facetious, either. One of the things that makes the web what it is today (besides all the porn) is the ease in which you should be able to link not just to sites, but to portions of content within that site.

    That said, framing I'm opposed to (barring fair-use reasons). Look at an analogy: linking is like writing a newspaper article, and making a reference to a magazine article (i.e.: "for more information, see Time magazine June 12, p. 34"). On the other hand, framing would be like photocopying that Time magazine article and pasting it into the middle of your own without permission.

    One last thought: I wonder if NPR asks for permission when they link to other sites?

  • If you are interested in what folks making online-news site work have to say about NPR's deep linking, you can visit the ONLINE-NEWS list archives [poynter.org] and have a look.


    Hope that link isn't too deep ;->

  • i mentioned that often companies need strong legal rulings that go unenforced unless of some specific rare occurence, just so they have their legal butts covered here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=34457&cid=37 31 827

  • They should not use HTTP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mangu ( 126918 ) on Saturday June 22, 2002 @01:51PM (#3749488)
    HTTP stands for "hyper text transfer protocol". "Hyper text" is, by definition, text with links. Last time I looked, their site was accessible by HTTP. To enforce their policy they should change that.
  • They still say

    "Linking to or framing of any material on this
    site without the prior written consent of NPR is
    prohibited."

    which is still wrong. A link is a reference, not a copy, and therefor cannot infringe a copyright and therefor cannot be prohibited by a copyright owner.
  • NPR has a valid beef, but they are trying to apply the wrong law. The unauthorized copying of information is not what distinguishes the abusive linking cases to which NPR alludes from the benign ones. What distinguishes them is that the offending websites are framing the information in such a way as to make it appear that they are the originators of it. In other words, they are claiming authorship, committing a sort of plagiarism without actually copying anything. It is as though I were to start propagating, in an effect manner, the idea that I had directed the movie Minority Report, and figured out an angle to make money off of the ruse. As far as I know, the copyright law does not address this. It also seems close to the kind of act that trademark law guards against, but in a reverse sort of way. Trademark and servicemark law tries to prevent the confusion of the public as to who is the purveyor of merchandise or services. The typical violation of trademark, however, involves the offendor applying someone's trademark to his own product. But in these cases, the offendor is in effect applying his own trademark to someone else's product. It does appear to me that this could dilute the trademark. But do the current US trademark laws actually reach this kind of case?Perhaps someone with detailed knowledge of the relevant laws could enlighten us on that question.
  • We have encountered instances where companies and individuals constructed entire commercial Web "radio" sites based on links to NPR and similar audio.

    And where is the problem with that?

    We have also encountered Web sites of issue advocacy groups that have positioned the audio link to an NPR story such that one cannot tell that NPR is not supporting their cause.

    Does NPR support any causes? If not, this shouldn't be a problem, since neither the content itself nor its use could then be misinterpreted as "supporting someone's cause". If NPR does support some causes, maybe they shouldn't, given their funding and mandate.

  • "What also floats in water?" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ellen Ripley ( 221395 ) <ellen@britomartis.net> on Saturday June 22, 2002 @03:34PM (#3749831) Journal
    Okay, so we don't link to the NPR page, we just *type* the link. Then our new keeping-up-with-the-fascists browsers automagically 'linkify' it for us. (Opera has no trouble heating up URIs sent to me by email, for instance.)

    NPR is showing an "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood and therefore a witch" degree of technical qualifications on this issue. (They must have hired Dvorak.) To prevent linking, they would have to prevent us from even *mentioning* the URI. Maybe we should make sure no one mentions any URIs at all, anywhere, ever.

    Hmmm, maybe it's not a mistake. NPR is Democratic/liberal, right? As opposed to Republican/conservative? I know one group wants my money and one wants to tell me what I can say, but I can never remember which is which.

    Ellen
  • I would like to know is why they didn't just used the crawler mechanisms existing to handle where can and can't crawlers go peek...

    ...And issue the normal link provisions as seen everywhere...

    Cheers...
  • If they want to act like a commercial organization, they can quit suckling at the teat of the taxpayer and begging patrons for money. Until then, they are a public asset and damn well should start acting like one.
  • Future: Good policy implemented poorly!

    I responded in the last story that NPR surely was afraid that it's large audio file would be unfairly used by other sites. That is a legitamate fear.

    I agreed, however, that I disagreed with such a blanket policy and that if it is backed up legally, it could cause massively bad things.

    But I'd like to now say. Thanks Slashdot et all! We've forced NPR will to "do the right thing" which is tell its servers to block ALL "deep links" instead having a rarely-enforced policy to block the abusers! ;-)

  • Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited.

    Yeah, right. And I prohibit anyone from using the letter "E".

    You can't do it or else... err... or else something! It's prohibited! So there!

    -

  • But they link! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by utahjazz ( 177190 )
    From their position, you'd think that all surfing stops at NPR. But, they have links themselves. Do they get permission from every site they link to? Nope:

    It is important to note that npr.org contains links to other sites that may not follow the same privacy policies as npr.org.

    I wonder if they actually check the privacy policy of every site they link to, and that they link to, and that they link to....
  • This might be a naive viewpoint, but I don't think NPR can own anything any more than NASA owns space pictures. I like their programming but they tend to be quite self-righteous, and I think what we're seeing is that same mentality that whatever they say is so. Just ignore it.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close