Add Your Podcast | Feedback/Suggestions | Search |
|
Podcasting News Home | Audio & Music News | Articles | Podcast Directory | Forum | Podcasting Gear | Podcasting Gear Manufacturers |
|
« New Rocketboom Anchor #2: The Hottest Woman on the Planet | Main | Corporate Podcasting Summit Follow Up »PodShow Updates Site to Eliminate Podcast Hijacking; It Was a Silly Mistake, Says Adam CurryJuly 08, 2006
Instead of linking to podcasters' original podcast feeds, PodShow was rewriting feeds, removing podcasters' copyright notices and republishing them under PodShow URLs. PodShow was quick to respond to the firestorm that erupted in response to the controversy. Yesterday, PodShow's Adam Curry, right, noted that the company needed to fix some problems with the new version of the PodShow site, including the feed links. PodShow's feed links have been updated to point to podcasters' original podcast feeds. "All xml icons on PodShow+ should now be hyperlinked to the original feed url.," said Curry in response to the controversy. "This also resolves the copyright re-writing issues." "Silly mistake on our part," blogs Adam Curry. "Interesting presumptions from some folks." Blaugh calls the incident a Podfather Faux Paus:
Some podcasters aren't laughing off the controversy, though. "As expected, Podshow claimed it was a bug, and fixed it," said Geek News Central's Todd Cochrane, "but my opinion stands; if it was a bug, it was pretty big deliberate programing bug. You just don't strip and replace data without writing some lines of code to do that. But they did the right thing and made the change." The republishing of podcast feeds under different URLs has raised controversy in the past because it can infringe on podcasters' copyrights, confuse listeners about the correct source for the podcast and make it impossible for podcasters to know how many people are subscribing to their podcast. Commentshow is a set code to hijack feeds an "oops" accident. you can't accidentally create code to rewrite people's feeds. did podshow expect people not to notice this obvious hijacking. these guys just can't get it right... Posted by: josh at July 8, 2006 11:14 AM http://www.podcastingnews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6270#6270 Posted by: David Shapiro at July 8, 2006 05:33 PM Truth be known, its actually (and unfortunatelly) not all that uncommon, and as far as code goes, there are TONS of web feed mash up engines that mess these kinds of things up all of the time. For example, if a site uses relative URL's, its a VERY common bug for the feed mashup engine to either, a) insert the base URI of the site the engine is producing the feed to be served from. and even more so b) leave out the base URI, which in this case, the consuming feed reader/web browser would do what its supposed to do when it encounters relative URI's... stick them onto the end of the current context site in the proper location e.g. /folder/page.html would link to the root of the domain folder/page.html would use the current folder in context and append the relative URI to the end of it. e.g. with a base of > foobar.org/folder/in/context the first example would then be linked to > foobar.org/folder/page.html the second would link to > foobar.org/folder/in/context/folder/page.html but either way, the current base URI is where it would link. In regards to excluding copyright information, it takes more code to include more information, and more code to properly handle links. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is completely innocent, but I *am* suggesting that the possibility that it is is quite a bit greater than what would logically seem to make more sense. Posted by: M. David Peterson at July 11, 2006 09:20 AM Post a comment |
|
Copyright 2004-5 Podcasting News
PodShow, which has come under heated criticism because the updated 