"Deep Linking" Controversy Renewed in Texas

DaDigz writes "Wired News is reporting on a cease and desist letter sent to an independant news site by Belo, corporate parent of The Dallas Morning News, forbidding them from linking to individual stories within the site. They claim that the author can only link to the site's homepage, and attempting to link to stories within the site violates their copyright." Next week Time Magazine will require you to read pages 1-36 before reading the article you want on page 37. Don't complain, it's their copyright ;)

Comments

deep linking on slashdot

[joeldg]

this just in, "Linux advocate web site slashdot.org (NYSE symbol OSDN) sued for deep linking on an article about deep linking. In other news, ACLU defends rights of deep-link advocates and also defends terrorists rights to burn down ACLU headquarters." *sigh*, what next...

obligitory

[jeffy124]

oops

i think i just broke (c) law. aaaah!

Re:obligitory

[jeffy124]

good golly somebody stop me please!

50/50

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't complain, its their copyright ;)

You know, even if a monkey just guesses, it is going to get the correct "its" at least 50% of the time.

Taco, on the other hand, ...

(And no, no points for getting the correct "their")

The Link Controversy Page

[mutende]

Don't forget to visit Stefan Bechtold's Link Controversy Page that has links to legal articles, cases, technical solutions, link license agreements, hyperlink patents and related stuff.

Is this just a scam?

[Sun Tzu]

...To get slashdotted?

I refuse to believe that these yahoos both put their content on the net and then expect people to change the way they use the web while viewing their content! Especially since it is in their power to control access to their info while still making it available on the web.

We're supposed to believe that these people are so technically inept and unimaginative that:

They can't figure out how to do this with cookies, hidden data, dynamically changing links (bad idea since people would link to invalid url's), or referrer data? They also can't figure out that the net is inherently a public place unless they take measures to prevent that? They can't understand that a law won't change the way people not subject to the law operate? They can't understand that naive people will continue to deep link to their content until their lawyers contact them, endlessly?

Impossible. No functionally literate human is that stupid. Therefore, this must be a cpublicity stunt. :)

In Other News...

[Mockura]

Comcast Cable has sent cease and desist letters to Sony, Magnavox and other major television manufacturers, demanding removal of the number buttons on TV remotes.

"By allowing TV viewers to go directly from Channel 2 to Channel 50, they are denying channels 3 through 49 of valuable 'click-through' advertising opportunities. This will not stand!"

Deep linking. Isn't that what Slashdot does?

[techstar25]

I notice that slashdot never misses the opportunity to post articles regarding deep linking. If deep linking became illegal, slashdot would suck, or just not exist. All the news items posted here are deep linked. When was the last time you saw a post that linked to wired.com, but not the article. It's like, "hey, there is a great article on open source something-or-other at osdn.com but we suggest that you just go to their homepage and look at the banner ads, oh, and by the way, good luck finding the article."