Deep Linking Legal in Germany

BlueWonder writes "German news site Heise Online reports a recent decision of the Bundesgerichtshof, the highest court in Germany: Deep linking is not illegal. Newspaper company Verlagsgruppe Handelsblatt had sued the news search engine Paperboy for deep linking to their articles. According to the Bundesgerichtshof, the public interest in a well-working Internet takes precedence over the commercial interests of the newspaper company, even if the advertizing of the company is bypassed. The Bundesgerichtshof has clarified that users can access any page if they know the URL, and deep linking is just a technical simplification for entering the URL manually. (Warning: links go to German sites - use the fish...)"

Comments

Why all the fuss?

[Stackster]

If a site doesn't want anyone to "deep link" to them, why not just check the HTTP_REFERER HTTP header, and send those requests that come frome a "deep link" (anything outside their own site, probably) to the front page?
Sure, you can set your own referer header and fool such things, but "ordinary users" wouldn't bother doing that.

(Or do Big Evil Compaines always try to take legal action first, and if that fails, go for a technical solution?)

Re:Why all the fuss?

[janda]

Well, most larger companies hire their own laywers, they might as well keep them busy...

Seriously, I think this is (mostly) another example of the marketing department doing the design work, and not understanding the technology. Then, when they find out that people can bypass their ads, they talk to the programmers.

The programmers tell them that this is the way the protocol is supposed to work, so there's no real way around it without recoding everything to use cookies, registration, headers, and other stuff, which will make the marketing department look bad for not giving good requirements in the first place.

It will make the marketing department look even worse if the programmers said it should be done with cookies, headers, etc and the marketing department did the "we don't have time" routine.

So, drag them to court first.

Note: You can substitute any department/person for "marketing" here, I'm just using them as an example from personal experience.

Re:Why all the fuss?

[SCY.tSCc.]

If a site doesn't want anyone to "deep link" to them, why not just check the HTTP_REFERER HTTP header, and send those requests that come frome a "deep link"

Unfortunally, that approach is inherently flawed. Some proxies remove the HTTP_REFERER header or change it to something else (ever seen those XXX_REFERER removed by SoftwareXYZ in your logs?).

In addition, caches (built into your browser or proxy) in general might get confused by different content that comes with the same URL because it depends upon the HTTP_REFERER header.

bye,
Settel

Re:Why all the fuss?

[JimDabell]

Some proxies remove the HTTP_REFERER header or change it to something else (ever seen those XXX_REFERER removed by SoftwareXYZ in your logs?).

As far as I am aware, no software spoofs the Referer header by changing it to another URI. So simply block the people whose referring URI begins with 'http://' and does not come from your domain. Log the ones you block, and whenever any new ones come up, send an email to the webmaster. If a new "privacy enhancer" or whatever appears that does spoof the referrer with a false URI, simply exempt those from your checks.

Remember, you aren't aiming to catch everybody who may possibly come from elsewhere, you are just making it unlikely anyone will deep-link to you.

In addition, caches (built into your browser or proxy) in general might get confused by different content that comes with the same URL because it depends upon the HTTP_REFERER header.

Not if you send a Vary header. Anything that gets confused by multiple objects available at the same URI when a Vary header is present is deeply broken, and will break in lots of different ways on lots of different sites.

Re:Why all the fuss?

[i_really_dont_care]

There are a bunch of other possibilities to avoid "deep linking", for example by using dynamic content. I assume, they are already using cookies or session IDs to track their users. The same technology can be used to assure that a user has to view the main page before a subpage can be shown.

It's also important to note that the ruling was about deep linking "per se" and not about accessing content that is protected. The press text reads:

"Ein Berechtigter, der ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk ohne technische Schutzmaßnahmen im Internet öffentlich zugänglich mache, ermögliche dadurch bereits selbst die Nutzungen [...]."

Which means (sorry for my bad English, emphasis mine):

"A benificiary who publicy publishes a copyrighted work without technical protection on the Internet, thereby already permits its use [...].

This makes perfect sense for me.

Please consider

[BlueTrin]

arresting Google, they provide deep-linking and even CACHE !!!

Oh wait ... you are too lazy to put a robots.txt in your root ?

And in Denmark

[Snaller]

...it was ruled illegal. Because they said, because of EU rules. Which of the countries will have to change?

Re:That doesn't solve all problems.

[Jadrano]

In a way, I understand the US position that freedom of speech should not be restricted in any way. Many people of the left are sceptical about the fight against extremist right-wing propaganda - right-wing extremism, which few people like, can be used as an excuse to introduced repressive measures that will also be used against the left. As soon as freedom of speech is restricted, it's a dangerous slope.

However, I do think it is right that neo-Nazi propaganda is illegal in European countries - not just in Germany, but they have the strictest laws. Even nationalist and radical right-wing propaganda should be legal. In the case of texts that say that the policies of the Nazis who murdered millions of people and that something similar should be started again, I find it, however, right that an exception is made. Among those most active against neo-Nazi and antisemitic websites are organisations of children of survivers of the holocaust, and I find their concerns must be taken seriously (even if they sometimes go too far).

What I also find important in that context is that, in contrast to many laws that have been introduced recently in many countries for the 'war against terror', the restriction of Nazi propaganda is not a new tendency towards more repression, Nazi propaganda has been illegal since the defeat of the Nazis in WW II, and it was a historical necessity (the Americans as one of the occupying powers who liberated Europe from the Nazis hardly objected this ban then). It is important that the ban on Nazi propaganda isn't used as a starting point for more restrictions on the freedom of expression, but as long as it remains an exception for an exceptional ideology that caused such enormous suffering and deaths, there are good reasons to keep it.

The other examples are completely unrelated, and I don't find them convincing. I don't know any other country except Germany where on most parts of highways, there isn't any speed limit, at all. If some more are introduced, this is necessary to prevent accidents and save lives, and the same goes for alcohol limits for drivers. Germany is in no way leading there, in many countries, there are currently attempts to diminish accidents with such measures.
As far as smoking is concerned, there are, indeed, more restrictions than there used to be, but again this is an international development for which there are health reasons, and smoking is much less restricted in Germany than in places like California, New York or Turkmenistan (and although tobacco taxes are rised, cigarettes are still cheaper in Germany than in Great Britain, Scandinavian countries and the US).

Problems of German society?

[chl]

You might now think that Germany is the land of the sane and bright, but this isn't true.

As a German, I cannot really disagree with that. Still, I find Germany a nice country to live in because enough of us are sane and/or bright.

In fact in some German states ISP are required to use censorship filters to filter content which is showing disrespect to human dignity like infamous rotten or neo nazi propaganda. [...] Germany has a long list of incidents of restricting the peoples right to access information and entertainment by claiming to protect youth and society.

Historically, some forms of hate speech are forbidden out of a desire not to repeat certain experiences that happened in the 1930s and 1940s. Our allied-approved constitution still says "There is no censorship". Of course it was very silly that KISS have a different logo in Germany because it is forbidden to use the runic SS script, which is also a symbol for the SS murderers.

So sales of Doom, Quake and Command and Conquer 3 are extremely restricted like hardcore bukkakke porn.

They may not be advertised nor sold to minors. This is hardly extreme. It is also practically useless in stopping minors to get such stuff.

The public rights are slowly getting more and restricted. In this picture it fits that the limits for consumed alcohol before driving are steadly lowered, speed limits are spreading like salmonella, the weapon laws are more and more restricted and smoking is made illegal in more and more places.

How are drunk driving and poisoning people public rights? There still is no general speed limit on the motorways and I have no sympathy for people who complain about getting caught for speeding.

I agree, however, with your sentiments for the new weapon law. It is practically impossible to legally own a firearm for self defense in Germany. I can only guess that the public allows this because most people do not feel threatened enough by criminals that they feel in need of a gun. And our violent crime rate is relatively low.

chl