Slashdot Log In
Ziff Davis To Website: License To Link, Updated
from the ominous-creaking-noises dept.
Rothenberg writes: "Hey! I'm the executive editor in charge of eWEEK.com -- and before this situation unravels any farther, I need to make a couple of quick clarifications about our reprint policy:
While I haven't gotten all the details about what happened, this legal warning to PocketPCTools seems to be a result of miscommunication within our company. We understand and embrace the principles under which sites such as PocketPCTools link to and excerpt our content. There are plenty of occasions when a professional media company needs to question the wholesale appropriation of its content or the use of its marks. From everything I understand about the PocketPCTools case so far, this is NOT one of those occasions!
We're moving to correct the situation now ... PocketPCTools was apparently acting within the appropriate bounds of Web etiquette -- actually, doing us a favor by sending us the traffic -- and Ziff Davis was apparently mistaken in issuing this warning.
My personal apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this error. We're investigating the situation now and will act accordingly."
Uh Oh (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:4, Informative)
No no no, ZDnet is apparently not owned by Ziff/Davis anymore.
eWeek, is though. [eweek.com]
Jeroen
Parent
Blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, what the hell was ZDNet thinking, the folks at pocketpctools.com were sending them traffic!
Re:Blogs (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's an obvious sign that they don't want people reading their publications.
So, I canceled my eWeek subscription.
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:5, Interesting)
---
Dear Sirs,
According to a recent article on Slashdot.org, you are demanding licensing for sites to link to material on your site (specifically pocketpctools.com). They say they linked to the article proper, and gave proper credit for the material in their review.
If the article was briefly quoted and proper credit given, via Fair Use Doctrine, then I would consider this to be a misinterpretation of Copyright law on your part, and would see this as an agressive action against weblogs in general. As someone who subscribes to your magazines, I find this very disturbing that you would act to suppress free speech in this way.
I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion since they claim the original article was removed and can not be examined by myself, but I wanted to ask that you please explain further so that I can make an educated decision whether to cancel my subscriptions and discontinue use of your website.
Because I consider this to be an important issue, but do not want to assume your company is guilty of this type of activity, I would request a reply as soon as reasonably possible.
Thank you in advance.
[name, city, state]
----
We shall see if I get a response to what is a polite and reasonable request by a customer.
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'all see how easy it is to become an activist and make changes for the better? It takes so very little effort, and makes such a big difference!
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Polite
2) Respectful
3) Objective
4) To the point
5) Request a reply
6) Use your real name and city/state and send from the same email address they can reply to.
Name or quote your sources, express your concerns, DONT assume it is correct, GENTLY explain what you are considering in response to their actions if true, and give them the opportunity to explain. Remain objective and fair if you want a response, or at least to have your letter actually read by someone that matters. I am sure many can do a better job of writing this letter, but thats great: do it and send it.
I really DONT know if this article is true, so assuming would not serve anyone anyway, and just make me look like an ass for being wrong and loud. Fake articles HAVE happened before, after all. What matters is NOT "I will unsubscribe", but "I have reason to question your companies ethics or actions" since most people are not subscribers anyway. You should always act like you really WANT to hear their opinion or side of the story, even though it is unlikely you will get a reply. These are the letters that get read in the boardroom.
You will never know if your particular letter made "the" difference but it doesn't matter. The sheer volume of intellegent, thoughtful and concerned letters speak for themselves.
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:5, Interesting)
Pharmboy: Thanks for the reasoned response. I don't have all the facts yet, either -- although I assure you, that's Priority One tomorrow morning!
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:3, Funny)
Congratulations on being the first individual to wander along and comment on my purported action without reading TFA. From the aforementioned FA:
It is Ziff Davis (ZDNet) that has forced us to remove the story mentioned above. The original story was on eWeek.
Therefore, whatever parent company harrassed them must have been involved with eWeek.
QED.
Re:Blogs (Score:4, Interesting)
To be honest, most of the tech orientated net could take pre-emptive action and just stop linking to them at all... pretend they don't exist, less linkage and (maybe) less visitors.
Let ZDNet commit htmleppuku if they wish to.
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a case of territoriality. The got the story, they want it. They figure that since a lot of other sites with the story will link to theirs, if they stop that from happening, they'll have the story to themselves. Or at least they'll have the original, and presumably best/most reliable/trustworthy/informative/whatever. Therefore, people will stop reading the competition and come to them, the source of all power tee emm.
It's still dumb, but what else can we expect from
Re:Blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
While there are many good blogs out there with unique, original content, there are also many blogs that are creative in the way that they cross-reference and explore a given topic by linking to several external sources and providing insight into how those sources are connected philosphically/intellectualy/topically/whatever. On a good day, I would say Slashdot is a good example of that concept.
The beauty of a well-crafted blog is that it can elaborate and further external articles so that the "whole is greater than the sum of it's parts"
I agree that there are MANY blogs out there like you illustrate in your post, but these blogs are avoided by those who appreciate what a good blog (original content or not) have to offer.
Parent
Re:Blogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if all you want is pure creativity, you can go to the bookstore and buy a novel or something.
Let's send a message... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm fairly certain that if the
A tech mag/publisher should know better.
Anyone have a list of Ziff/Davie sites we shouldn't visit for the next few weeks?
Re:Let's send a message... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's send a message... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let's send a message... (Score:4, Interesting)
Like a reverse google-bomb. Less powerful because anyone can post a link, whereas only people who already had ZD links can remove them, but it's still worth a try.
Or, just google-bomb "Ziff Davis" by linking to the page describing their over-zealous legal team. Let people find them, just make sure that damaging information is the first thing they find.
Parent
Re:Let's send a message... (Score:3, Informative)
I have a medium-sized website (about 170,000 pageviews a month and 1,300 members) and while I'm sure they aren't even going to NOTICE a lack of links from my site, I'll do my small part and not link to them ever again.
If everybody did the same...
Ziff-Davis != ZDNet (Score:5, Informative)
So, in simple terms, the story summary is wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
ZDNet, which originally was Ziff-Davis's umbrella web prescence now has nothing to do with Ziff-Davis, and thus ZDNet is an innocent party here, so mentioning its name (as the story summary does twice) is completely inaccurate.
In fact, as it stands, the Slashdot story summary is highly actionable, as it places ZDNet in a very negative light for the misdeeds of a totally unrelated company. But, despite the fact that they're almost certainly libelling ZDNet here, the chances of the Slashdot editors actually doing something about it and changing the story summary are minimal.
Yes, confusing Ziff-Davis Media and ZDNet is a mistake that pocketpctools.com themselves make but the Slashdot editors should know better. Some basic fact-checking on their part wouldn't go amiss but that would involve an actual editorial review process, something that Slashdot has never really had, hence the dupes, fakes, spelling and grammar mistakes, inaccuracies, etc that plague virtually every story summary.
Maybe ZDNet initiating legal action against Slashdot would be a good thing. It might actually wake Taco and co. up to the fact that getting it right does matter.
Parent
Hard to Believe (Score:5, Interesting)
Why use legal means? (Score:3, Insightful)
Example... Mozilla's Bugzilla doesn't want Mozilla to link to their bugs, so they block them [mozilla.org]! Easy.
If the content's protected (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's no password protection then it's publically available information. As long as you're not cut and pasting, you're not copying, so copywrite doesn't come into play. Heck, as long as the data comes off ziff's servers, the only copying taking place is onto the users computers (which you have an implicit right to do so). This is kinda like me giving a speech in the park and sueing passers-by for infringment.
Now, in the fscked-up world of US copyright law, all the common sense outlined above probably doesn't mean much. All I can say is, good luck to these guys.
Re:If the content's protected (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:If the content's protected (Score:3, Informative)
This case is about not being able to review _legal_ articles without paying a fee and getting permission. That means thay could silence any nay sayers, and it contrad
Re:If the content's protected (Score:4, Insightful)
A web link is nothing but a written address.
Then the reporters and editors and publishers should be thrown in prison for "contributing to people distributing illegal material" every time they print the address of a crackhouse or the address of any other illegal activity. Making a written address itself illegal is a very very dangerous precedent. Not only would it make the New York Times illegal for publishing addresses of illegal activity, but it is also quite a mess because the owners of that location can always change the content of that location from cookies to cocaine.
-
Parent
Is this really a big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's unfortunate you have to do this, but this kind of stupidity seems like something web-authors will have to live with no matter what kind of copyright laws your country has.
I think the most important thing is just to know that this happens, and not to panic.
Watch out slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when Google News takes the first sentence of one of their news stories and uses it on their front page?
The point of making news is for people to actually read it (along with the ads displayed along side it). Barring access to this news doesn't make much business sense. Sounds to me like Ziff-Davis has an overzealous legal team, which acts in self-interest rather in the interest of the company as a whole.
Wait a min... (Score:3, Informative)
What's in their robots.txt file? (Score:3, Insightful)
That and otherwise stop linking to them altogether.
It's Fair Use . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
PS Any one who laughs at Bush being logical should get -1 offtopic. Of course, I should get +5 funny for saying it
zndet sucks now (Score:5, Interesting)
As always, the summary is wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that pocketpctools.com still links to the article in dispute at the end of their statement. So linking is obviously not the issue.
That is all. Carry on.
Re:As always, the summary is wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
My sincere apologies to PocketPCTools for this misstep by our legal department.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Parent
ZD is shooting itself in the foot... (Score:4, Interesting)
ZD's actions are going to result in nobody linking to their material, and thus ZD will effectively disappear from the eyeballs of people like me.
The real question, the business question, is how long it'll take them (or their advertisers) to figure that out.
Z-D's Within Their Rights, But Being Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why copyright is a civil, not criminal issue. Ziff-Davis probably sends these letters to hundreds of sites every year. (And, it seems to work. When was the last time you saw someone pointing, regularly, to Z-D sites?) Most sites lack the money and means to challenge Z-D in court. Z-D knows they might lose a Fair Use case, but also knows that the recipients won't take them to court. Hence the letters.
It's a silly thing to do -- driving away potential traffic -- but Z-D has the right to do this. And, they will keep on doing it until someone takes them to court and wins.
Your rights (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is, you have the right to link to their story as long as you cite the source and you have the right to give an exerp of the story as long as it's not a condensed version of the story (meaning that if you understand the whole thing w/o going to ZDnet this means that your exerp has gone too far)
Usualy a 2-3 line expert is considered ok by copyright law.
You're gonna talk about deep linking heh ? Well deep linking has been defined as roughfly more than 4 clicks to the story (there is no magical number)
That small site needs a defender... (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears that the pocketpctools site was totally within the law, and that Ziff-Davis has gone well beyond their legitimate ownership rights into harassment. I suspect they are depending on the difference in size to make the smaller opponent simply fold rather than fight them.
We need one of the organizations (EFF?) with the ability, muscle, and money to push this one right back into Ziff-Davis' face. This sort of abuse needs to be stopped, and needs to be stopped hard.
Since this particular incident appears to have clear, clean boundries it might be an ideal one to clear up the legal questions, and to set hard limits.
--
Tomas
Lawyers need to go back to school... (Score:3)
Boss of eWEEK.com here ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here ... (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, if we seriously wanted to prevent linking:
a. We'd be kinda DUMB; and
b. We'd have to expect that people would take umbrage, right?
So tell me again, what would be the percentage in engaging in this behavior, even if they didn't post their concerns to Slashdot?
Unless making people mad and losing traffic were part of our business strategy, it sounds like kind of an asinine plan to me! :-)
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Parent
Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here ... (Score:4, Informative)
I just wanted to be clear that this kind of situation concerns me -- whether or not it makes Slashdot!
My e-mail box is always open if folks have issues about how well we're working and playing with other sites. And my team understands just how crucial doing the right thing is when it comes to our success. And anything that seems to impede doing the right thing will receive my immediate attention.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Parent
Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here ... (Score:4, Interesting)
JKendrick: Want to e-mail me privately at matthew_rothenberg@ziffdavis.com -- maybe with a phone # -- so I can give you a call? I'm playing catch-up on this situation myself and would like your perspective ... Looks like my Sunday night's shot already, so it'd be prime time to sort this out! :-)
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
Parent
Boss of eWEEK.com here (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey! I'm the executive editor in charge of eWEEK.com -- and before this situation unravels any farther, I need to make a couple of quick clarifications about our reprint policy, both here and on PocketPCTools:
This was a total screw-up involving an overzealous legal intern, not anybody on our online team. There's still some education that needs to happen within our company about what constitutes fair use on the Web -- and unfortunately, this warning went out without the knowledge or approval of our online team.
There are plenty of occasions when a professional media company needs to question the wholesale appropriation of its content. Nevertheless this is manifestly NOT one of those occasions!
In fact, I didn't know that this hornet's nest had been stirred until it hit Slashdot. That's clearly a breakdown of communication, since I'm the guy running the site! :-)
We're moving to correct the situation now ... PocketPCTools was obviously acting within the appropriate bounds of Web etiquette -- actually, doing us a favor by sending us the traffic -- and Ziff Davis was obviously mistaken in issuing this warning.
My personal apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this error, and I'm personally going to see that it isn't repeated in the future.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here (Score:4, Interesting)
This is certainly newsworthy, and I feel of more than passing importance.
I look forward to a well researched, well presented article on the subject.
--
Tomas
Parent
Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a whole raft of interesting and contentious issues that BigMedia companies like ours continue to feel their way around. We chew over many of them every day -- and clearly, still more mastication is in order.
The bully pulpit of Slashdot certainly garnered my undivided attention this evening, but these are precisely the sorts of situations that make my job interesting (if not always relaxing). And yes, I think the issues they reflect are well worth exploring editorially.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/rothenberg
Parent
Re:Boss of eWEEK.com here (Score:5, Funny)
It rather sounds as if we're in violent agreement here.
I think I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the offices come tomorrow morning. I think I'd find I was living in some of those "interesting times" Confusious was fond of refering to.
Can the air conditioning handle the expected smoke?
Mmm, I suppose I'd better put in the obligatory smiley here, you might need it tomorrow.
--
Cheers & good luck, Gene
Parent
Nothing new, Nando did the same (Score:5, Informative)
Way back in 1998 I had a battle with [com.com] The Nando Times when I was running 7am.com which was one of the most successful aggregators of all time.
Nando said "pay us $100 per month for the right to link or we'll sue"
I said "bring it on"
They said "um, err, well okay we won't" and then attributed their back-down to the fact that I was in New Zealand and they were in the USA so such a legal battle would be too hard to wage.
The reality was that I formed an informal group of other online publishers and aggregators who simply stood up to these ridiculous tactics. Seeing they were outnumbered and copping a heap of flack in the media, they gave up their ill-conceived efforts.
When I asked the head of Nando.Net why they were averse to me effectively extending their reach and delivering huge numbers of eager-eyes to their ad-laden pages I was told that their ad revenues weren't enough to cover the cost of serving up those pages so more traffic meant more cost.
Someone ought to have taught those guys how to run an online publishing business!
I've also had similar battles with other publishers such as Television New Zealand here in NZ who simlarly threatened me with all manner of dire consequences if I didn't stop linking to them.
Once again I invited them to do their worst and they backed down.
At one stage I was involved in (and winning) so many battles over the issue of hypertext linking and the intellectual property rights associated with such things that I regularly was invited to talk to the legal profession (some of my stuff even scoring a mention in the US Bar Association's Journal) and other online publishers.
I should point out that at all times I linked ethically -- this meant no framing, full attributions and only ever using the headline and sometimes the first line of the article.
One thing *all* publishers should do is publish a linking policy on their website so as to let other sites know what they consider to be fair and reasonable. I do this [aardvark.co.nz] on my Aardvark daily internet commentary and I also continue to aggregate headlines [aardvark.co.nz] (including some from eWeek when they're running something worth a mention). The funny thing is that these days, nobody tries to pick a fight with me
But, if Ziff Davis/eWeek are thinking about doing so, I once again say "Bring it on! And let the good times roll (again