×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Canadian Newspaper Charging $150 License Fee To Publish Excerpts

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the cut-and-pay dept.

Canada 217

dakohli writes "Michael Geist has pointed out an interesting development at the National Post's website. 'If you try to highlight the text to cut and paste it, you are presented with a pop-up request to purchase a license if you plan to post the article to a website, intranet or a blog. The fee would be $150.' He notes that even if you are highlighting a 3rd party quote inside an article a pop-up asking if you want a license will appear. Mr Geist points out this might be contrary to Canadian Copyright Law's fair use provisions."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Conrad Black needs money, it seems (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111319)

This will definitely work.

Re:Conrad Black needs money, it seems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111357)

This will definitely work.

It's bound to ensure that the National Post is the go-to paper for people wanting to find quotes, that's for sure.

Re:Conrad Black needs money, it seems (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111719)

Black? Conrad Black? Is he ... could he be ... do you think he's a ...

NIGGER?!?!

He sure is acting like one in my opinion!

Mod this up if you're not dumb enough to get offended at words we should all learn to laugh at. People learn to laugh about demographic differences, maybe they will stop fighting about them. Then how would Jesse Jackson earn a living?! Oh noes! SO yeah, get all offended and mod this down, for Jesse's sake!!

Re:Conrad Black needs money, it seems (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112275)

Black has nothing to do with this newspaper anymore. He sold it way back in 2001.

Embrace the experimentalism (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111333)

We should embrace their spirit of experimentalism and their desire to try potential new revenue streams, and start charging money for posting as an A/C on slashdot.

The fee should start out as two cents, natch.

Re:Embrace the experimentalism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111477)

The fee should start out as two cents, natch.

Since we're talking about Canada (which has abolished the penny), that will round down to an even zero cents.

Re:Embrace the experimentalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111529)

*finger to nose* :)

Re:Embrace the experimentalism (1)

Mage Powers (607708) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111539)

Only if you pay with cash. Slashdot should charge in blocks of 50 comments ;)

Re:Embrace the experimentalism (2, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111635)

God damn it, don't give Dice Holdings any ideas!!!

Re:Embrace the experimentalism (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111715)

I think I should get payed for every comment or news article or law I am forced to consider, read or hear about. I should be payed every time I get stopped by the police for speeding! I should be able to bill them for time lost! I should OWN ALL THE THINGS. Unfortunately Farengi economics creates the downfall of civilizations as you are now witnessing.

This logic is stupid and unfortunately the great uplifting of 2012 did not enlighten anyone.

Re:Embrace the experimentalism (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111759)

In Canada, 2 cents and no cents are the same. We ditched our penny, remember?

Desperate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111345)

Crap newspaper, nothing worth quoting. They give out free subscription that are impossible to cancel.

What if... (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111347)

I right clicked > view source and copy pasted from there? ...

but then couldn't the newspaper find the content I copy pasted and come after me for theft or something? ...

what if I posted as AC? :) ...

what if AC posted it and I copied it not knowing the source?

Re:What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111387)

and if that's disabled, wget ftw

Re:What if... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111413)

What if you just shut your filthy sewer and go back to being a total loser and a faggot?

Re:What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111415)

Better yet, I could copy the screen buffer and perform an OCR routine and have it output into a text file for me.

Re:What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112241)

I don't know if this works on Windows, but on the Mac all you have to do is print the desired page, but instead of printing it on the printer, tell it to print to a PDF file. That can then be copied to your hearts content.

Re:What if... (5, Informative)

pesho (843750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111691)

Or you can add "license.icopyright.net/rights/" to your adblock filter list and never see the stupid overlay ever again.

Re:What if... (3)

Megane (129182) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112261)

The hell with that. Sites like that get a total domain name block from me.

||icopyright.net^

Re:What if... (2)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111807)

Eh, simply using a sane browser should fix the problem. I dont see any popups here, using noscript of course.

Re:What if... (2)

JackSpratts (660957) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111833)

select "quit asking me," or better yet, install noscript. solves lots of ongoing issues.

Re:What if... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112115)

Just disable javascript. This is the same crap like those 90s "no right click" scripts.

They're certainly free to do this... (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111355)

They have a computer. If you ask their computer nicely, it will send you some bits.

They're free to send me whatever bits they like in response to my request (so long as they don't materially misrepresent what they are, as in the case of malware etc.). In turn, I'm free to do whatever I like with the bits they send me. If I want to interpret them as instructions for rendering a webpage, as is conventional, I can do so. I can also print out the HTML and wipe my ass with it if I like.

If that webpage has some Javascript that says "Ooh, you highlighted some text, pay me please!" I am free to turn off Javascript and cut and paste that text, or render it in Lynx, or grep the HTML, or whatever the hell else I want.

If they didn't want me to have access to the text they sent me, they shouldn't have sent it to me.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111429)

If that webpage has some Javascript that says "Ooh, you highlighted some text, pay me please!" I am free to turn off Javascript and cut and paste that text, or render it in Lynx, or grep the HTML, or whatever the hell else I want.

Unless that counts as 'circumventing a digital lock' according to the Conservative Party's draconian copyright legislation. Then you become a criminal.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (5, Interesting)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111975)

Hmm... That is rather interesting. Can you illegally circumvent a digital lock through inaction? By not running this script, or if we remember back to the Sony fiasco, by not running the autoplay root-kit, is that criminal?

Are you supposed to wrap yourself in the chains that bind you?

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (5, Interesting)

tftp (111690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112247)

Hmm... That is rather interesting. Can you illegally circumvent a digital lock through inaction?

As matter of fact, circumventing of locks, doors, gates, and other access control mechanisms is most commonly done by not going through them. Latin roots of the word mean "go around." Can't be much more obvious.

For example: see a locked gate? Find a hole in the fence. See a locked safe? Find someone who knows the code. Have an encrypted DVD? Point a camera at the screen.

In this case, noscript can be seen as a hacking tool because it modifies the programming that the web site sends to you. The characters of the content are to be seen together with the programming to create the presentation as you are expected to perceive it by the content creator.

You cannot claim inaction because most browsers (and perhaps all that the site is designed for) run JS by default. You did act when you installed NoScript. The fact that you did it ahead of time changes nothing. Perhaps you won't be fined for using Lynx; but if you use FF and then load it with ad-blocking extensions then you acted plenty.

If you disagree and claim that the ASCII content can and should be treated apart from the instructions on how to present it, then you will also have to claim that the encrypted DVD bits are to be seen as plaintext and the key - and as long as you have the technical ability to separate them you are in the clear. The DMCA seems to have a differing opinion on that.

As an intermediate step, to muddy the water a bit more, you can imagine an HTML page that consists of the ciphertext of the content and of the JS that locally generates the plaintext. Will extraction of the plaintext be legal under the DMCA, if JS prevents you from right-clicking or selecting? In this case JS is even specially designed to inform you that copying is not free. Any copying you do will be explicitly against the license. And it can be argued that you accepted the license by accessing the site and copying the data. Don't like the license? Read, but you may not copy.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112287)

Hmm... That is rather interesting. Can you illegally circumvent a digital lock through inaction? By not running this script

Hmm... Is it inaction to stop the script executing by actively turning Javascript off (how this might be evidenced [slashdot.org] ). Guess we'll have to let them fight it out in court to find out.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111513)

I am free to turn off Javascript and cut and paste that text, or render it in Lynx, or grep the HTML, or whatever the hell else I want.

This is not a CS issue, it's a Law issue dummy. And your turning Javascript off is not helping you much on that front.

If they didn't want me to have access to the text they sent me, they shouldn't have sent it to me.

They sent it to you without sending you a license to copy it (automatically generated cache copies are almost universally permitted by statute). They offered to sell you a license to copy. You turned Javascript off, potentially committing a crime (circumvention).

Now most likely fair use provisions will allow some quoting, but disallow reproducing the article in its entirety. However one would need to be familiar with the statutory provisions and the conflict of law jurisprudence in both jurisdictions to determine that with any accuracy.

They're free to send me whatever bits they like in response to my request (so long as they don't materially misrepresent what they are ...)

Or those bits cannot be reassembled into a form of prohibited content, eg kiddie pr0n. Yes.

... In turn, I'm free to do whatever I like with the bits they send me.

False

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111567)

You turned Javascript off, potentially committing a crime

No, I turned Javascript off for security reasons. There are a number of attack vectors involving Javascript, and it is pretty straightforward to see that running arbitrary software you receive from a website is a potential security problem.

Newsflash: your website does not have any right to run whatever software it pleases on my computer, and I am not under any obligation to run your software regardless of what you claim it does.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111629)

No, I turned Javascript off for security reasons.

You Honour. The logs ('Exhibit H') clearly show the accused loaded the page twice. Moreover on the first attempt the accused triggered the "script" which is recorded in Exhibit H2 ...

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111693)

Except he'll never load the script because he's not an idiot who uses blacklisting rather than white listing.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111713)

More like, "My client has been using NoScript for years, and only enables Javascript when absolutely necessary to accomplish some task." We keep Javascript turned off for the same reason we keep Autorun disabled, security. Not that anyone should need a reminder, but a prominent global corporation once tried to exploit Autorun to enforce copyrights too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal [wikipedia.org]

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (3, Interesting)

TheEyes (1686556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111765)

Good thing the DMCA wasn't enforced in that instance, otherwise it would have been illegal to fix your computer after Sony broke it with their rootkit.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111897)

More like, "My client has been using NoScript for years, and only enables Javascript when absolutely necessary to accomplish some task."

Not the fact situation in this case. To quote OP "I am free to turn off Javascript" [emphasis added]

You loose.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111923)

Yeah, that's what I did years ago: I turned off Javascript.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112045)

Yeah, that's what I did years ago: I turned off Javascript.

Tense.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (3, Informative)

chromas (1085949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111773)

Uncheck your browser's equivalent of "Allow scripts to detect context menu events", which has almost no legitimate use outside of Web Apps®.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112375)

Whatever. You have to read their T&C before you copy-paste. If it's not in T&C, then you should be safe, because JavaScript in the browser is known to be unreliable for almost any kind of security. Also, even if their T&C state that you have to pay to quote a single sentence from their website, you would be protected by fair use (unless, of course, you didn't use the quote fairly).

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (4, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111739)

Actually he is free to do whatever the fuck he wants short of some arm of the military or police dictating otherwise at the behest of some assholes like you.

To believe that he is not free is a foolish assertion.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112153)

Actually he is free to do whatever the fuck he wants short of some arm of the military or police dictating otherwise at the behest of some assholes like you.

Well yes some arm of the military or the police will ultimately enforce his lack of freedom in this regard. But you are 100% wrong if you think it is at the behest of some asshole like me. I'm one of the assholes who is just as unfree as he (or you).

To believe that he is not free is a foolish assertion.

He is not free to do whatever he likes with information protected by IP. That's not a foolish assertion ... it's the law.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (3, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112485)

That law has no power or force on its own. Making a law does not create a physical force stopping people from action.

To see it that way is some kind of insanity, maybe one of the other more eloquent /.er's could help illustrate.

You can make laws that sodomy is illegal. Yet we still have sodomy going on. Fact of life, people fuck each other in the ass. You cannot circumvent free will with laws. Laws are not inherently moral or just. They are just laws. That is all.

And all law is is a rule for the use of force by society on the individual. Government. Sometimes these a laws provide useful guidelines.

This one is total bullshit.

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111851)

What turn javascript off? I keep it off, are you insane? Why on earth would I permit my browser to execute arbitrary scripting from arbitrary sources?

Re:They're certainly free to do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111725)

If they didn't want me to have access to the text they sent me, they shouldn't have sent it to me.

But you do have access to it, they are suggesting it is copyrighted though.

Insightful my Arse (1, Troll)

Capsaicin (412918) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111963)

This post is just plain wrong. You are in no way free to do "whatever [you] like" with copyright protected works. The fact that this post has been modded 5 Insightful is a testament to the wishful thinking that takes over when IP try ons like this come up. If you want to be free do something to change the law. Wiping your arse with an infringing copy is an extremely low level of freedom to aspire to.

Re:Insightful my Arse (1)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112327)

Why go to such a stupid site more than one time? There are so many places for free news, so why pay? Google should erase sites like that from their index. That way they will essentially disappear from the Internet.

View source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111359)

copy, remove html tags, ?, profit

Re:View source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111391)

copy, remove html tags, ?, profit

Putting fair use considerations to one side, how do you imagine that removing tags will vitiate content provider's copyright?

roll over boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111365)

As good Canadians we will just roll over, take it, then apologize for existing.

Hur hur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111381)

Since this is trivial to get around....

News for nerds, or news for zealots?

NoScript (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111383)

NoScript or some variant should take care of it.

Not only that... (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111451)

Not only did NoScript completely defeat this system, but it actually revealed which company they hired to create it:

http://info.icopyright.com/ [icopyright.com]

Re:Not only that... (1)

dcmcilrath (2859893) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111781)

Yeah, disabling javascript is generally a pretty good practice and can save one quite a bit of money, and make browsing less hazardous. Also wow "iCopyright"? I'm trying to decide if the name makes me dislike them more than the practice of charging $150 for quotes

Just PermaMark.net it (0)

zidium (2550286) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111399)

Just use the personal web page archival service, www.permamarks.net [permamarks.net] .

I use it as a distributed bookmark replacement. It's awesome for this sort of stuff.

Screen readers? (2)

seanthegeek (2845811) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111401)

I'll bet this this screws up screen readers.

Just disable Javascript (4, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111409)

and surf the web like a man.

A real man, from 1995.

Re:Just disable Javascript (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111461)

+1

I browse with javascript turned off, only switching on if I really need to. The firefox NoScript plugin allows you to be selective, thus I allow parts of what some sites try to run, but not everything.

Re:Just disable Javascript (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111659)

How do they do this? I disabled noscript and sure enough it popped up something. How would this even get into Mozilla without Mozilla colluding with the enemy? When was it in the standards committee where someone stood up and said "we need a way to better screw the web site visitors with this feature" and no one objected? What are the list of browsers that refuse to partake in this without resorting to plugins?

What we need is some sort of open standards to allow people to more easily exchange information over the internet, standards that are driven by users and not corporations. Clearly HTML is failing at this role.

Re:Just disable Javascript (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111859)

I hope i'm not being wooshed here....

Firstly, HTML and javascript are seperate. To use a car analogy, think of a gas can. You have a gas can, and then you have the gas in it. The HTML is just a delivery mechanism and container for the javascript. Both HTML and javascript are based on standards, and there is nothing in either of the standards trying to screw the user out of copy/pasting text.

Go to maps.google.com. Right Click on the map. See how it presents you with a few options? Now, instead of presenting that menu, display nothing, and pop up a ransom box. Delselect text, and bam! done! Do the same for ctrl+c, and you have defeated 95% of the public.

So, this is not a javascript problem or an HTML problem. If this is a problem (I personally don't know), then it it a management being greedy problem.

Re:Just disable Javascript (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111865)

You can set a trigger to a JS function on anything, for any action, like mouse key down. It's really easy to do. I wonder why they are even paying another company to do it.

Re:Just disable Javascript (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111989)

I telnet to port 80 and assemble the HTML in my mind, matrix style.

All hail the best Viewed with telnet to port 80 [dgate.org] initiative

Alternatively (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111419)

"Print Screen" should be able to circumvent this crap. Oops.. Is that going to be illegal now?

Disable Javascript (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111493)

Even easier: turn Javascript off. Or will allowing websites to run arbitrary programs on your computer become a legal requirement too?

Re:Disable Javascript (2)

Capsaicin (412918) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111853)

Even easier: turn Javascript off. Or will allowing websites to run arbitrary programs on your computer become a legal requirement too?

The issue is not whether you are required to run arbitrary programs on your computer or not. The issue is whether you are permitted to copy the article, and if so how much (many fair use provisions around the world limit the amount that can be cited and will not protect against reproducing a "substantial portion").

Obviously the Javascript on the site is not meant to stop you copying the content. One accomplishes that by having the legislature in one's pocket. The Javascript is meant a) to remind you that the article is subject to copyright (while bluffing you into forgetting any your fair use rights use may have) and b) as a offer to purchase a license to reproduce the content. Whether you require that license for lawful reproduction will of course depend on the relevant fair use provision(s) applying.

Re:Disable Javascript (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111879)

Personally, I am more terrified of a world where not running anti-copying software in my browser is a crime than a world where copying is a crime.

Re:Disable Javascript (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111999)

I am more terrified of a world where not running anti-copying software in my browser is a crime.

I wouldn't put it past them.

Re:Disable Javascript (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112257)

One will inevitably turn into the other, so it's a false distinction really.

Re:Alternatively (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111709)

Is that going to be illegal now?

Well that depends on the IP framework in play in the relevant jurisdictions. However most likely it already is.

Re:Alternatively (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112193)

I love how no one appears to have suggested that you could just write in the text manually into a text editor etc.

Re:Alternatively (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112359)

That's because we want the computer to do the work. Otherwise, what's the point of having one?

Powered by icopyright (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111423)

Just block scripts from icopyright.net . They advertise some "fancy" features content publishers:

Your iCopyright plugin [for Wordpress] is automatically configured with a default set of business rules that grant users permission to use a limited amount of your content for free, and to license the rights to use your content for a fee. You can modify these services and prices by logging into the iCopyright Conductor console and changing the settings for your publication. From within Conductor you can also use the Discovery infringement detection service, execute syndication agreements, and run reports on licensing activity and revenue.

What will do this for 4chan's "copy and pasta"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111427)

the horrors!

Hmm... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111449)

Obviously, it isn't exactly news that a number of copyright holders have...expansively optimistic... interpretations of what rights exactly they hold. Some of this seems to be pure self-righteous delusion. Some of it seems to be deliberate spin aimed at shoving the discourse(and state of law) in their preferred direction.

In the specific case of talking about 'fair use', while trying to sell licenses, though, I have to wonder if they are incurring any responsibility... If a mechanic or a plumber gave you false advice as to the nature of the repairs you needed, in order to sell them to you, they'd be well into 'sleazy at best, open to legal action for fraud at worst' territory. Is it OK if you are pseudo-providing legal advice? (They would obviously deny being in the position of providing you with legal advice; but a 'here is when you need a license or you just might be unprotected when we sue you' statement sure sounds like legal advice to me...)

Another attack on rights of the people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111465)

Too many bastards act like there is no fair use and no public domain. And the term of copyright is ever extending. This has to stop!

Not illegal to ask for money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111487)

There's nothing in the Copyright Act that says the author can't ask others for compensation when republishing part of their work, fair use or not. So the National Post can automatically offer to sell you a license, but you're free to ignore it if you believe your copying falls under fair use. They can also make it hard for you to copy the text, it's a waste of time but not illegal.

It's all a bit used-car salesmanish, but overall not a bad idea, if someone wanted to republish an article entirely now they can do it much more easily, instead of figuring out who to contact to negotiate a license.

Re:Not illegal to ask for money (2)

bbecker23 (1917560) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112199)

... if someone wanted to republish an article entirely now they can do it much more easily, instead of figuring out who to contact to negotiate a license.

Does it really do that, though? According to TFS, the popups come up for third-party quotes as well as for the original content. If this paper actually has the rights to that third party material, I'll eat my hat. If you think that's okay, I've got some Mickey Mouse licenses I would just love to sell you.

Simple solution (4, Informative)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111505)

I clicked 'Quit asking me', and then it let me copy it anyways.
Sometimes there are simpler solutions than disabling javascript or copying it from the HTML.

Re:Simple solution (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111521)

Using NoScript is without a doubt the simplest solution. No clicking needed, you just read the article you want to read without running whatever software the website is asking you to run. You also benefit from improved security, improved privacy, and less wasted CPU time.

Re:Simple solution (1)

krazykit (774736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111785)

Unless all the content is loaded by some javascript snippet and you need to figure out which one it is.

Re:Simple solution (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111817)

Usually I just find some other website to read to be honest. Javascript is not needed to load text, and using it in that way breaks all kinds of things, so I figure those websites can just get one less impression from me.

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111993)

Yea that sounds like the simplest solution....

You Noscript guys are such knobs. It breaks so many websites, you spend tons of time whitelisting just to surf the web... or finding alternative sources for things. Geez.

I'm sorry but clicking the Quit asking me is obviously 'without a doubt the simplest solution'...

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112091)

Clicking quit is O(n) (with n being either the number of times you view a page or the number of times you delete the cookies depending on how sane the site is). Using NoScript is O(1). It isn't particularly complex to use NoScript with a blacklist instead of a whitelist. It has the added benefit of working on multiple sites and not encouraging bad net behavior. NoScript wins.

A better solution is simply not using the site. I was once followed around a store because a guy didn't like my look. I left and never went back to the store. They didn't deserve my business. This site is no different.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112237)

Hmm, I loaded the page up, I read the text, everything I wanted to work worked fine, and everything I didnt want to work... didnt. Without any fiddling. What were you saying again?

Three Cheers (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111515)

For NoScript!

Don't hack the page..there's no need to. (1)

alittlebitdifferent (728326) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111565)

Don't hack the page...Natpost won't get all that money for those duplicated electrons they need to remain carbon neutral. Instead select, then click-drag and drop onto your favorite text editor - this clones the electrons, reducing unnecessary waste and it appears the natpost is perfectly happy for you to do it this way.

Re:Don't hack the page..there's no need to. (1)

alittlebitdifferent (728326) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111665)

I would also add...the mechanism is ill conceived..apart from the initial obvious reasons Fancy asking for money....then saying...we'll get in contact with you soon...how overly presumptuous that their content ...anything that can be clicked..is worth that much of your time. That is simply outrageous. The first click should bring up PayPal(or similar) with a dollar figure. Two.. maybe three clicks should allow me to have completed the transaction. In some cases I could rationalize paying...but being disrespected hurts more. They should also understand net dynamics...start at something really small (like 10 cents), then grow it over time. Deployments only get one shot to set the tone in peoples mind about their offering...then its really hard to turn that around. In my humble opinion, they are found wanting with this....and their poor page code execution adds an unfortunate final drop of embarrassment.

Re:Don't hack the page..there's no need to. (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111903)

Shatner, is that you?

Meh (2)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111573)

Just click "Quit asking me" and ignore it. Or determine the offending script and NoScript it.

Or just avoid any site stupid enough to try this idiocy.

The 21st century dodo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111597)

So, we wonder why print newspapers are going the way of the Dodo? The dinosaur? People this clueless deserve to fall into the abyss of the unnecessary and unwanted...

Determined to Bankrupt themselves (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111617)

IF a Canadian Newspaper charges subscriptions (Globe and Mail) to read their content or requires a license fee to cut and paste, when there is better written, less biased, more accurate reporting available from many other places, at no charge, with no licensing required THEN economics 101 says Joe Blogger will dump the offending Canadian newspaper from his bookmark collection, and move on.

It doesn't happen in Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43111627)

OTTAWA â" Opposition MPs who sit on a key House of Commons committee are poised to ask the government to turn over key financial documents in the run-up to the federal budget.

Copy-paste, no popup, no problem.

Takes Me Back (1)

Secret Agent Man (915574) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111763)

To when web sites tried to disable right-clicking to "hide" their source code. I was in middle school and knew that was baloney...

Actually, this reminds me of web sites hosting lyrics, too, that either attempt to disable right-click or insert their website in tiny text between words of lyrics.

Reading the article tells me that this sort of "fee" doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. I've never been to the web site in question, but if I ever needed to and wished to copy some text, nothing prevents me from doing so (heck, I'm running NotScript now, so I'd get no pop-up anyway)...

The National Post (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#43111911)

The National Compost.
Let 'em rot in hell.

In related news ... (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112131)

... the Post will begin a program of licensing for people who cut letters out of their printed copy to compose ransom notes.

Odd... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112213)

This doesn't seem to be popping up for me, not at all on any browser I've tried, nor do I see any references in any script relating to said company on any page that I've looked at. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada?

bah use lynx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112219)

geesh the gall of some people.....

Noscript kills this feature (1)

djl4570 (801529) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112225)

I just tried it on the Taylor Swift article. Running Firefox v20 (beta) with Noscript and it worked without any problem.

Sloppy DRM (2)

dskoll (99328) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112285)

The Web developers need to do some work. Yes, dragging to select text activates the popup. But clicking on the page and hitting Ctrl-A to select everything in one fell swoop doesn't activate the popup.

Oops. Did I just describe how to break a Digital Lock? Oh noes... Harper and his gang will be after me....

As above, so below (geographically) (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43112331)

Mr Geist points out this might be contrary to Canadian Copyright Law's fair use provisions.

The National Post is a conservative rag. And just like those in the US, Canadian conservatives believe legal accountability is only for the little people.

fair dealing you yankee bastard retards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43112505)

There's no such thing as "fair use" in Canada. Up there it's called Fair Dealing. If you are going to copy a story from Dr. Geist's page at least the get nomenclature correct, eh, hoser.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?