Copyright Issues Present Ongoing Dilemma: To Link or Not To Link? [FR Mentioned]

Online Journalism Review ^ | October 1, 2003 | Christopher A. Shumway, Robert I. Berkman

[Tall_Texan]

What the news sites are really arguing is that it's unfair of anyone to go straight to the story that interest the surfer without a series of pop-up windows, animation ads and other annoyances that they want to shove down your throat. THAT's what their hangup is, nothing else. I'm so glad for Google's new pop-up blocker toolbar aide. It's works really great without needing to go through a proxy.

As for fear of being linked to unfavorable sites, how about somebody starting some truly vicious racist hate site and linking to the WashPost, LA Times, NY Times, etc. Oh, wait. Doesn't DU already do that? Never mind.

As for not registering at sites, I'm like the others. It just makes me leave and go elsewhere. Who needs all their spam?

[Tall_Texan]

Oh, yes, one other thing. NEVER EVER assume that ANYTHING in hyperspace is for private viewing. If you post it, it's public. That's the only way to think of it because there's always somebody who can get at any online information if they have the time, the interest and know a few tricks.

[John Robinson]

The next version of FR's software is going to offer a proxy option for all external links. In the meantime, try this proxy to speed up your surfing: http://webwarper.expr.net/

[John Robinson]

(Try Super Dense mode to turn off all graphics.)

[Celtman]

Is it OK to "guess'' URLs to locate information on a public server that the creator did not want to be made public? Which analogy would be more appropriate to describe this activity:

(5) Taking a public tour of a companies facitily and looking in a direction the guide did not tell you to look.

[weegee]

However, it is important to realize that while there is a vast amount of public domain content on the Internet, most news articles are copyrighted just like entertainment products.

So the question arises: Is it ethical to make and distribute copies of news content?

Is it ethical? Yes. Citation to source is made (after all, we do not want to be accused of "making this up" when we point out errors and hyposcrisy in the leftist media).

More importantly, is it LEGAL? Yes. The LAT/WP lawsuit proved it. This is fair use as protected by the Constitution.

News agencies that are concerned that their websites may not see the advertising and revenue that click throughs will generate should best consider leaving the articles for the hardcopy print editions of their publications. Then the reader will see the print advertising while flipping from page to page.

One thing that no doubt irks the left is that sometimes we catch errors in their reports, they rewrite the story online to correct this and then the lies and misinformation can be denied. Having a copy of it saved on another website means that they cannot selectively revise their reporting.

Google cache also provides such a backup. There are some websites that are complaining about google cache too. Hell, there are some who complain about deeplinking to an internal webpage (not the front page) or even linking to their site without "prior approval".

[syriacus]

From the article: should there be one protocol for home page linking and another for "deep linking,'' which connects users to internal content?

Why don't news sources that dislike deep-linking make readers register?

It seems to me that sites that make readers register make it impossible to "deep-link."

[weegee]

News organizations, on the other hand, might argue that it costs a lot to produce online news content and that such costs can only be recovered if users read the news on the organizations' Web sites, where they will be exposed to advertisements that finance the site.

BS, there are plenty of stories that get run by Reuters that will say something like, "In a Washington Post article released today..." or "The National Enquirer has reported that Rush Limbaugh is allegedly involved in an illegal drug ring...".

They paraphrase someone else's report and circulate a story all the time. Think that all of those readers then go to the original source? Ever see an online news bureau link to the competition's story? No.

[syriacus]

One thing that no doubt irks the left is that sometimes we catch errors in their reports, they rewrite the story online to correct this and then the lies and misinformation can be denied.

And sometimes it becomes very apparent that their "errors" were really more like lies.

[weegee]

Be aware too that some troublemakers (at DU, Indymedia.org and other sites) do not like the success of FR (especially in being able to challenge the media and the DNC's talking points).

Some articles such as these are used to anger other webcontent providers and to get them to also issue FR cease and decist notices. Most recently the Onion and Conde Nast Publications (Vanity Fair, Wired, Esquire, GQ...) gave FR such statements. I think that The Onion does not even permit excerpting.

The same attacks that have been foistered on Dr. Laura, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and others are being targetted at FR. You can count on it. 2004 is seen as an important election year for the libs and their bag of dirty tricks is big.

[weegee]

As an example, we might consider a news site that is being linked to by a pornographic or racist Web site. In this situation, Spinello believes the link could give the impression that the targeted site endorses or has some affiliation with the source of the link, which might harm its reputation and credibility.

I'd ask, "what is it you have to hide"? Such linking is free speech. Don't want to be linked (or searched)? Don't put it online.

Still uncomfortable? Put up a disclaimer disavowing ties to the offending site. Still not satisfied put up a big editorial against them (and let it appear at the top of the linked page).

[hunter112]

They paraphrase someone else's report and circulate a story all the time.

I suppose they consider that some sort of a professional courtesy that they will not extend to anyone that is not a member of the "club".

This whole point becomes moot when a different financing scheme is developed for paying for content on the Internet. I suppose it might be possible for some portion of fees paid to ISPs to be put in a "pot" that is divided among websites based on visits to the sites. The biggest problem I see is that the porno spammers will have even more incentive than they do now.

[RightWhale]

I doubt it's only about copyright/fair use issues

Everything is copyrighted whether it says so explicitly or not. In most cases, the creator of the material doesn't mind if it is discussed or copied considering the nature of the Internet, but if they have gone to the trouble of mentioning the copyright and requesting persons to get approval before copying, then perhaps the wishes should be respected.

[weegee]

One of my favorite articles that soon disappeared from the Houston Comical's website, their anti-DeLay, pro-rail agenda exposed:

Accidental Houston Chronicle memo admits to tainting the news with political agenda

And then there was this hitpiece from the Nation which said that Governor George W. Bush owned the Houston Astros and buddied up with Ken Lay for Enron Stadium...

The Enron Box (The Nation Mag screws up!)

[weegee]

I wonder when they will go to court to claim that the use of popup killers (which load a website with a proxy bit of code that kills popups and can even be scoped to stop the loading of gifs, jpgs, etc) and spyware detecting software is unfair because it deprives the user of seeing the site
"as intended".

[syriacus]

So, web-based news sources want to be treated exactly the same way as hard copy news sources are....What happens if we apply the strict "protectionist" view of web-based news to hard copy news?

• Will libraries be obligated to buy an individual hard copy of each newspaper for each patron who visits the library to read that paper?
• Will librarians be obligated to neatly fold each opened newpaper immediately, to make sure that each patron who reads the paper starts with the front page?
• Will librarians be permitted to point to the locations of other newspapers that may have articles a patron would find interesting?
• Will senior citizens be allowed to read a particular article (say, from AARP magazine) and discuss it in front of other people at the library?

I guess newpapers are learning how the "old-tyme towne cryers" felt, when newspapers came on the scene.

[weegee]

After all, one can go to a public library and access virtually any newspaper article from any paper that has ever been printed on microfiche without commercial benefit to the paper in question and take the content to a discussion group. In essence, there is no difference.

You can manually go through all of those microfiche but an internet archive of articles allows you to search it quicker for specific words or phrases.

The Houston Comical has slowly been putting articles from the preinternet days into their online archives. They bought the Houston Post and shut it down. They tried to put their articles in the archive but got caught when some writers who never signed an internet release for the Comical complained. I believe that current staffers of the Houston Comical who were previously employed by the Houston Post have no ability to block the Comical from "selling" their Post articles online (subscribers get "free" access to the archives while individual articles can also be purchased).

Riddle me this:

Is it legal/ethical for the Houston Public Library to register their newspaper subscriptions into the Chronicle's website and then permit library patrons to search the online articles for free?

[BSunday]

So the question arises: Is it ethical to make and distribute copies of news content?

So the answer arises: What's the difference between copy/paste and saying verbally "Dan Rather said "blah blah blah, etc. And I think he's a flaming idiot." Eventually people will be getting sued for quoting cool movie lines in their conversations.

How's this idea - when you copy and paste an article, do it like this example:

I read an article on CNN.com which stated: (Quote) (Text of Article pasted) (Unquote)

Wouldn't it be the same in principle as making a comment on something a public figure stated? It's not like they are charging for the access to their material, so they aren't missing out on any profits. Therefore what is their basis for suing, other than to stifle opposing views?

[BSunday]

News organizations might counter that all copying (by Conservatives) without permission is unethical

[syriacus]

Nice threads.

I love it when uppity people with agendas for the rest of us, show they are mere mortals, too.

If I were Sheryl Crow, I'm sure I would call the exposure of the clay feet of the uppity folks, "karmic retribution."