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

 



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

Online Publisher Blocks LinuxToday Referrals 346

MadChicken writes "This weekend, LinuxToday found that their link to an article was blocked by CMP Media LLC (publishers of Information Week). The editorial with full details is here. Could this have impact on other online news sites?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Publisher Blocks LinuxToday Referrals

Comments Filter:
  • Why bother (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:01PM (#8628971)
    What does denying links achieve? The web is great because it is just that. Start blocking links and it will start to fall apart.
    • Re:Why bother (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @09:37PM (#8630353)
      What does denying links achieve? The web is great because it is just that. Start blocking links and it will start to fall apart.

      No, it won't. Start blocking links and people will stop coming to your site. Instead they'll go to a similar competing site. There are extemely few sites that are so blindingly original that similar information can't be found elsewhere. This is especially true of corporate-driven websites.
  • by ttldkns ( 737309 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:05PM (#8628990) Homepage
    No more slashdot effect once evryone realises you can block us?

    • by gunix ( 547717 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:12PM (#8629026)
      Can I tell my brower not to tell that I'm following a link when I enter a site?
      Wouldn't that solve the problem?
      • by Simon (S2) ( 600188 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:14PM (#8629036) Homepage
        Can I tell my brower not to tell that I'm following a link when I enter a site?

        yes. that would solve the problem.

        in mozilla you can set the network.http.sendRefererHeader value to 0.

        or just open the link in a new tab.
        • .. you can block the referrer header with a suitable Squid configuration. What's more recent versions of Squid allow you to configure this is a fine-grained manner: blocking the referrer header by default by allowing it for specific sites.
        • by Feelvoid ( 99543 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:26PM (#8629358) Journal
          In Opera, You can toggle the sending of the Referrer Header at any time.

          Use the quick menu: Just hit F12, then 'f'. (on v6.03 at least)

          I can see lots of uses for this. You can use this to hide where you're coming from, such as clicking on info links from BitTorrent repositories of questionable nature. Or when trying to get through to sites who have blocked access via Referrer from Slashdot.

          From the online docs [opera.com]:

          "
          Disabling referrer logging

          Do you want Opera to send information referring to the page from where the document or picture was requested?

          If you enable this option in File > Preferences > Privacy, Web servers can store information about the site that you last visited before you jumped to the current one. This allows webmasters to analyze how people find their way to his website.

          Disable this option if..."
          [Remainder of text deleted to fit within fair-use guidelines. Ahem.]

          It would wreak havoc on the spirit of the internet to have user-definable Referrer fields, though...

          -j.
          • "Or when trying to get through to sites who have blocked access via Referrer from Slashdot."

            Until Slashdot starts doing the right thing when linking sites, this is a very bad idea. Why would a site block referrer from slashdot if not to avoid the DDOS attack? Yes, I'm sure there are other reasons, but I block slashdot referals because I don't want to have my site slashdotted, and all the problems that go along with it.

            :|
        • by bfg9000 ( 726447 )
          When I try the new tab thing, the new tab still knows the referrer.

          Try it with my homepage URL link or something, and when you get to the WhatReallyHappened page, right click on the page and view the "page info". The Referring URL is slashdot.org/blahblahblah/etc.

          So I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the new tab idea wouldn't work... You can always cut and paste the address into Google, but that's a PITA.
          • by Myen ( 734499 )
            You actually need to manually drag the link to the tab bar, instead of just opening the link in a tab.

            I think what's happending is that, by using the drag, you confuse the browser enough that it can't tell where the link was (because allt he receiving end sees is the URL).
      • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:42PM (#8629164) Journal
        Other people posted how to set your browser to do this consistently, but if you don't want to do that, just type the URL that's getting blocked into a new browser window, or copy and paste it if it's too long to retype. That way there's no REFERER associated with it.

        On the other hand, some websites that don't like deep linking will only show you their deeper pages if you DO have a REFERER set from one of their other pages - so you have to go in through the front door. That's one reason you might not want to block REFERER permanently.

    • by svanstrom ( 734343 ) <tony@svanstrom.org> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:13PM (#8629033) Homepage
      I've already set such things up on some sites which might get /.:ed; basically it means that all people surfing to these sites from a page at /. will get a static snapshot of the contents... it's the same contents, just up to 30 minutes old and without it killing the databases etc. =)
      • by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:35PM (#8629133)

        Employing some form of anti-slashdot mechanism is entirely justified: the issue here is that you're legitimately addressing an economic/cost/resource problem (although, your approach is a little weak: you should employ some form of request rate limiting as the slashdot effect can occur from other sources). You have a right to do this.

        However, simply blocking references by origin with no specific justification, especially when that origin is pursing a similar field of operation sounds very anti-trust: i.e. refusal to supply.

        • by svanstrom ( 734343 ) <tony@svanstrom.org> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:08PM (#8629275) Homepage
          I also use it on some sites to prevent deeplinking, not to mention people linking directly to certain files (images etc)... but I do allow some sites to do deeplinking.

          I do this simply because I want to control what a person has read before visiting certain information, like forcing them to read a warning/explanatory text before viewing statistics about something. Without that explanatory text it might be possible that people are going to misinterpret the data; but I don't have to force them to read my warning if I know that the site doing the deeplinking are good at explaining the data to the reader...
      • Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:58PM (#8629231) Homepage
        ...could that be developed into a generic anti-slashdotting? I.e. you simply keep count of the referrers, which you got spare power to do before the real crunch starts... if load gets too high, issue static pages to the top referrer(s).Hmm 30secs of thinking, but it definately sounds patentable :D.

        Kjella
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Not at all. If they block us, we just middle-click in Mozilla Fire$animaloftheweek or any other browser that does tabbing. Problem solved.

      But that's too easy. I'm supposed to tell you to hack your browser so it doesn't send the referring url. This is, after all, Slashdot. ;)

      Posted Anonymously to protect the innocent and because I already modded in this thread.
    • ... will they have any business left if slashdot readers don't post links to their site?
    • Now I have an excuse not to RTFA!
  • Marketing ploy ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:05PM (#8628991) Journal
    The cynic within immediately asks 'who gains ?' from reducing the number of users on your site by denying traffic from what is essentially a free referral service. It doesn't seem to make any sense... If the story was being copied verbatim, and the source-site was losing ad revenue then there's just cause to block the copying site, but in this case Linux Today is only posting excerpts containing links ...

    So, what gain can there be ? Does the process of having an outcry against you, then acquiescing to public demand (becoming a 'good guy' again) give you a sufficiently high profile that it's worth losing some page-views temporarily ? I think that it might....

    Simon the cynic.

    • Re:Marketing ploy ? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by k_head ( 754277 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:12PM (#8629024)
      No need to be cynical there are only two reasons.
      1) Malice
      2) Incompetence.

      I doubt it's 1) because they are not blocking links from newsforge. Of course maybe somebody over there got pissed off at linux today for some weird reason but it seems unlikely given the "cut off my nose to spite my face" nature of it.

      That leaves us with 2). Somebody made a mistake and blocked the wrong referrer.

      I am sure somebody who works at CMP will post an explanation here before the conspiracy theories start flying.
    • by cookie_cutter ( 533841 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:52PM (#8629209)
      These websites are supported by add revenue. Some users are more likely to click on an add than others. Therefore, it might make economic sense to block some classes of users since they aren't likely to click on an add enough to recoup the cost of serving them the page.

      I only state this hypothetically. I doubt that information week has collected such statistics. I even doubt that sufficient statistics could be collected to accurately identify a group of users so unlikely to click on an ad to make the almost free cost of serving a page too high.

      For other types of services, like ones which are more bandwidth heavy, I can see this being a more legitimate response.

  • Most people with something to say dream of being slashdotted. Yes, your server melts and your pipes burn, but it's worth it to get 100,000 geeks talking about your project.

    So, which brilliant head of marketing thought "hey, they're linking to our pages, giving us free publicity... the bastards, block 'em!"

    Good job, Jimmy!

    ROTFL.
    • I think the real dream is to see if your site could withstand a slashdotting. As we've seen before, only the largest sites make it through a huge spike in traffic. I've always wondered if my site could handle it. Hostrocket is my provider and I think they have pretty substantial bandwidth and higher-end servers.

      If you want to add a few "hits" to my page and see lots of good deals on electronics, Click here. [dealsites.net]
  • by cheezus ( 95036 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:06PM (#8628995) Homepage
    My advertisers certainly won't be happy that all these people are seeing their ad via a link to my hit story. I'd better cut them off, and fast!
  • by sygin ( 659338 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:09PM (#8629008)
    Aparently when you click on the link provided by Linux Today you get: "Unfortunately, we cannot satisfy this particular request because it comes from a source that is not authorized to redistribute our content..." This is not redistribution in my opinion. This is how the net works(?).
    • I would think that it's not the link that they're calling redistribution. They're calling the excerpt that is posted on LT's site the excerpt, and "punishing" LT in the only way that they can - blocking the referral.

      Well, the only way that they can without paying a lawyer. ;)
  • JavaScript Bypass? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:10PM (#8629012)
    They said they wanted to respect bluh bluh, but if they wanted to these types of blocks can by bypassed by opening a new browser window using JavaScript and going to the site in those.
    Slashdot should also be taking note of this, I relised this could happen a few months ago.
  • Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by segfault_0 ( 181690 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:11PM (#8629020)
    This kind of silent blocking of a referrer does nothing but hurt the blocking site. If their point was that they dont want their material reproduced on another site, this block doesn't stop that - actually it encourages more if it since the site in question cant link to the original material. They are well within their rights but it doesnt seem like a very good strategy for a company who depends so much on the internet community.
    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:45PM (#8629180)
      Here's where this really leads. If more sites start doing this, you will see HTTP_REFERRER disappear in a heartbeat. Why should I be generous enough to tell you where I've been, only to be denied access? I can just as easily make my browser tell you I came from somewhere on your site.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Just Click Here [informationweek.com]

    Is Slashdot also blocked as referral?
  • Article url (Score:2, Informative)

    by Trailwalker ( 648636 )
    http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=18400894
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:14PM (#8629037)
    How ironic, they block LinuxToday to keep the traffic down, then they get slashdotted because of it, heh.
  • by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:15PM (#8629039) Homepage
    If they want to configure their server to refuse to serve up pages if the Referrer: header contains something they don't approve of, that's certainly their right to do so. It's their server to do with as they please.

    We've (well, many others and I) have always said that if you don't want people linking to you, configure your web server to block it -- it's not difficult. CMP has done this.

    But even though they have the right to do something, that doesn't mean that they should. I don't know anymore more about this story than the LinuxToday editorial, but after reading it, I definately believe that LinuxToday did nothing wrong (what they did certainly does fall under the category of `Fair Use'), and reacted accordingly when they discovered the block -- except that I saw no mention of CMP being contact. Perhaps they were contacted and it just didn't make it into the editorial, but if not, they should have been. It could have just been a misunderstanding or misconfiguration, though the message seen does suggest otherwise.

    I predict that CMP will change their configuration shortly, probably due in large part to the LinuxToday editorial and this /. article. We'll see if I'm right ...

    • From my read of the article, it sounds like contacting CMP is on the list of things to do. The purpose of the article was to say why they had pulled a story, and why the story link hadn't worked.

      LinuxToday (apparently) plans on contacting CMP during business hours. So, first thing monday morning.
  • by doormat ( 63648 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:16PM (#8629044) Homepage Journal
    Edit user.js and add/change

    user_pref("network.http.sendRefererHeader", 0);

    No more referers sent.
  • by pherris ( 314792 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:17PM (#8629048) Homepage Journal
    1. Open 'about:config'
    2. Set 'network.http.sendRefererHeader' to 0
    3. Enjoy.

    This simply kills off the referer tag from being sent and lets you through. While it's very unlikely this will cause problems, some web sites might not work w/o the tag.

    • Actually.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:46PM (#8629183) Homepage
      While it's very unlikely this will cause problems, some web sites might not work w/o the tag.

      Actually, quite a few use this as leech-protection, in order to prevent external direct links to downloads. Privoxy does this the smart way - it forges a referrer header from whatever site you're loading. If I follow a link to say, CNN, they will see "www.cnn.com" as the referrer.

      Kjella
    • Why is this enabled by default? I doubt most people realize that sites can see where you're coming from. They also may not appreciate it. This seems like something that needs to stop before it starts getting abused. Cookies were neat until sites started requiring them in order to function properly. This "feature" doesn't even offer me anything that I can see as benefit.

      While we're at it, why tell them what browser you're using? All that does is allow them to "fix" things that aren't supported correctly by

  • by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:18PM (#8629056) Journal
    I swear that some of these kinds of decisions are made by people with grilled cheese for brains.

    It is unfathomable to me that someone would block incoming traffic to an article on their website. Maybe redirect the visitor to the home if it's that necessary to force people to come in through the "front door," as it were, but to make the visitor feel like he's intruding somehow... that just seems pretty dumb to me.

    Website operators need to think about how what they do is perceived by visitors, the same way hotel operators and shopping mall operators think about it. Don't make visitors feel unwelcome, for Pete's sake!
  • by bstadil ( 7110 )
    Regardless of how assinine this is just disable the Referer in Mozilla and the problem is solved.

    Type about:config in as url and filter using the word Refere. Once you see the Referer entry change the 2 to a 0.

    Problem solved. It is problably a good idea to have this set to 0 i.e. no info given to site as a general privacy precaution. Why would you want to tell anyone that you just came from BigJugs.com?

  • by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:20PM (#8629063)
    The referrer field is, especially when it is used to act against my interest (by blocking access to something), my own browser being hostile toward me. Without the active participation of my _own_ browser, they would not be able to block me from accessing the site. This is on the level of DRM, and ought not be acceptable in the free software world.

    Now, in mozilla you can turn of referrer all together, but that is not good enough, because then they can simpyl start blocking access to deep pages when there is no referrer (this will create problems for instance for emailed links, but I know some sites do it (porn...)).

    So mozilla needs to go further to assist it's users, rather than be party restrictions on them. My software should serve me, and me alone. Here is what it needs:

    - Always set "Referrer" to the root of the host.
    - Always set "Referrer" to one directory above the current page.
    - And, most importantly, support for an html extension where the "a" tag (or any other, now that other things can be links) has a parameter that tells the browser referrer to use. So that Mozilla could be set to respect links like this:

    <a href="http://slashdot.org" referrer="http://www.google.com">

    and then set the HTTP referrer field accordingly. That way the browser would not betraying me my providing the source of my link to the destination site, so that they can use it against me.
    • by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:40PM (#8629156)
      It should be noted that RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) backs up my concern about the "Referer" (great, like if programmers needed help spelling badly):

      Because the source of a link might be private information or might
      reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly
      recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the
      Referer field is sent. For example, a browser client could have a
      toggle switch for browsing openly/anonymously, which would
      respectively enable/disable the sending of Referer and From
      information.


      As far as I know, no browser contains a GUI dialog for toggling "referer". Not even the "privacy" pain discusses it at all. In Galeon at least, it can be turned off by using middle button and opening in a new tab, which sends no "referer" in the HTTP request. I don't remember if this goes for mozilla too.
    • by Thanatopsis ( 29786 ) <despain,brian&gmail,com> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:42PM (#8629412) Homepage
      Actually there is a plugin to do this. You can manually set the referer or have it be the URL itself. I have used for awhile now. it's very useful. I have it running right now. Nevermind the bad english, the guy is french.

      http://refspoof.mozdev.org

      It's functional. To install it you just have to go to http://refspoof.mozdev.org and follow the Install link. (you must do that with Mozilla RC3+ as browser). it should install automatically.
    • by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
      The problem is that then you get web designers sitting down and thinking "Should I really worry about catering to these bastards using Firefox? They avoid looking at my pop-up ads, most of them block my banners after the first time through, and I can't even get referrer data from them. I'll focus on IE users -- they're easier to deal with."
  • The crux of the message on CMP's blocking page reads: "Unfortunately, we cannot satisfy this particular request because it comes from a source that is not authorized to redistribute our content..."

    Since when is hyperlinking redistributing?

  • This seems like an easy problem to solve. The block links coming from you, but not others? Just rip off their content ... err... I mean mirror their content for them, and post a link to the mirror. Or better yet, post a link to the Google cache.
  • by tstoneman ( 589372 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:24PM (#8629086)
    I don't get it... to me this is completely short-sighted.

    But having these referral sites, I have been introduced to news sites that I would never have thought to go to. From slashdot, I now regularly scan through cnet's site, etc.

    why not take advantage of the extra eyeballs and put more targetted advertising? Ads are the only thing keeping these content sites anyway... This to me would be the smarter business decision, instead of just blocking people from viewing free content. Why not put up an ad from Redhat or Microsoft whenever a viewer comes from LinuxJournal???

    This is a mark of a stupid business person.
  • by ninejaguar ( 517729 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:25PM (#8629088)
    ...I'd have my lawyer send their lawyer a query asking why they're willfully reducing the quality of the product I've purchased (knowingly reducing the number of eyeballs seeing my Ad)? Naturally, the query would be in legalese.

    = 9J =

  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:26PM (#8629090)
    It's well known that the #1 factor in the Google PageRank sorting routine is the count of links to your page from sites that have no relation to you. Therefore, blocking other site's refererals will just lead to them not to linking you, and your placement in Google to drop.
    1. Let the blocking site shoot themselves in the foot (in the end).
    2. Link to the article on another site.
    3. Link to an unblocked redirect like this one. [tinyurl.com]
    4. Tell visitors to copy/paste the link -- http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20031203S0032 [eetimes.com] -- into the URL address bar, so the referer is blank.
    5. Tell visitors to disable their browsers' referrer logging (F12 in Opera), or use a referrer rewriting proxy.
    6. I think there's a way to do fake the referer with javascript links
  • Referer header (Score:2, Informative)

    by gnuzip ( 670049 )
    The Referer header is what I consider to be one of the worst parts of HTTP. Alhough there are a few sites that require it for operation, I have rarely encountered any troubles simply not sending one. I believe it is considered somewhat "unclean" to send a bogus HTTP Referer header (such as the / of the dest server), so it might be better to simply disable it altogether.

    The Links web browser has the builtin ability to set the Referer to a static value, the page being requested, or not send it at all. I have

  • This (seems to me) to be a clear violation of rights by CMP Media LLC. This would be an ideal case to pursue in court as it would give the courts an opportunity to opine on, and clarify, issues of linking, fair use and unfair competition.

    By specifically blocking access to links from a specific foreign source, it could be argued that CMP Media is unjustifiably damaging the reputation and legitimate operation of LinuxToday by using discriminatory technological measures.

    Would be a perfect case to be pursued
  • by ishmalius ( 153450 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:36PM (#8629138)
    There might be a perfectly good reason this is occurring. It might be a software error. It might be a temporary fix for a temporary problem. Who knows?

    But even if it is intentional, it is totally within their rights to set up their servers any way they see fit.

  • Closed archives, copyrighted databases, blocking "unauthorized" traffic, ... Sir Tim, all this does not have 'semantic' writ all over. Our condolences.

    Forgive them, for they know not...
  • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:47PM (#8629187) Homepage Journal
    Before getting up in arms, why didn't anybody at LinuxToday ask what was going on? They've just gone and jumped to the conclusion that IW is somehow attempting to censor LinuxToday. Maybe it's just some kind of attempt to prevent deep linking. Maybe some nitwit at IW saw a bunch of referrals from LT and thought it was a DoS attack.

    (No, don't respond to this post telling me why these things can't be true. Arguing about what it could be is just as stupid as the original assumption as to what it is. This is like arguing about what time it is, when the real question should be "Who's got a watch?")

    Plus it's dumb to assume that IW did this without attempting to contact LT. Maybe the LT email server is broken? The message got discarded by an spam filter? The recipient discarded it without reading it? Happens all the time.

    When you have a problem like this, you should work with the other party to solve it. If they refuse to cooperate or explain, then you have something to complain about. Going immediately into crusade mode based on total ignorance is childish.

    • by damiangerous ( 218679 ) <1ndt7174ekq80001@sneakemail.com> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:38PM (#8629395)
      Going immediately into crusade mode based on total ignorance is childish.

      A childish as, say, posting a rant without having read the linked article first?

    • by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:39PM (#8629403) Homepage
      Interesting. You jump all over everyone for speculating about why InformationWeek would be blocking links from LinuxToday. Then in the very next sentence, you make the unsubstantiated assertion that IW must have tried to contact LT before setting up the block, and make a bunch of uninformed speculations about why the e-mail didn't get through.

      Here's what we do know:

      1: Links from LT to stories on IW result in a message about unauthorized content distribution.

      2: Many online publishers consider deep linking a form of copyright violation.

      3: #1 is precisely what one would expect to happen when a publisher from #2 decides to act upon that belief.

      4: Referrer blocks don't just set themselves up.

      The people at LT are still investigating why it happened, and they haven't ruled out an error. But from the evidence gathered so far, it doesn't look like an error; it looks like a shortsighted attempt by the publisher to control how its content is distributed.
  • by pocopoco ( 624442 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @05:52PM (#8629210)
    Well with the "not authorized to redistribute" quote we know what this particular incident is about, but I see tons of posts above saying how terrible it is to block people coming from Linux news site. I think it's quite possible that it would be beneficial. Linux users tend to be much more tech savy than most and along with browsers like Mozilla rather than MSIE they are much more likely to simply block advertisements than run of the mill users.

    Personally I don't block adds at all (well I refuse to install annoying ad showing software like that flash crap) and will actually click on ads for sites I like. However, I know countless people who not only block ads to leech off sites for free, but seem proud of doing so. Anyway, my point was simply that with the number of people who do this rising, being selective about who you waste bandwidth (which can be quite costly for large sites) on isn't necessarily a losing prospect anymore.
  • Politics or Money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BuilderBob ( 661749 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @06:28PM (#8629365)

    If you assume the only reasons for a Corporation (or Government) to not do something is politics or money the answer becomes (IMHO) a bit clearer

    Since news of this blocking will spread amongst the Linux websites, it can't be providing good politics for TechWeb (I assume this to be source of the linked article). Advertisers will question why traffic is purposely being blocked and will reduce their custom accordingly.

    The only remaining possiblity is that UBM Plc (the parent parent company) thinks that there's money in this scheme.

    There are three methods of obtaining revenue from a news website. The first is selling advertisments (and the registration information if any). The referral blocking has effectively ruled this out as a method here.

    The remaining methods, subscription and reselling, might be the answer. UBM resells its news stories through B2B channels

    PR Newswire provides comprehensive communications services for public relations and investor relations professionals....news and information distribution to global audiences, and communications monitoring and measurement.

    (I would link, but it's framed and hidden, it comes from the UBM plc website). They also claim to be the leading US B2B media company.

    Taken the path of least intelligence. The reason LinuxToday was blocked is either the CMP wire customers are complaining or some CMP subscription service is suffering because of the ease of getting the information via a 3rd party aggregator. Why 'pay' for access to the NY Times and the Washington Post when Google will aggregate the important stories for you?

    It could of course be more complicated, involving low click-through rates or ad-impressions for LT referrals, but the blocking message implies there are 'authorised redistributers' of the content.

    bb

  • CMP Media Spam (Score:4, Interesting)

    by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @07:05PM (#8629525) Homepage Journal
    I don't know about the rest of ya'll but this really doesn't surprise me in the least given my experience with them. I subscribe to Sysadm Mag. Ever since I subscribed I've been getting spam for all their other magazines. The spam always comes from email-publisher.com, better known as the spammers at topica.com [spews.org]. Why CMP is using a known spammer's services I have no idea. I've tried unsubscribing to no avail. If it wasn't for Sysadm Mag and a few of their other nice mags I'd tell them to stick it.
  • by badzilla ( 50355 ) <ultrak3wl@@@gmail...com> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @07:28PM (#8629645)
    Send them this in your fake header, should give them something to worry about at their monthly web strategy meeting =)

    Referer:http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc lient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=disgusting+filthy+goat+s ex
  • by dunhamrc ( 535457 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @08:04PM (#8629856)
    I went to the articel url posted in the comments here, and at the bottom of the page I noticed a link saying "Licence this Article". Clicking it provides a pop-up window which lets me get a "Quick Price" (SM?) on how much I should pay for re-distributing the article. If I want to link to the article from my corporate or academic website, the cost is $2.50. If I want to email a link to the article to one friend, the price is $5.00. This despite the fact that there's a link at the top of the article which apparently lets you email it for free. This service is provided to CMP Publishing by an outfit calling itself the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. They are at www.copyright.com. *Sigh*

You will have many recoverable tape errors.

Working...