Ziff Davis To Website: License To Link, Updated 277
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."
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?
Ha. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hard to Believe (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Blogs (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps it's just me, but I'm bored to death by the blogs that seem to just go "gee, today I read this article [slashdot.org]. Isn't it c00l" endlessly. C'mon bloggers - noone (except pagerank) cares about you re-hashing someone elses drivel.
I think the best thing that could happend to the blogging community is if they had to start creating rather than just rehashing content.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 the human psyche?
#include <standard-disclaimer.h>
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.
I thought we had outgrown this. (Score:2, Interesting)
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
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
Moderation (OT) (Score:2, Interesting)
Somehow I find this interesting:
Current moderation of first post [slashdot.org] (poorly spaced): 100% Informative.
Current moderation of second post [slashdot.org] (spacing fixed): 70% Interesting, 30% Informative.
I'm not sure that the sample size is really large enough to draw any conclusions, but still... Does
adding spacing
to your posts make
them
interesting (or, conversely, less informative)?
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
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
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
the big legal dogs (Score:3, Interesting)
Wonderful to know how easy it is for lawyers to make up these letters. They mean nothing and are written as easily as ordinary people burn toast -- but they can sure intimidate. For those willing to give Ziff Davis a pass, I wonder if the Pocket site admins are willing to post the content of the e-mails they received? Perhaps you'd feel a little differently about "legal mistakes" when you see what they're really like.
It's ridiculous that companies have such power; were it not for slashdot, I wonder if Ziff Davis would have done a thing after the fact? The mere fact that Ziff Davis employees can fire off a letter that can effectively force sites to censor themselves should be a wake up call to folks everywhere.
Re:Is this really a big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)