in the Netherlands, links can be illegal......

http://www.indymedia.nl/2002/06/4836.shtml

Amsterdam, 20 june 2002

Indymedia NL regrets the facts that the judge in the verdict does not elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not. This ruling will therefore have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet. Due to the structure
of Internet, it is possible to reach any website on the internet, by way of combinations of links and indirect links.

Edited by author 06-24-2002 03:22 AM
I just had a horrible thought.

I noticed in my surfing this evening that Earthlink (a Scientology-run organization) is a partial funder to the PBS program Frontline.

We all know (don't we?) Scientology's views on copyright issues. Perhaps they're attempting to infiltrate the "public" media groups and use them to their own advantage. They're already working on the television side, perhaps they've been talking to NPR in preparation for the radio takeover?

Yes, I know I'm paranoid. It's a surprisingly clueful way to go about life.
(edited for typo...twice)

Edited by author 06-23-2002 02:46 AM
"links to streams must be to the whole stream, from beginning to end, remember"

Actually, Real Audio URLs support selecting a specific section of the stream by providing begin and end times. In fact, NPR uses this exact method to provide links to specific sections on shows when their RealAudio server only has one file per show.

Other than that, keep up the good work on this issue. We must protect our right to link.

I'll note that one case being won in a low level court is *not* a useful precedent. Until it reaches at least a US circut, it's pretty much meaningless, and you can't really count on it until it either gets or is rejected for a Supreme Court hearing.

That's what I meant by "Working it's way through the courts." Right now, the two (there's another case in IL) declarations that "linking is not illegal" is a good start, but that's meaningless if a US Circut or Appellate Judge says "No, you misread the law, they aren't."

Craniac, that's what I thought too, but apparently NPR doesn't get congresional funding.

I'm thinking there's a lawyer in the woodwork at NPR.

When I wrote "Historically, why is NPR freaked out at the notion of other websites pretending to create the illusion of NPR support through misrepresentation?" I meant that NPR needs to at least appear neutral to maintain congressional funding, and that perhaps their linking policy is a byproduct of that fear. It doesn't make it right, but it may not be entirely insane.

I dunno, I don't want EFF to waste money on this, but am still bothered by the full internet body slam employed here. It has certainly drawn some attention to the issue, however.

Bigm, if you're not interested in the material covered on Boing Boing, may I recommend that you seek out different reading material?

DaveFaris, that doesn't pass the sniff-test. If NPR is going to charge for access, it'll need an authentication scheme for its site that captures inbound requests and redirects them to an auth screen (a la nytimes.com). If they do this, they're going to need as many inbound links as possible to stimulate demand for their pay-for-use programming.

Craniac:

"Historically, why is NPR freaked out at the notion of other websites pretending to create the illusion of NPR support through misrepresentation?"

I assume that you mean "actually creating the illusion," not "pretending to create the illusion" here. What you've characterized as misreprentation isn't. If I sell a tourist map with directions to the zoo, the park, the opera and the movie-theatre, it is not a representation that I operate the zoo, the park, the opera or the movie-theatre. As to why NPR holds the foolish belief that the map is the territory, you'll have to ask them.

"Why, why, why must we beat the hell out of an organization that is at least marginally clueful in so many other way?"

That's *precisely why* we need to beat them up on this. When NPR asserts this harmful, foolish thing -- that there is copyright interest in a link or reference to an item -- they do so credibly. They own a giant and popular printing-press, a bully pulpit whence they can propagate this anti-Internet, anti-discourse, anti-Commons message. If the message is allowed to stand then others will pick it up. The Web can't exist -- certainly Boing Boing wouldn't exist -- without free linking.

"Is the slashdot model of activism really the only resort here?"

Well, writing notes to the ombudsman sure doen't seem to help. If NPR indeed takes the position that links are infringing and keeps this policy in force, then one presumes that they will eventually sue people (one reader already wrote to me in private to tell me that he got a cease-and-desist from NPR and took down his site). Is diverting the resources of EFF (or worse, leaving some poor bastard to bankrupt himself defending this case) preferable to "Slashdot-style activism?"

Edited by author 06-22-2002 09:09 AM
Well, from what I understand from a person with close ties to the organization, NPR is behaving the way they're behaving because they are planning on switching their web services to a pay-for-play model, much like CNN.com is doing with their streaming video. They've got lots of content that lots of people like. And they also end up begging for money every three months. Seems a little bit like the wrong way to handle the situation now, but, what do I know?

and why is this issue important in life ? Come on- getting uptight about whether you can link to a site- I hadn't even HEARD of NPR before this. Who wants to link to NPR anyway?

There are bigger issues in life. Get outside, away from the internet.

A couple of questions:

1. Historically, why is NPR freaked out at the notion of other websites pretending to create the illusion of NPR support through misrepresentation?

2. Why, why, why must we beat the hell out of an organization that is at least marginally clueful in so many other way?

3. Is the slashdot model of activism really the only resort here?

Thanks Cory for taking on this borgness.

Hmmmm. Maybe it's time for a Festivus
of Deep Linking.

Here's my contribution: deep links to daily
comic strips on the web: http://StanKrute.com/StanleyDaily/comics

deep-link away, me hearties ...

Erik, here's why this has got my goat (not an exhaustive list):

* NPR's ombudsman fabricated a story about the CBC and BBC having the same policy. They don't, but we can imagine some overzealous lawyer at CBC or the Beeb meeting with management and saying, "Hey, NPR's doing it, they say that if you don't do it, you don't have journalistic integrity." For a major, respected news outlet to adopt this principle sets a dangerous precedent. If this position were to be widely adopted, it would be disastrous for the Web.

* We have settled copyright practice and precedent on our side. For a major news agency take this position and propagate it to the people who trust its judgement encourages people to believe that there is a copyright interest in controlling the context in which your work is discussed. This is against the public interest -- against the idea of a commons.

* Using legal code instead of computer code to express your desires wrt linking chills the Web. There are trivial means of expressing your desire not to be linked to with technical means (blocking offsite referrers). This allows people to build the Web without seeking permission for each link. Shifting the expression of desire to legal code makes it nearly impossible to build the Web, as each link would require the completion of a permission form and a lengthy wait for authorization.

From Wired:In Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, the one case in which linking policies have been challenged in court, the policies were dealt a decisive blow.

"Hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act," ruled U.S. District Judge Harry Hupp. "There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently." Yes, "It's perfectly right and legal".

Something very similar HAS been tested in the courts.

http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html

Okay, maybe I just don't get it, because I don't think this is an earthshattering deal. It's dumb on NPRs part, but if I rejected everything in my life that was touched by stupidity, I wouldn't be able to function. (See, frex, the C programming language, prevalence thereof in modern computing.)

But this whole "It's perfectly right and legal" thing bothers me. It may not be. It's never been tested in the courts, so when you start citing "law", you weaken your arguments considerably. I know some deep linking cases are winding their way through the courts, once they're solved, you can start talking "rights" and "legality" with some rationality.

NPR should welcome linking, if only to be good netizens, and to get the free advertising. But, hey, if they don't want to play, that's fine.

But I'm not about to give up ATC or Car Talk because the NPR ombudsman is suffering from CDD[1]. Hell, if I did that, I couldn't function in society, if anyone suffers from fits of CDD, it's me.


[1] Clue Deficit Disorder.

Thanks for highlighting this issue. You were briliant on the MPR piece you linked to.

The NPR ombudsman is constantly confusing the issue of content re-use with linking. Everything he has said to date, and all the NPR propaganda, is about approprating use of NPR material out of context. However, links are not out of context.

If they do not wish to allow audio to be played through links that do not originate from their site, a simple PHP scripts would suffice. Whenever an audio file was retrieved, the wrapper would check for a token. If the token weren't present, and it could be a signed token or dynamic one-time use token or a hashed algorithmic datestamp (all trivial), then a page would appear before the file was played that explained NPR and the context. Simple, useful technology.