"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 ;)
The solution for this case is technical, not legal. If you don't want people to link to you, have your server check that their browser sends a referrer url from your site. If it doesn't redirect them to your front page or an error page.
It is surprising, but sadly it might violate existing copyright laws according to this Wired article.
-Dracken
You didn't.
You performed fair use, using a reasonable portion of their material for your own creative commentary. (Weak and misguided, but creative.)
What you did there didn't damage the DMN. Since you're not taking the place of their front page, you're not taking valuable clicks away from them. Quite the opposite.
--Blair
"IANAL, I don't even like looking at it."
Just like preventing deep linking has a simple technical solution, so does keeping links out of search engines. A one line robots.txt file will prevent search engines from archiving any of your site. If you refuse to make that simple 30 second effort to solve the "problem" and instead choose an expensive legal solution, then someone really needs to be fired and committed.
Search engines are not spammers. If you tell them to go away, they're more than happy to oblige you.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Here it is, enjoy!
Edith Keeler Must Die
"The ability to refer to a document (or a person or any thing else) is in general a fundamental right of free speech to the same extent that speech is free. Making the reference with a hypertext link is more efficient but changes nothing else. . . . There is no reason to have to ask before making a link to another site."
--Tim Berners-Lee
You are missing the point here. They are NOT redistributing the content. They are pointing to the content that is in its original distribution point! As someone who defends to the death the rights of a content creator wouldn't you want to open channels that get content exposed to as many people as possible? Or, apparently you want to limit the reach of content creators so that only a small fraction of people see their valuable content.
I don't know about you guys, but when I followed the deep link to the news article, I still saw plenty of adds and when I went to kill the window, I still got a pop-up add for my trouble. I don't think they're being placed in a bad position with respect to their advertisers at all. If anything, they're in a bad position with relation to their readers.