The Trials Of Being A Techdirt Writer Volume 1: Stupid Copyright Popups When Pressing CTRL-C
from the blog-world-problems dept
Because I was once just a lowly Techdirt reader before Mike had the brilliant idea of giving my brand of insanity a share of his platform, I know what most of you think it's like to write for the site. But, despite what you surely think, it isn't all high-priced call-girls and expensive narcotics broken up by occasionally typing up a four hundred word rant about copyright. There's actual research involved, gathering story ideas, discussing them with the other writers, and then putting thoughts to virtual paper. Occasionally, the actions of others make our jobs a little bit tougher than they should be.
For instance, I recently informed you all about Dov Siedman, a guy who essentially does the corporate speaking circuit, who also is battling Chobani, a maker of Greek yogurt, over the word "how", which Siedman insists is his and his alone. I linked to a New York Daily News post for that article and pulled several block quotes from it to round out the post. What you may not realize is that I had originaly found the story on a site called Food Navigator USA, a site dedicated to news about the food and beverage industry. It was actually, in my opinion, a superior article and I had wanted to use it for the post. The problem arose when I attempted to copy/paste a small section for the first block quote of the article and received this popup.
THIS CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTEDAre you, the educated Techdirt reader, done vomiting yet? Good, because now we can all have a discussion about how both misleading and self-destructive this kind fo notification is. Let's deal with the headline of the popup first: THIS CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED. When produced for attempting to simply copy and paste a tiny section of an article, with zero attempt made to discern what the intention of the copying is, the message being sent is that such an attempt to copy the text is a violation of copyright on the article. This, of course, is absolute nonsense. It ignores entirely the concept of Fair Use and I damn well could have pulled the quotes I wanted, posted the article I'd originally intended to write, and gone on the rest of my life feeling secure knowing that there is nothing the assuredly esteemed plethora of lawyers on the Food Navigator USA dole could do about it. I'm protected. Now, the insistence that only the entire article could be shared with the headline intact is an obvious attempt to get more people to the site in order to generate more readership, ad revenue, etc.
However, if you would like to share the information in this article, you may use the headline, summary and link below:
How Matters: Chobani ‘disappointed’ by ‘baseless’ trademark infringement lawsuit from Dov Seidman
By Elaine Watson+, 05-Jun-2014
A lawsuit filed by bestselling author and corporate ethics consultant Dov Seidman accusing Chobani of infringing his trademarks with its 'How Matters' campaign is "baseless and without merit", says the Greek yogurt maker.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/Dov-Seidman-sues-Chobani-for-trademark-infringement-over-How-Matters
Which completely backfired because I'll be damned if I'm going to include a site that uses this kind of heavy-handed, nuance-less mind-boning in one of my posts, unless it's to discuss how completely stupid and backward it is. The funny part of all this is that, after being confronted with this popup, I found roughly a trillion other sites that had this same story and which didn't bash me over the head for pulling block quotes. We at Techdirt, of course, always link back to the original posts when we discuss a story, and our block quotes don't encompass the entire articles. The idea is that the sources we pull from get traffic via our links and, wouldn't you know it, that happens even though we aren't simply reposting all of their content with their headline and bylines intact.
Am I saying this is a problem that is insurmountable? No, of course not, since I found another post from which to pull quotes. Am I saying this is a heavy hardship on me, the Techdirt writer? No, for the same reason stated previously. But in the end, it creates a little extra work for us writers and generates nothing positive for the site with the silly popups. So how about not doing that crap any longer?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copy and paste, copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[...]
Just kidding! My lawyer once freaked out after he stepped in cow manure and thought he was melting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because of the children...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep, no popup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's assuming you're using a real web browser like Firefox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or use a plugin like NoScript which can, by default, block all JavaScript except from White-Listed sites (techdirt is on my white-list, because they have proven not to abuse my browser with such stupidity in the past.)
That way you still get some of the benefits of JavaScript (such as jQuery and AJAX) on certain websites without letting in all the crazies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not doubting you had issues as I've seen that sort of thing before but it's been a while. Now-a-days that no longer seems to work with my setup. I much prefer not having the nag screen thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This content is copyright protected
Looks like JavaScript was preventing the text from being copied. I use NoScript add-on for Firefox. I was able to right click copy/paste just fine from this website.
I personally don't like allowing websites to upload and execute their remote code on my computer. I've had way too many malware payloads infect my computers in the past, from Cross Site Scripting and iFrame exploits from even trusted websites such as Yahoo.
Not to mention all the Quantum inserting the NSA is doing to people. Such as redirecting web browsers to FoxAcid pools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The purpose of this article was not to have workarounds explained but instead to share the event and why the event represents stupid behaviour.
I've come to expect you to miss the point of techdirt articles so another failure on your part is par for the course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ *whooshing sound* ]
☺ ← kenichi tanaka
_____________________________
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I really don't think KT is a white night of anything.
In my opinion, he's just some idiot on the internet who tends to yap alot without thinking much past his own nose, let alone thinking things out to their logical conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
If a site wants to try and restrict people from quoting something they write, just do what the writer in this case did, ignore them and move on. Find another source, and use, and credit, them instead, and leave sites like the one mentioned here in the dust, no links, no copied text, nothing.
Putting work into bypassing their silly restrictions is still giving them far more attention and time than they're worth, if they want to be ignored and not quoted or linked to, let them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point
I agree the best way is not to link to them. Their idea that there is no such animal as fair use deserves the lack of note in credit and other sites deserve to receive that benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point
Sure, I agree with you that we're not bound by their silly ideas and we shouldn't let ourselves be. But that's missing the forest 'cause your staring at one broken twig.
There's a larger point. The type of thinking that led to someone coding up a cut and paste blocking script needs to be criticized. It needs to be argued against with reasoned debate, mocked for the shortsightedness, and otherwise shown the error of it's ways.
You're making the mistake that a lot of techies and geeks make, and I'll admit I make the same mistake myself from time to time. Just because you can get around the problem doesn't mean it's not there. You've 'fixed' the problem by creating a work-around. But the root cause is still there. You've cured the symptom, not the disease.
Technology should be making things easier. It should be enabling more content to be spread more widely, for lower (or no) cost. It should be enabling more content to be created and lowering the barrier to entry. And it is doing all that. But the 'other side' is using tech too. Admittedly, they're using it ham-fistedly, like the 3rd grade bully who beats up the other kids because he's taller and heavier than everyone in his age bracket.
Just because Aaron Schwartz wrote a script and wired a laptop into a network doesn't mean that we should ignore that scholarly research is being locked up. Just because Edward Snowden released some documents, and we can encrypt our emails, doesn't mean we should ignore the NSA wiretapping the world. Just because we can code around the stupidity doesn't mean we should have to continue doing so indefinitely.
We need to change people's minds. We need to show them that locking up ideas and culture behind 'intellectual property' is fundamentally a bad idea, both for them and for society as a whole. And one way to hopefully do that is to write up articles like the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Except nobody locks them up.
The issue here is that you are free to talk about anything. You can discuss endlessly last nights Game of Whatever episode until your fingers drop off. You can make jokes, you can quote it, you can chat about it... essentially, you can share the cultural part of it endlessly. What you can't do is actually share the work itself.
Whenever someone says culture is getting locked up, I have to giggle. You make it sound like nobody is allowed to talk about anything or share in common experiences. How wrong you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Interesting that you include this statement, since what the whole article is about is an attempt to stop readers from quoting. So the implication of your very statement is that this is a case of trying to lock up ideas and culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
I can't tell if this is some kind of fantastical political drama, or one of those wacky Japanese game shows...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Culture is not just being able to talk about something.
Culture is a shared set of ideas, knowledge, and experiences. You can't fully share the experience of watching video, listening to music, or reading a book with someone who has no access to that content. It's going to be a one-sided conversation without common ground.
We are fast approaching a point where every person on this planet could have fast and cheap access to the sum total of human culture. You're welcome to your opinion, but it is completely inconceivable to me that that wouldn't be desirable. I won't make any wild claims that it would necessarily lead to the end of wars or poverty, bigotry or irrationality, but it certainly can't hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew how to work around it, so I did. It took a bit, but after trolling through the code, I finally found the link for the image, made sure it worked, and passed on the link.
The idea that you would go to such lengths seemed far out of proportion to the degree of protection it actually offered.
More importantly, the site owner and designer decided that it was more important to "protect their rights", and changed the way a browser is designed to work. I mean even right-click and choosing back was disabled.
Technology is designed agnostically so that it works best for everyone who uses it. You're pounding your copright square peg into a technolgy round hole when you do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was under the impression that President Skroob let you get away with pretty much anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You won't change it. You can only work around it. That is the real point that you seem to be missing. Everyone else "gets it" and finds a way around. It's just what we have done for years and years.
Stupid that you can't save youtube video.
Stupid that ads everywhere.
Stupid that popups.
Stupid that nag js popups.
Stupid that js in DOM "disabling" right mouse click.
Stupid that site wants an email.
Stupid that site wants a post/zip code.
Stupid that IP Geo-location restrictions.
Ect..... fucking Etc.......
We can't change every site... we just work around it.
That "right click disabled" is an old one too. No need to block js or anything as drastic as that.
You have a "basic page style" button on your browser ?
Use it. No addon required. But on the subject....snaplinks works as 99% of the time with links....the js is on a click event. So you right mouse and drag....all links open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong ideas
You have every right to download and copy each and every Website out there.
What you don't have is the right to (re-)publish them, unless granted by fair use or some exception.
So the thinking that leads to "disallowing copying" is of course extremely wrong and in no way based on copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong ideas
> The point about copyright is, of course, it's not a "right to make copies" (or even "right to copy & paste", but a "right to publish".
Unfortunately, that simply isn't true. See for instance, §106 (1) of http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf.
Now, there are many exceptions when copying a work does not violate copyright. Fair use is once category of exceptions. Downloading from a website (which makes "copies" in the memory on your computer) has been deemed to be another exception (in other words, it doesn't count as a "copy"). But you CAN violate copyright law without publishing something. Making a photocopy of your friend's book so you won't have to go buy one for yourself would normally be a copyright violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I actually want to defend them
Let me first acknowledge that they DID use an annoying "pop up window when you attempt to copy". That is annoying, and I wish they wouldn't do it. The charitable interpretation is that they wanted to reach a particular audience: those who were trying to copy something from the article. I still would have preferred that they put it someplace better, like a link on the footer or side of the page. That is where the copyright notice is found on your Techdirt article.
But if we move past the placement to the actual content of the message, I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be. The actual text says "THIS CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED However, if you would like to share the information in this article, you may use...". Now, once you finish vomiting, you say that "the message being sent is that such an attempt to copy the text is a violation of copyright on the article". Maybe that's how you perceived it, but the actual message just said that the content was protected by copyright. The message to the side of your Techdirt article says the same thing.
They go on to say "you may use [a certain excerpt and citation]". I actually think they worded this well. If they had said "you may only use [...]" or "you must use [...]" I would have complained just as hard as you did. But with this wording, they are granting you an ADDITIONAL right. You have been granted an indemnity to use that particular quotation regardless of whether a court considers it to be fair use -- that's rather kind of them. It does not dispute your right to quote other bits under fair use.
In short, I think they were annoying and I wish they wouldn't do this, but your characterization of this as extreme ("done vomiting yet?") is over-the-top and unnecessary because they haven't actually said anything to mislead the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually want to defend them
Since when should an entity "Have a reasonable right" to control what portion of their site, or comments everyone else can or cannot use in their "Quoting"
So yea, go ahead and defend away.
You sorta fit into the wrong side of this 'Partial' quote here.
"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually want to defend them
You seem to quote the line "Have a reasonable right" but this line appears nowhere in my posting, nor in the original article, nor in any comment made other than yours (and now this one).
If you are bringing this up as a new straw-man to argue against, then... well... US copyright law (as well as that of essentially every other country on the globe) gives authors certain LIMITED rights to control how others can use their work. If you are arguing about whether current copyright law is reasonable then I'm just not going to get into that with you. I think current copyright law is reasonable in many ways (protecting against copying, providing exceptions for fair use) and unreasonable in others (like term of copyright and a complete disconnect between legal penalties and economic harm done). But all of that has NOTHING to do with Food Navigator posting a warning on their site.
And your John Stuart Mill quote is also a non sequitur. I said that Mr. Geigner went too far in criticizing Food Navigator. From that you somehow conclude that I have nothing I am willing to fight for? Perhaps I am a crusader for the right to free speech, specializing in the rights of people to post annoying popups on their web sites! As it happens, I actually care a good deal about intellectual property law misuse and abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually want to defend them
The clear implication of "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" plus "you may use" is that you may not use anything else without permission. Even if it doesn't say exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually want to defend them
Item: Mr. Geigner was posting news. He had and has the same rights regarding other news stories posted on the internet as any news provider does about reports from any other news provider. They can remark on the competition's reporting, and pull quotes from it to illustrate their points. How much of any particular story they can take out of context and use this way, I'll leave up to the courts and lawyers.
Item: The script used to block capturing only parts of the article could arguably be found to be a form of entrapment. The website which originally posted the report could arguably have turned around and sued any other party for posting the article in its entirety. I'll be the first to admit, it's a tenuous argument and I don't expect ever to see it get before a judge, but it does still exist.
Item: The same script could arguably be considered a criminal act under the CFAA - access to computers for unlawful purposes. Again, it's a very tenuous argument, but it does still exist.
Item: The same script does not discriminate as to the purpose for copying parts of the article. It ignores fair use and makes blanket assumptions which may - or, as in Mr. Geigner's case were - utterly wrong. Sloppy programming and even sloppier thinking.
I've done enough computer programming and reading on copyright and fair use to have formed the opinion that what that one website did was indeed vomit-worthy, not to put too fine a point on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually want to defend them
> Item: [...] He had and has the same rights [...] as any news provider does about reports from any other news provider.
Yes, he does. We agree here.
> Item: [...] The website which originally posted the report could arguably have turned around and sued any other party for posting the article in its entirety.
Um... I guess so? I mean, of course anyone can sue for anything, but I suppose they could have won such a case if the article was posted in its entirety without some valid exception such as fair use. But Geigner never intended to exceed the bounds of fair use, and the popup had no impact on his legal rights (except perhaps to expand them). So I don't get what you're saying here.
> Item: The same script could arguably be considered a criminal act under the CFAA - access to computers for unlawful purposes.
I think you mean that getting around the script could be considered a CFAA violation. Good point. I would furious at anyone who suggested such a thing, or who created a popup with the intent of creating a CFAA violation. None of which is a reason to criticize Food Navigator in this instance.
> Item: The same script does not discriminate as to the purpose for copying parts of the article. [...] Sloppy programming
You are totally right here. It would be better for them to have written a script that DID discriminate and only popped up if the copying was, in fact, a copyright violation. But I can't put that down to sloppy programming -- doing so would require the JavaScript programmer to implement a mind-reading subroutine, because part of what makes the copying a violation is Mr. Geigner's intent. Delivering the message on all attempts to copy seems like one reasonable compromise.
Now, I'd rather they just stuck their warning in a footnote. And I'd rather that their wording reminded users that they CAN copy if it's for fair use. Their UI is obnoxious; in fact, I wonder if you would consider a pop-up-on-copy that just told the time of day to ALSO be vomit-worthy. Because objecting to ALL pop-up-on-copy is actually something pretty reasonable in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I actually want to defend them
How nice of them to grant an additional right to an alternate block of text that may or may not have anything to do with the section of text that we might want to quote.
I disagree with your take on this. This is a case of the site wanting to do away with any use (fair or not) aside from the summary that they themselves have provided.
This is not granting additional rights. This is an attempt to use technology to remove rights that we all already have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I actually want to defend them
(1) they are GIVING YOU PERMISSION to use a certain quote with attribution. Now, that's unlikely to be the particular quote you wanted, but hey, it's a (small) additional right.
People have been sued before for linking to someone. They are effectively promising not to do that (if you happen to use this particular wording in your citation).
(2) They are blocking your ABILITY to copy by intercepting the ctrl-c operation. That's obnoxious. It doesn't remove your rights, just makes it harder to do. I object to this part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's look at the base issue
Is it really such a problem that people are copying their content? And is it really so bad that they prevent anyone from lifting a quote to link to their site?
And by the way, this script also blocks people who might be writing a paper on this issue for their college class. Guess what? They can't copy a block of text either.
And guess what? A quick Google search will find a similar article which makes a similar point, which does allow copying, and which will be given credit AND maybe given more traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rather pathetic really, as so many have pointed out- it's not hard at all to be in control of your own browser, and you have every right (and responsibility IMO) to. if your not blocking scripts, you're privacy/security is NULL, and your a ripe hacking target- REALLY bizare thing to find out about a techdirt writer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enable Copy-Paste in Web Pages That Disallow It, with a Firefox Tweak
http://lifehacker.com/enable-copy-paste-in-web-pages-that-disallow-it-with-a-1601848114
[ link to this | view in chronology ]