Slashdot Mirror
Restrictive Linking Policies & The Net
Masem writes "News.com reports on a new site set up by Prof. David Sorkin of the John Marshall Law School that points out web sites with restrictive linking policies, entitled Don't Link To Us. Sorkin set up the site as a way to enlighten net users on the impact of such policies in the aftermath of past and pending court cases over deep linking policies. An owner of one site on the list, law.com, was suprised to discover that their site has a restrictive linking policy, and already plans to implement changes to it."
Deep linking is one of those "it doesn't matter" issues. Is it legal to stop people from posting deep links? Can it be legally enforced? Who cares? 30 seconds with the web server configuration and the entire problem is solved forever. It would be like suing google for posting links to the site, without even going to the effort of adding a robots.txt file.
I get the feeling that its not the IT departments of these companies that are making these demands. I can't imagine that they would be so hopelessly inept as to propose such solutions to problems that can be easily solved without ever talking to a lawyer.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I checked through some of the links to try to find out why some of these sites don't want to be linked to. On thing that came out is that there is a mass of confused thinking and motivation out there. So don't expect a clean solution to this problem. A solution which will satisfy one set of paranoid suits will not satisfy the others.
One of the reasons is that they fear that the appearans of a link from you to them implies some sort of reciprocal approval i.e. that they know of and might be assumed to approve of you. Now, to anyone here, this is absolutely dumb, but corporate zecks and AOLers might not know better.
So here is an idea of how to deal with them. When they post court papers (which are surely public documents), post a reciprocal set of papers requiring them to remove your name, addresss, URL etc. from their papers because they imply they you endorse them etc. Use wording as close as possible to theirs and petition that your case be heard first.
One of two things happen: either the court is sensible and throws out your petition as riduculous, in which case you return with that rejection as a precedent, set in the same court, to justify your linking. Or the court grants your loony case, in which case (by the court's own loguic) they have to withdraw their case against you.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Despite the fact that they kill cute puppies, I have to respect the fact that they were smart enough to find the simple, technical, and completely legal way to get what they wanted, rather than throwing lawyers at the problem and costing both themselves and you a trememdous amount of money.
<a src="http://www.geocities.com/bruthasj">bruthasj</ a> doesn't not have a copy of your webpage. It give instructions on how to see the information from your web page, just like a bibliography points to source data for an article.
A robotic text reading robot librarian could be like a browser. It could recognize bibliographical entries and fetch the book for you. This isn't a source issue, it is a browser issue. Law.com should sue MS for writing IE because it automatically gets data from law.com.
Joe Batt Solid Design
Actually, it's more along the lines of trying to reduce slander and a ensuring that the company controls the public image, not some web site. Take the Shell example. Imagine some pro green website making up all sorts of jibberish that is completely unproven and then linking to various web pages at Shell that taken out of context can support this.
Or take your Cancer Society example. I could make a website claiming I've discovered some new herb that reduces cancer. All over the page I can have links to various web pages which although they have nothing to do with my product, when taken out of context can give the appearance to web surfers that it is actually endorsed by the ACS.
What is it about Slashdot that makes everyone hyper react and blow things so out of proportion (Not that you are, I'm just giving another reason why some companies don't want linking)? While for some sites it is an issue with bandwith, for the majority it's all about ensuring that they know how their company is being presented to the public.
I'm never going to profess to be an expert on this topic, but here's my take on it:
It's not illegal for me to refer you to Joe's Pizza. I could also tell you where Joe's Pizza is and supply you with directions. I could also tell you where to find the Joe's Pizza menu (for example's sake, on the counter by the cash register, in the restaurant).
So where's the difference if:
My website refers you to Joe's Pizza website, and I supply you with directions (which in the context of the internet is providing a URL) and I tell you where to find Joe's Pizza menu (propviding a deep link).
If Joe doesn't want you coming in his restaurant, he can deny you entry, and it's the same with the website, but is there any legal ground for a person or business to prevent another person or business from making references, regardless of whether they are hypertext links or word of mouth? Couldn't this almost be a constitutional issue?
RTFM; please, I beg you.