Slashdot Mirror

How can "the 5 most laughable terms of service on the Net" not include mention of websites that claim in their TOS that you can't link to them without permission?

For example: "You may not ... , link to, ... any content except as expressly permitted by the copyright laws, in this Agreement, or in the Site's Permission Services section."

For other examples, see dontlink.com

This reminds me of the idiots that claim it is illegal to link to their sites. Some people just have no business having websites.

See for many other examples http://www.dontlink.com/ (last updated in 2002).

Although no longer updated, David E Sorkin's Don't Link to Us! page is still relevant.

A page like that could be useful for shaming companies into improving their linking policies.

Don't Link to Us! links to sites that attempt to impose substantial restrictions on other sites that link to them. The Linking Policy for Don't Link to Us! precludes us from requesting permission to link to a site, and compels us to link directly to the targeted page (i.e., a "deep link") rather than to a site's home page. Descriptions of sites' linking policies generally are accurate (though often not complete) at the time they are posted here but are likely to change over time. On occasion a web site will modify its linking policy in response to public ridicule. Perhaps their appearance in Don't Link to Us! will help encourage some of these sites to move forward into the 20th century.
Don't Link to Us! is published by David E. Sorkin.

Don't Link to Us! links to sites that attempt to impose substantial restrictions on other sites that link to them. The Linking Policy for Don't Link to Us! precludes us from requesting permission to link to a site, and compels us to link directly to the targeted page (i.e., a "deep link") rather than to a site's home page. Descriptions of sites' linking policies generally are accurate (though often not complete) at the time they are posted here but are likely to change over time. On occasion a web site will modify its linking policy in response to public ridicule. Perhaps their appearance in Don't Link to Us! will help encourage some of these sites to move forward into the 20th century.
Don't Link to Us! is published by David E. Sorkin.

*sigh* You are obviously new here. This has already been debated. (a lot!)

Of course most of these refer to "deep linking" which is an extra "evil" version of linking. But since you're against any large entity linking to your page you are probably against them "deep linking" to your page as well. This page (note this link comes from the "has" article) lists a number of sites that don't want anyone to link to them or have linking policies that heavily restrict how they can be linked to. At least in theory.

And while you might (note I say might) have a point about how it's a terrible thing that all someone has to do is post a link to a site on slashdot and have it, thereby, slashdotted. But how do you really intend to prevent it?

After all, a link is really just a string of text. E.g. H-T-T-P-COLON-SLASH-SLASH-W-W-W-DOT-P-H-O-R-M-I-X- DOT-C-O-M

Sure, spam's awful, but I find Sorkin's Don't Link cause (promoting the right to link on the net) fascinating. It was discussed here at slashdot last month.

All of this has a lot of common ground with Lawrence Lessig, who was the subject of a Wired article also discussed here. Good to see some law professors pursuing freedom on the internet.

If you're interested in following intellectual property arguments in more detail I recommend Negativland's IP page as a great starting point.

• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.
• Screw you INTA -- I'm linkin to ya!.

The website has a number of links to places who prohibit or require permission for linking. Is the irony of this intended?