Edited by author 10-19-2001 09:59 AM
Not sure you're looking for such things, but I'm seeing an apparently unintended behavior. At http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/arc/2001-07b.htm (assuming this URL will persist), see C6: "...click here for the most recent edition." (Also other examples on the same page.) The original .htm contained a relative link, which now points to a non-existent location on the QT server.

It means a little extra parsing, but you may want to check for relative links (including upward ../../file.htm) and push a base path into them. (This presumes you're also catching any use of BASE PATH in the original .htm.)

Perhaps a better alternative: any HREF not = "http..." could be made null (to avoid a QT 404), or made to display the raw link as text. The URL would be copy/paste accessible -- however it also would clutter up the QT display, and make QT differ more from the original layout.

That approach could avoid some exposure related to copyright complaints. If you were merely to substitute the base path in relative links (or just allow normal live links to persist), the otherwise obscure QT referring URL will likely appear in logs at the original site. Perhaps not the goal.

Another approach might address both issues: build a short x.cgi to do redirection, and force x.cgi into the path for every HREF on the QT markup. You already have to process the links _somehow_ (as described above). With a redirect cgi, all referrer entries in server logs elsewhere would be of the form "http://www.quicktopic.com/x.cgi." People would know that QT was on their case, and even which page was being marked up, but they wouldn't know the substance of the discussion.

At the risk of encouraging a web bug, it would also allow you to know exactly which QT paragraph folks were clicking away from, to view the original target site.

Have a bagel :-)

Good point, Andre. I should talk to the Google folks.

Ok. I'll get into it...

I don't see much problem with it. At least, I think google would have more trouble than QT. Google's ability to mark up search words would, IMO, be a bigger copyright problem.

Besides, if you are anotating separately and not interfering with someone's vision of a web page, this looks just like fair use. And I think people would have that same perception. I would, at least.

Five subscribers and only me yapping? Anyone got any ideas, comments, eggs, rotten vegetables? :-)

Or am I right -- Steve's got no worries?

To: "TBTF Irregularii"
From: Dan Kalikow
Subject: [IRR] QTDR (of others' Mss) and Copyright: any issues?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:02:07 -0400

Some of you IRRs know about Quick Topic's ability to upload a *local* HTML or DOCfile to the QT site for review on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. This is QT Doc Review (QTDR) [1].

Steve Yost has also written code [2] that lets a user point QTDR *at an arbitrary URL* and to upload its content.

Thus you can thus easily create a commentable version of any web page.

Remember the flap about "Third Voice?"

Does this not-yet-publicly-announced QTDR capability -- for others' work to be uploaded and discussed -- represent another potential copyright / PR disaster like Third Voice? I'm betting that this well-connected / informed group has valuable opinions on this issue, and I hope you share them. (OBTW I have Steve's OK to ask this.) If you'd like to discuss, could you do it here, please?

 <URL deleted for this posting; you're here already>
... and TIA!

(Pls Subscribe here to stay email-updated in the conversation)

/Dan

[1] http://www.quicktopic.com/cgi-bin/docreviewintro.cgi
[2] http://tbtf.com/Irregulars/archive/2q01/msg00901.html

Edited by author 10-16-2001 11:56 AM
Some quick comments to further the discussion (then I gotta be out all the rest of today):

The thing that imho got ThirdVoice into trouble was that folks loaded that plug-in and then whenever they visited someone else's website, it appeared to have been marked up by others' "graffiti." In the case of QTDR this occurrence is quite volitional and discriminable.

Remember, the author(s) of the original Ms don't even have to display the link to the QTDR version; out of sight, out of mind? (Reminder: IANAL "I Am Not A Lawyer") :-)

I've counseled a couple times that the QTDR version of a doc be very different from the original, not only on the top but at the bottom of the web-version. Perhaps also it could be of a different background color... Some heuristics or color-range pairs could help set up color-differences.

Even better: If a doc were "inhaled from the web," then perhaps the QTDR version thereof would be graced with the ACTUAL URL of the original version, prominently displayed -- both at top and bottom. So that one could read the ACTUAL original, untrammeled by the yawping of the Masses. :-)

I look forward to your comments... and perhaps those of others that Steve and/or Richard send here. The QTDR/copyright/PR issue is a fascinating one, and one which I continue to think that QTDR has no issue(s) with. YMMV of course -- and I (for one) wanna hear about it! :-)

From: "richard seltzer" <seltzer@samizdat.com>
To: "Steve Yost" <say@world.std.com>, "Dan Kalikow" <DrDan@Kalikow.com>Subject: Re: "seminal articles"
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 02:40:04 -0400

I just finished.
Check http://www.samizdat.com
Great stuff. Thanks again. Feel free to use these docs as demos or in any
other way that might help showcase your capabilities.

Yes, that URL submission technique is very fast and easy.
Sounds like you just need to set up a validation procedure. You could
probably write a script for it. NB -- to submit Web pages, you need to be
one of the authorized parties on file with network solutions. Automatically
check submitted name or email address against the whois file for that
particular domain name. If there's a match, then the submitter gets an email
with a URL for the submission form -- and the form automatically has
hard-entered the domain name that has been approved for this user. The user
just enters the directory and file name.

Best wishes.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Yost" <say@world.std.com>
To: "richard seltzer" <seltzer@samizdat.com>; "Dan Kalikow"
<DrDan@Kalikow.com>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: "seminal articles"


> Dan wrote:
> > http://www.quicktopic.com/cgi-bin/docupload.cgi?get=1
> >
> > Should do what you want. (Please don't publicize the URL for
> > web-inhalation of docs into QTDR unless Steve Y. gives the OK; he might
be
> > building the functionality into QTDR proper sometime.)
>
> The sole reason I haven't publicized this URL is because of the copyright
> issues it may raise if anyone was allowed to essentially copy any given
web
> page onto Quick Topic's server for commentary. But you're of course
welcome
> to use it to make your task at hand easier, Richard.
>
> It'd be good if I could get this to work *without* copying the content, as
I
> believe Ka-Ping Yee's CritSuite (crit.org) does. Though that's subject to
> changing content, it could be useful. Sort of an everyman's Third Voice.
>
> Steve