Techdirt. Stories about "nytimes" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories about "nytimes"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:43:37 PDT Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110322/03485913583/am-i-violating-dmca-visiting-nytimes-with-noscript-enabled.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110322/03485913583/am-i-violating-dmca-visiting-nytimes-with-noscript-enabled.shtml bizarrely pointless paywall, it comes as no surprise that the wall itself is barely any wall at all. It's not even a fence. It's basically a bunch of fence posts, and someone screaming: "Pay no attention to your own eyes. There is a fence here, and you should go round the front and pay at the entrance... unless someone sent you here. Then walk on through." That, of course, is bizarre, and it means that most people will never actually see any fence at all. But it gets even more bizarre when you discover that the "paywall" itself has apparently been written in javascript, meaning that when you do hit the wall, the full article you want to read actually loads in the HTML, it's just then blocked by some script asking you to pay up. That means it's even easier to remove than many had predicted (no need to even delete cookies or any such nonsense). In fact, that link above points people to NYTClean, a four-line javascript bookmarklet, that makes it easy to remove the paywall with (literally) the click of a button, should you actually encounter it.

Now, when I read that, my first thought was that certainly sounds like a "circumvention device" under the DMCA. The author is Canadian, so he may be protected for now, since Canada (thankfully) doesn't yet have an anti-circumvention clause that makes any such circumvention tool illegal -- though, the Canadian government is still apparently considering a law that would add just such a clause. Of course, to anyone who understands what's going on, that's ridiculous. Four simple lines of code to remove a javascript popup should not be considered a tool for infringement, but it is.

Of course, that got me wondering. I tend to use the always excellent NoScript extension when browsing, which turns off javascript, except on a few key sites where I enable it. If the stories about the NYT paywall being done in javascript are true, then I'll simply never run into it at all, no matter what I do.

So, here's the question: have I broken the law by using NoScript? I've used it for years, and it seems pretty ridiculous to claim that I now need to specifically go and whitelist the NYTimes just because it wants to hit me with an incredibly porous paywall. But, technically, I could see how an argument could be made that merely using NoScript makes me a DMCA violator by "circumventing" technical protection measures. Does this also mean that NoScript -- an incredibly useful tool -- has suddenly become a "circumvention device" overnight, because the NYTimes programmed an incredibly stupid paywall in javascript?

What this really should highlight is the massive problem with automatically outlawing all "circumvention" and "circumvention devices." It leads to particularly dumb situations like this, when a clueless newspaper puts up an amazingly poorly thought out paywall in a manner that makes very little sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> simple-questions http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110322/03485913583 Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:19:00 PDT The NYT Discovers That, Lo and Behold, Web Filters Don't Work Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1229219042.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1229219042.shtml stopping piracy or blocking child porn or just "cleaning up the internet" in general. But there's just one small problem with filters: they don't work. Despite claims from politicians and other groups, they simply aren't effective, and often end up blocking desirable content while letting undesirable stuff flow through. Given the long history of filter failures, it's a little surprising to see people who seem shocked that filters don't work. The latest example comes from The New York Times, which has discovered that YouTube's Safety Mode filters don't really work at all. The company's weak defense of its poor filters seems more like a shrug of the shoulders than anything, creating an impression that the filters are there for appearances and little else. The NYT does deserve some credit, though, for recommending that parents take an active role with their kids in helping them determine for themselves what's inappropriate viewing material on YouTube. That's really the bottom line: you can't expect filters to replace parenting.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> finally-figuring-these-things-out http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100416/1229219042 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:03:00 PDT The Real Problem With Internet Comments Isn't Anonymity Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/1526158979.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100412/1526158979.shtml favorite target for politicians, writers and plenty of other folks who use them to represent everything that's wrong with the internet. Many sites have a love-hate relationship with comments, including news sites, which often want to encourage "participation" but don't get much out of the comments, including ad revenue, since many advertisers don't want their ads alongside them. Now, many of these news sites are rethinking their commenting systems, with a view towards cutting down in the bile that's often spewed by commenters on their site. Typically, these efforts amount to little more than switching comments off or forcing people to use their real names, with many publishers (and pundits) believing that the real problem is anonymity. But anonymity isn't the issue; the quality and tone of comments is. So if that's the real problem, why not seek to change it, instead of taking aim at a completely separate issue? As we've noted before, Techdirt gets a lot of comments, including the occasional unfriendly one from a jerk. Sometimes this jerk is anonymous -- but if they're a jerk, it doesn't much matter if they're anonymous or using their real name. With that in mind, it's nice to see that some of the sites in the NYT article above are actually looking at ways to tackle the real issue, and not just anonymity -- though there are plenty that still seem to think everybody will be nice if they use their real name.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> confusing-the-issues http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100412/1526158979 Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:41:00 PDT Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100406/1146048898.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100406/1146048898.shtml not unethical. It resulted in quite a discussion in our comments, with people taking both sides. However, an anonymous reader points us to a blog post at Mediabistro, where it appears readers sent in a whole bunch of ridiculous strawman arguments to claim that downloading such a book was clearly unethical. According to Mediabistro, not a single reader agreed with Cohen. While some commenters on the post do take the "infringement is unethical, no question" type statements to task, the blog post doesn't bother to point out the serious confusion by the complainers. Take, for example, the following:
"So, if you own the hardcover you should get the paperback for free? Different platform, right? Maybe you can use the hardcover to get into the movie version as well. That's a different platform. Maybe the audiobook as well? It's really a deeply irresponsible post. Some ethics!"
But that's missing the entire point of what Cohen said. First of all, the situation he was discussing was one where the ebooks were not even available -- so it wasn't even a question of the author losing any money. And that's the key point that Cohen is making, which seems lost on the people attacking him. Morality only really comes into play when there's a question of who wins and who loses. When you need to make such a choice, that's a moral question. If there are no losers, there's no moral question to deal with. What Cohen is pointing out -- quite accurately and ethically -- is that in a scenario in which there is no loss, but only gain, then it cannot be seen as unethical. What the person above was stating is totally different. In each of those examples there is a real loss. Something scarce is taken, and that means others can't have it. But with the ebook of a book that hasn't been released in that format, that's not even a question.

It's really a question of whether or not you should be allowed to format change the works you've purchased, and there are many reasonable arguments in favor of that -- especially in situations where there is no loss in the system.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> we're-still-having-this-argument? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100406/1146048898 Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:27:00 PDT The Same Day The NY Times Praised Google For Standing Up To China, The Times Paid Singapore's Leaders Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/0308528881.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/0308528881.shtml effectively leave China and the NY Times' agreement to pay Singapore's leaders for daring to refer to the fact that a father and son pair had both been prime minister as a "dynasty." The Times' public editor is now comparing the two situations -- and while he notes that Singapore is an important market for many media publications, and from a business perspective, the decision makes sense, he seems to suggest that Google got this right, while the Times got it wrong:
Google faced a similar painful dilemma in China. With potentially billions of dollars at risk, it stuck to its principles, and The Times applauded editorially. I think Google set an example for everyone who believes in the free flow of information.


Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> parallels http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100405/0308528881 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:27:00 PDT NYTimes Has To Apologize, Pay $114k For Mentioning Singapore Had Father/Son Prime Ministers? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1340298768.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100329/1340298768.shtml an odd sort of "apology" last week, which is now getting a bunch of attention on Twitter:
In 1994, Philip Bowring, a contributor to the International Herald Tribune's op-ed page, agreed as part of an undertaking with the leaders of the government of Singapore that he would not say or imply that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had attained his position through nepotism practiced by his father Lee Kuan Yew. In a February 15, 2010, article, Mr. Bowring nonetheless included these two men in a list of Asian political dynasties, which may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this inference was not intended. We apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong for any distress or embarrassment caused by any breach of the undertaking and the article.
There's so much that's bizarre in this short paragraph that it's difficult to know where to start. But, what may be even more bizarre is what the NY Time's apparently left out. According to other reports, the NY Times also paid $114,000 to the father and son (and to a lawyer representing both). Either way, this whole thing is very odd. Why would a reporter for a respectable publication ever agree not to give an opinion on something? And why would the NY Times' cave for merely stating that having a father and son both as prime minister's represents something of a dynasty?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> say-what-now? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100329/1340298768 Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:50:00 PST If A Blogger Links To The New Paywalled NY Times, And It Leads To A Subscription, Will The NYT Pay The Blogger? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/0334278250.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/0334278250.shtml amazingly confused the NY Times appears to be about its new plan for a paywall. Apparently, the paywall will even include the NYTimes' blog sites -- which even the WSJ tends to keep outside of its paywall. As Salmon notes, this could drive some of the NYT's more popular bloggers to go elsewhere. But where it gets really confusing is that the NYT's execs seem to go back and forth over whether or not links into NYT articles from other sites (such as blogs) will count against the "quota" that leads to the paywall. Sometimes they say it won't count, except when they say it will count. Basically, it sounds like they don't know, but they're so afraid of people sneaking in that there will be at least some limit.

But this leads to a rather fascinating question that one of Salmon's readers asks in the comments (unfortunately, it looks like Reuters doesn't let you link directly to comments): if a blog post drives traffic to the NY Times, and that counts against the quota of "free" articles, leading users to eventually sign up for the paywall, will the blogger get a cut of the paywall fee? After all, isn't part of the argument from newspapers upset with aggregators that they're getting some sort of "free ride"? Wouldn't the same apply in reverse? If newspapers, such as the NY Times, are getting direct revenue from an action initiated by a blogger, then by the newspapers' own convoluted logic, don't those newspapers owe money to the bloggers?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> questions,-questions... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100222/0334278250