Google AutoLink Debate - as evil as Microsoft's 'Smart Tags'?

Darren Dirt · August 29, 2006, 10:28:10 AM

This is an excellent article discussing the pros and cons of the Google AutoLink functionality...

http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/03/google-autolink

It appears that a lot of people focus on the lack of "choice", not on the feature itself (i.e. there are plenty of plugins etc. that modify the look or content of a page, so long as the user is able to select when they use that plugin, etc.)

Also some people on this forum had been discussing possible "workarounds" to disable the AutoLink functionality... A nice display of creativity and ingenuity:
http://www.warriorforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=34410

Darren Dirt · August 29, 2006, 02:12:08 PM

Finally finished reading (with a whole lotta outlinks to follow and skimread too, yikes) and...

"Mousky Says: 2005-05-03 19:55Z
This by far the best and most objective assessment of AutoLink. No hyperbole and no slippery slope argument a la Winer (who was more interested in the publicity and hits on his blog then objective journalism). Keep up the good work."

Agreed.

Lazybones · August 29, 2006, 02:24:04 PM

You can turn it off.. It is an option, in a product that you optionally install, the story is from 2005.. the issue is dead. move along.

Darren Dirt · August 29, 2006, 02:47:48 PM

Heh, yeah it's an old "issue" but the root idea behind it -- who "owns" the web page, who has the "right" to prevent the "other guys" from doing what *they* want to it... -- that's not going away any time soon.

I was pleasantly surprised by the fair and balanced (fer real!) treatment of the debate in the linked article.

Sorry for deceased equine bludgeoning

Lazybones · August 29, 2006, 02:52:18 PM

I wonder how they feel about the FireFox Code monkey extension.. it REALLY alters pages.. Or what about Adblock.

Now if FireFox included this a default base feature.. then it might raise some issue, but as it is, it is an ad on from google which you choose to install.

Mr. Analog · August 29, 2006, 02:57:55 PM

Injecting generated content into my content should be a breach of copyright law as the program is modifying my original work without my consent.

Not cool Google! (Or anyone else for that matter).

Lazybones · August 29, 2006, 03:32:03 PM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 29, 2006, 02:57:55 PM
Injecting generated content into my content should be a breach of copyright law as the program is modifying my original work without my consent.

Not cool Google! (Or anyone else for that matter).

So are you also against users changing the look of your site with special CSS files ? http://www.skingmail.com/
How about extensions that let you alter the behavior of a site? http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/

Mr. Analog · August 29, 2006, 04:05:24 PM

Quote from: Lazybones on August 29, 2006, 03:32:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 29, 2006, 02:57:55 PM
Injecting generated content into my content should be a breach of copyright law as the program is modifying my original work without my consent.

Not cool Google! (Or anyone else for that matter).

So are you also against users changing the look of your site with special CSS files ? http://www.skingmail.com/

Nope, just hands off my content.

Quote from: Lazybones on August 29, 2006, 03:32:03 PMHow about extensions that let you alter the behavior of a site? http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/

Yep!

I don't care if you want to skin my site, in fact most of the HTML I've been writing lately allows for CSS manipulation. But modify my text, my images, my hyperlinks and you may be in violation of copyright law. Now I'm pretty free with the distro of my own works (heck when I rebuild my server I may tack a GNU Public License onto some of my content) and I've only had one case where I had to ask someone to remove content that he had stolen from me (the guy complied). But it seems to me that a tool that goes out of its way to violate copyright laws by injecting tags into its interpreted output of other people's content is probably not legal to use in the first place and is just a bad idea all around.

Other tools, like the Google translator(s), The Wayback Machine, CoralCache similarily violate these rules but are tolerated for their usefulness. I think it would be an A+ idea to include new headers in the HTML spec that would specify copyrights and that any tool found violating said rights should be found illegal in an international court of law.

But hey, I believe in UFOs too.

Darren Dirt · August 29, 2006, 04:47:53 PM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 29, 2006, 02:57:55 PM
Injecting generated content into my content should be a breach of copyright law as the program is modifying my original work without my consent.

Not cool Google! (Or anyone else for that matter).

Best known: http://www.vibrantmedia.com/webpublishers/intellitxt.asp (and I wish there was an easy way of turning it off... although I admit it's a pretty decent implementation -- just watch what you hover over and you'll be happily left alone

) -- also here's how they deal with the whole copyright/contentintegrity issue ... sorta: http://www.vibrantmedia.com/webpublishers/intellitxt_faq.asp#7

PS: How's this for "site skinning"? "URID": https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/563/ (oops, the comments say that's now essentially obsolete -- apparently "Stylish" is much handier too

)

Mr. Analog · August 31, 2006, 10:18:16 AM

Well, I was wrong about a tool injecting or obscuring my content as a copyright violation.

Re: Galoob vs. Nintendo.

Now, if they copied, modified and then republished my work without my consent then I'd have a problem legally speaking. Mash away tagging tools, mash away.

Lazybones · August 31, 2006, 10:20:03 AM

As long as the user is not tricked or forced into using a tool that does this, I do not have a problem with it as it can be very useful.

As I stated, the user would need to first install the Google bar, and second if they did not like the feature they could turn it off.

Thorin · August 31, 2006, 10:19:27 PM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 31, 2006, 10:18:16 AM
Re: Galoob vs. Nintendo.

Quote
SonicBlue was sued over the commercial-skipping feature of ReplayTV on similar grounds. "Your contract when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots [advertisements]. ? Any time you skip a commercial ? you're actually stealing the programming," asserts Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner. He admits that "there's a certain amount of tolerance" for going to the bathroom during commercials.[1] Due largely to the lawsuit, SonicBlue went bankrupt, even though the court never reached the point of ruling that selling what is essentially a better VCR that can skip commercials is illegal.

Holy crap, this guy's saying that if you stop watching TV during the commercials, or change channels, you're stealing the programming! But wait, haven't we already paid for it with our monthly cable bill? And yes, he thinks you're stealing the programming if you go to the bathroom, but he's willing to make an exception for that. I wonder what he thinks about us turning the TV *off*? YouTube must drive him *bonkers*!

Darren Dirt · September 01, 2006, 05:04:38 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SONICblue#SONICblue

I blame FDR and his "Four Freedoms" doublespeak: "Freedom FROM Want" and "Freedom FROM Fear" are both nice ideals but impossible to realize, flawed as something to universally expect because they necessarily require that all others are somehow obligated to give you something... It appears the "commercial theft" claim is based on a similar premise -- that by putting the ads out there they are expecting (presuming, maybe!) some kind of obligation from viewers to WATCH them, and if someone makes it easy for those who wish to avoid them to do so, then somehow that's gonna violate that company's "right" to a hypnotized audience? Yeesh.