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

Wrong dept.

[BgJonson79]

Shouldn't it be from the-no-shit-dept. ?

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?

[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?

[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 ?

One noteworthy point not mentioned in the /. story

[mkweise]

...is that the rulin states that if the owner of a web site wants to prevent deep linking, it may feel free to use technical measures to prevent it. (That could be as simple as using the referrer= tag.) It goes on to state that circumventing technical measures designed to prevent deep-linking very well may be illegal (and that they'd rule on that if and when it comes up.)

Some interesting and similiar cases:

[BlueTrin]

Deep linking illegal under EU law, By Andy McCue, Computing [26-01-2001]

Danish Court Rules Deep Linking Illegal

Some examples of companies who forbid deep linking (the last link is full of stupid examples, some websites which would get a great benefit for their popularity from deep linking

Re:That doesn't solve all problems.

[mkweise]

You might now think that Germany is the land of the sane and bright, but this isn't true.
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 [rotten.com] or neo nazi propaganda
Indeed taking the new decision of congress to ensure free, uncensored internet access everywhere on the world, then you'll see very soon that Germany will be besides North Korea, China, Vietman, Iran and Lybia on the list of offenders.

As would the United States, if you look at the matter objectively. Please understand that many Germans feel as strongly about neo nazi propaganda as Americans do about kiddie porn...or certain decryption tools, for that matter.

Re:That doesn't solve all problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not correct!

> So sales of Doom, Quake and Command
> and Conquer 3 are extremely restricted

You must be 18 years old or older, thats all.

> 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 [rotten.com] or neo nazi
> propaganda

There are 17 German states, contents are only filtert in North Rhine-Westphalia. (I think that about 10 - 20 sites are filtert.)

There are many people and clubs like CCC against filtering, because it is AGAINST THE GERMAN LAW.

But it is allowed to use other DNS outside NRW.

> Furthermore you can't get Hitler's "Main Kampf"

You can buy the annotated version. But I don't like it too, that you can't read the original book if you want. (The name of the book is "Mein Kampf")

> or plans for explosives of weapons in stores

Oh, I think that's a good law.