23 replies to this topic

[Charlieman]

I can't copy and paste text from Motor Sport magazine in a web browser. Using two web browsers on my Mac, I can't select text in a web page. Ditto for one browser on a very old Windows PC.

 

I'm not a computer or web novice. I helped a major UK university put the web on desktop computers 20 odd years ago. So I've performed all of the obvious checks, and I am still unable to select and copy text. Has somebody at Motor Sport magazine accidentally implemented some Javascript that  affects text selection?

 

Normally, I'd get in touch with the web site to inform them of the difficulty. I'd get in touch with the site manager, and Motor Sport has a web editor site at http://www.motorspor...thor/webeditor/.

 

The Web Editor's page is an obvious place for complaints about functional ability or content. But there is no email address or web form for suggestions or gripes there. No feedback is sought. There's no contact information. (The magazine has support phone and email contacts for subscribers, but these are not for technical matters.)

 

The Web Editor is Richard Heseltine. I know this because my cursor hovered over his photo at Motor Sport. I've enjoyed a few of his articles.

 

So I'm waiting, Mr Heseltine.

 

 

 

 

[LittleChris]

I think it's actually Ed Foster you need to contact

[PCC]

Has somebody at Motor Sport magazine accidentally implemented some Javascript that  affects text selection?

What makes you so sure it's accidental? Is there any particular reason why the magazine would want it to be easy to re-use their content without permission?

[Vitesse2]

As Peter says, it won't be accidental. They've disabled all left- and right-click operation on text areas, which can be done through Javascript or HTML.

 

Although it's not actually all that difficult to get round it if you know how. Just a bit fiddly, since you need to go through three processes. Using the Lightshot extension for Firefox I selected the area of text I wanted. Printed it as a PDF with CutePDF Writer. Opened the PDF with PDF-Xchange Editor and OCR'ed it. I did this in a minute or so:

 

 

So while 1:he Ferrari oonoept oar looks like how. 3!] years ago. we
would have expected F1 oara to have looked by now, that need
for refl1at oan aotually he raced by human beings amid the
exponential inoreaae in aerodynamio knowledge is why F1 ears
of today do not to the oaeual eye look any more advanced than
those of three decades ago. Up to that time the shapes were
very visually evolving into eyer—more advanoed tonne.

Obviously not 100%, but no worse than the OCRs in Motor Sport's own archive.

 

Original page: http://www.motorspor...namic-catch-22/

 

Those are all free versions of those programs, BTW. A paid-for OCR might be more accurate. Alternatively, saving the image as a JPEG, processing it for sharpness in IrfanView and only then printing to a PDF before running it through OCR might produce better results.

[Darren Galpin]

Or go to the browser cache and find the file there to copy from - that often works too.

[Seppi_0_917PA]

Firefox: "Page Source",  Ctrl U, will get you to pure text which can be copied. (Use Ctrl F to find the desired text.) You'll have to weed out html coding ("<p>" in the sample below). Using Vitesse2's example:
 
<p>So while the Ferrari concept car looks like how, 30 years ago, we would have expected F1 cars to have looked by now, that need for cars that can actually be raced by human beings amid the exponential increase in aerodynamic knowledge is why F1 cars of today do not to the casual eye look any more advanced than those of three decades ago. Up to that time the shapes were very visually evolving into ever-more advanced forms.</p>
 
In IE, F12 brings up Developer's Tools. The "Debugger" tab has the raw text.

[Gary Davies]

I'm unfamiliar with The Dark Side but on my Mac a few moments ago I pulled up a page from Motor Sport, went to File>Print>Save as PDF. Then I opened the pdf and happily selected the text, no problemo!

[edfostermotorsport]

Afternoon all,

 

First of all, sorry for the confusion regarding Richard. He's not the online editor – it was a glitch on the website, which is now sorted. As for the contact problem... I hate websites that don't have clear contact details for all departments hence we have a contact page under the Magazine tab on the homepage. 

 

On the text front we put a block on people copying and pasting. Sadly it was the fault of a few that ruined it for the masses. There were a number of websites that were posting our content word for word. Putting the copyright problem aside it was also damaging our SEO because of the duplicate content. 

 

Hopefully that clears things up. If you need to get hold of me you know where to find me. Which is worrying. 

 

Best

 

Ed

Edited by edfostermotorsport, 19 November 2015 - 17:12.

[Charlieman]

On the text front we put a block on people copying and pasting. Sadly it was the fault of a few that ruined it for the masses. There were a number of websites that were posting our content word for word. Putting the copyright problem aside it was also damaging our SEO because of the duplicate content. 

Thanks for turning up, Ed.

 

I'm not convinced by your arguments. The BBC and the Guardian and the Telegraph publish original content, and they cope when it is republished.

 

Search Engine Optimisation is not my line of business but I assume that Motor Sport magazine has so much content, searchable by Google or whoever, that Motor Sport magazine swamps the nomarks. If the Motor Sport brand is damaged by copy and paste merchants, provide examples.

 

Tell me, Ed, why Motor Sport denies right-click mouse action to read another Motor Sport story? Almost every other web site in the world allows the reader to right-click to other content.

 

I'll tell you about the problem. You've employed a person who can look at Javascript but who doesn't know how to use the Javascript tool.

[PCC]

If the Motor Sport brand is damaged by copy and paste merchants, provide examples.

Neither Ed nor Motor Sport has any obligation to provide you with examples. The content is their intellectual property, and they have every right to protect it as they see fit.

[E1pix]

I'm not convinced by your arguments.

Which is exactly what us who create content for a living are thinking of your post right now.

[Doug Nye]

Indeed.  "Old enough to know better" springs to mind.

 

Just take it on the chin and move on...

 

DCN

[Charlieman]

Which is exactly what us who create content for a living are thinking of your post right now.

I've been a victim of content theft -- both work produced professionally and as a hobby -- and I take intellectual property seriously. Occasionally, I've had "work in progress" that I chose to share sparingly because I knew somebody would try to steal it. On other occasions, I've given my time freely to professional journalists and hobbyist researchers, providing unpublished snippets from research notes so that they had something extra to add to a story. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

 

My criticism of Motor Sport's approach is that it is ham fisted. To the best of my knowledge, UK copyright law doesn't have explicit "fair use" provisions. It's considered reasonable to copy three pages from a magazine to share with a friend, but not to hand out copies to everyone at the local club. Schools and universities have an allowance to reprint small excerpts from academic journals, but that is an agreement with the payment collection agencies rather than law. If I choose to copy and paste a couple of paragraphs from Motor Sport's archive (or latest edition) for personal reference, it's the digital equivalent of photocopying a page and stuffing it in the filing cabinet. 

 

I appreciate that Motor Sport has good content that will be stolen by content farms *1. Stolen content is harmful which is why search engines are tweaked to ignore content farms. Search operators take intellectual property theft seriously because it reduces their advertising income. The people who are most harmed by Javascript copy and paste measures are Motor Sport's customers, people like me who have taken out a subscription. And whilst I'm sceptical about the maxim "the customer is king", I think it's fair to gripe.

*1 See https://en.wikipedia...ki/Content_farm

 

The script which denies right-click mouse action to read another Motor Sport story is plain daft. Every other publisher prays that visitors will go to the home page and open up two or three interesting stories in new tabs or windows. The concept is often called stickiness, and for every story that is viewed, the publisher has the opportunity to promote more of their own stories and more adverts. Motor Sport magazine online is largely free of junk adverts, but if you click on one of the few it'll open some nonsense in a new window. But readers can't view a related article in the sidebar without exiting the page that they are on.

[E1pix]

Thank You for such a thoughtful response. I get the sense that you weren't offended by my post, and that you respect the reasoning behind my concerns. As you know, infringement has become so rampant as to make holders quite defensive on this -- as we truly need to be -- to try to right any wrongs we find, or at least to spread the word in any way possible.

That said, it's clear you know more about the specifics of text more than I, as my experience is more about work both graphic and photographic. So I haven't the basis to refute or question your thoughts, and hope someone else here could comment more intelligently than I in specifics to your concerns.

In short, Thanks again for giving a damn, and for taking the time for thorough eloquence. Well Done!

[Doug Nye]

I feel my advice - above - to take it on the chin and move on was sound.

 

What I find most unacceptable here is the bone idleness demonstrated by an assumption that any visitor to a site should have the right to 'cut and paste' as opposed to simply reading what's there and then taking the time to re-type the content manually, as any plagiarist worth his salt ought to do.

 

If you must pinch something at least invest some damned effort in the perhaps disreputable process...  

 

Unimpressed of Farnham

[Charlieman]

That said, it's clear you know more about the specifics of text more than I, as my experience is more about work both graphic and photographic. 

Thanks for the kind words. Whilst writing, I was conscious that my understanding of how photo and video creators defend their work is limited. Watermarks and low definition samples protect rights holders, but perhaps you and others might chip in (another thread, if necessary) with advice. I'm thinking of photo comparison services, as an example.

[E1pix]

You're welcome, and Thanks as well.

'Photo comparison services,' you mean ones that search the web for illegally used images?

This rocks: https://www.tineye.com

[elansprint72]

Thanks for the kind words. Whilst writing, I was conscious that my understanding of how photo and video creators defend their work is limited. Watermarks and low definition samples protect rights holders, but perhaps you and others might chip in (another thread, if necessary) with advice. I'm thinking of photo comparison services, as an example.

We have already had threads on Copyrights and theft, although I'm not convinced that the search function here is worthy of that name and might not trawl anything up, even if you looked. Why should another thread be started to go over the same thing again? Theft is theft, whether of an hand-bag in the street, written word or art-work.

 

If you want to use someone else's creations electronically, use a link, that way there is no theft involved.

[Charlieman]

What I find most unacceptable here is the bone idleness demonstrated by an assumption that any visitor to a site should have the right to 'cut and paste' as opposed to simply reading what's there and then taking the time to re-type the content manually, as any plagiarist worth his salt ought to do.

What's the difference between bone idleness and productivity? All my life, I've spent 8 minutes pondering about how to save 10 minutes of my time.

 

You use a Macintosh computer, Doug? So you could just print a Motor Sport web page to PDF (it's done automagically for you) for future reference. All I wish to achieve is to copy 80 words quickly (paragraphs not the whole blooming article) with a reference. I want 80 words but Motor Sport's technological solution, a crude Javascript, means that it is more convenient to copy the whole article.

 

And you are probably correct, Doug, that there is no "right" in UK law to copy stuff off the web. "Rights" are not a helpful concept on this occasion. Mostly, reuse of text is about good manners; quote me liberally and give me a reference, but don't take the mickey. 

[edfostermotorsport]

Hi All,

 

The words 'hornet', 'kick' and 'nest' spring to mind here... Yes, the Javascript is crude. It was a quick solution to a growing problem. Boring, and perhaps slightly off topic... but we have a support contract with a web agency and in order that we can do more useful things (redesign the archive, make it responsive, edit every article of the archive etc.) we need to cut corners here and there. The basic Javascript is a prime example. If I am totally honest I didn't think it would be such a problem for normal readers of the website, please forgive me. 

 

We are redesigning the archive as I write and then we're doing the main site early next year so that all of Motor Sport's online presence sits on these templates: motorsportmagazine.com/archive/database. With that redesign comes a move from WordPress to Drupal and we will launch with 'copiable' text. We'll see how it goes. If, like last time, we have lots of faceless, uncontactable websites stealing it, we'll need to go back to dealing with the delicate problem with a sledge hammer, like we do currently.

 

All the best

 

Ed   

[Charlieman]

Good luck, Ed, and I'm not saying that ironically. The paper copy of Motor Sport arrived this morning and its delivery is one of the highlights of the month.

[Michael Ferner]

Neither Ed nor Motor Sport has any obligation to provide you with examples. The content is their intellectual property, and they have every right to protect it as they see fit.

Correct.

But then again, Charlieman has a point - some web publishers take copyright way too far, to the detriment of the user, i.e. customer. Some annoy and lose more customers, i.e. business, than they can ever hope to generate by avoiding theft of intellectual property. Hell, we're not talking blue prints for high end technology here, it's "just" bloody journalism...

Bottom line, a bit of common sense and laissez-faire will go a long way towards attracting customers. Petty insistance on law and order won't.

[Charlieman]

But then again, Charlieman has a point - some web publishers take copyright way too far, to the detriment of the user, i.e. customer. 

Thanks for the support, Michael.

 

Ed Foster has been generous with his time in responding to my gripe. I hope people on both sides of the argument have learned a bit from the debate. I'm very encouraged that "intellectual property" -- words in a club magazine, a photo or video -- are valued by TNF folks.

[Charlieman]

Text selection and ability to use the right mouse button have recently been restored on the Motor Sport magazine site. Let's hope that content is not abused such that brute force tactics return in the future. Thanks, Ed Foster and the MS team.

 

Edited to extend thanks.

Edited by Charlieman, 18 April 2016 - 12:43.