Thanks for publicizing this-- I sent a letter to the ombudsman.

Here's Wassom's (the guy I linked to in the prev. item)
excellent summary paragraph on deep-linking:

Deep links by themselves, then, pose little threat of copyright infringement. This point is deceptively simple, but vitally important. Because such links do not appropriate, alter or influence the documents they reference anymore than a reference in a library card catalog misappropriates the content of a book, these links are benign in terms of copyright law. But quite like a library index, they are essential to maintaining the accessibility and utility of the Web itself. A regulatory scheme that attempted to require Web authors to obtain permission before linking to other pages in the name of protecting copyrights would be doomed to backfire disastrously.

Thanks Cory for keeping the shining light
on this cockroach behavior.

Especially enjoyed your take on the especially
odious "we reserve the right" crap.

Here's a link to the best summary of legal
theory/practice RE framing/deep linking/inlining
that I've been able to find [written when the author
was still in law school][the EFF needs to get this
guy working for them]:

http://wassom.com/writings/note_part02a-c.htm

I haven't kept up with the discussion of this topic. But I was interested to note that they use javascript on their policy page (and perhaps throughout the site) to try to enforce their no-framing policy. The following little CGI got me around that problem:

#!/usr/bin/perl
use CGI qw/:standard/;
use LWP::UserAgent;
my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new;
my $q = new CGI;
my $stupidurl= "http://www.npr.org/about/termsofuse.html";
my $req = new HTTP::Request 'GET',$stupidurl;
my $resp=$ua->request($req);
my $stupid=$resp->content;
$stupid=~s/if \(window \!\= top\).*?}//s;
print header;
print $stupid;

The result can be seen at http://www.egbok.com/npr_frame_THIS.html

I really like the new policy. They've differentiated between linking and framing, and they've made it more clear what kind of links they don't want. They're still under the delusion that they have any control over it, but lawyers always have illusions of control. I count this as a victory.

khritteroo:
what's editing for then? Should we listen to the raw unedited hour for a 20 minute piece? If I were "cutting tape", I think I'd want my work to look or sound good no?

Three words on NPR: Archer Daniels Midland.

Amongst other integrity whitewashed crap they propagate, they edit their interviews like crazy to make their hosts seem more informed, clever, and insightful. I know it's common practice, but it doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

Feh. NPR. Feh.