Slashdot Mirror
New Orbitz Terms Prohibit Inbound Deep Linking
chekovma writes "Orbitz has announced a new set of Terms and Conditions that take effect March 12th which require anyone who uses their website (creates an account there) to follow strict inbound linking rules. These rules prohibit a user from creating even a plain text link to orbitz.com without first notifying them and require a user to take down such a link at their desire. It also disallows any deep linking -- meaning even this post violates those terms and conditions."
Ok, they have some unenforcable legal nonsense in their terms & conditions, but does that justify giving them a free advert on slashdot?
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
How about someone sits them down and explains what would happen to the web if everyone had this policy?
Jesus, you'd think their web developers would have pointed out their stupidity - or maybe I'm just being naive.
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
A legal/contractual agreement which is established by a click through agreement is unlikely to be enforcable, and even if it were, HOW are they going to enforce it? Are they going to sue you for linking to them? If the sued party got an even semi-competent judge and council it wouldn't be much of an issue, if you put a site on the public internet, and don't take proper technical measures to insure that people don't take actions you don't want them to then your site is pretty much fair game. It's extremely easy to insure that people don't go to a part of your site that you don't want them to, porn operators have been doing it for the better part of a decade now, so scrap the stupid unenforcable EULA crap and have your web monkies earn their salaries!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I was considering setting up a link on my homepage to an Orbitz page just to spite them and see what they did about it, but then I thought... Perhaps it's reverse psychology. If lots of /.ers have the same idea, that's MORE links for Orbitz, and a HIGHER search engine rank!
Cunninger than the United Nations Bureau of Cunning.
qntm.org
Those are two instances which are clearly not in the best interests of Orbitz. However, what about more mundane uses? Perhaps I want to help a friend find the best price for their trip? Technically, I won't be able to directly link them to the results I've found. Instead, I'd have to walk them through exactly what search/browse/filter criteria to use and hope that their result set is no different than mine.
Perhaps Orbitz should be allowed to do this. After all, it is their site. At the same time, however, consumers should voice their annoyance at being so inconvenienced. Just a quick email to their customer service department telling them "I'd love to use your site to find the best travel information I can, however, I find the TOS too restrictive for my needs and will be using Travelocity instead. I felt it important to inform you of this loss of business in the hopes that you will one day revise your TOS to allow deep linking for personal use."
</ramble%gt;
Here's my opinion:
First, Orbitz should be allowed to do whatever they want. This includes prohibiting deep linking.
Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it.
These two combine to form what I think is the correct set of possibilities. Orbitz can yell and scream as much as they like. If they really want to, they can even implement technical restrictions. It's almost trivial to prevent deep linking with a technical solution; embed a unique, expiring identifier into every URL. If you want to get really draconian, tie it to the incoming IP address, or a cookie, etc. Problem solved. What they cannot do is allow deep linking on a technical level but then sue people for doing it.
I believe that disallowing people from sending a correct request to your web server and retrieving a correct response is utterly bogus and the law should come down on the side of the requester.
However, I don't know how the law actually is, I just think that's how it should be.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I know this is funny and all, but is this what our world is coming to? Is it going to be someday that imprinted on your hamburger patty is an EULA that absolves the fast food companies of any obligation to your health?
Why is it that the courts are more worried about enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law? Wasn't that the whole point of English Common law to begin with? To make the law accessible to the people? If people are entering into contracts and agreements simply by visiting websites, listening to ads on TV/radio, and even going to public parks how can they realistically know every facet of every agreement? That is to say that if I actually took the time to read all the small print on every ad I see, all the EULAs on software I've already bought, and check to make sure that every time I take a picture I'm not violating someone's copyright, I wouldn't get anything done.
Moreover, don't contracts/agreements hinge upon the idea of benefiting both parties in some way? What possible benefit are people gaining from being restricted by rules they neither know nor understand?
-Grym
What happens if you violate the terms and conditions by deep linking into their site? They terminate your account and you can't give your money to them? OH well. Problem self-solved.
If they don't want to get linked at all, they should switch from HTML to PDF or publish all pages in a single MSWord document. That's it.
The WWW was designed to allow for links from one document to the other. It is neither possible nor netiquette to prohibite that. Dumb bitches.
Could Orbitz claim that their URLs are their intellectual property, and forbid anyone else from using that property
Which makes absolutely no sense because there is no such legal entity as "Intellectual Property".
Perhaps you meant to sugest that theur URLs were copyrighted?
Perhaps you meant to sugest that theur URLs were patented?
Perhaps you meant to sugest that theur URLs were trade secrets?
Perhaps you meant to sugest that theur URLs were trademarks?
Well copyright fails because a URL is a peice of factual information, just like some street address. You cannot copyright factual information. So that doesn't work.
Patents fail because, well, a URL isn't an invention. So that doesn't work.
Trade secrets doesn't work because the moment they allow members of the public to ever see the URL is ceases to be a trade secret. So that doesn't work.
Trademark doesn't work because by using the URL you are not deceptively engaging in commerce under that trademark or otherwise confusing the public. So that doesn't work.
Intellectual Property is a really really rotten term. In any discussion using the term Intellectual Property the probably of someone missunderstanding the law rapidly aproaches 1.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You could always link to Orbitz' competitors instead.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
There are laws about "unauthorized" use of computer resources. Cite 18 U.S.C. 1030.
/is/ overboard here.
And that's what US Federal Law actually is. I agree with you -- US law
Deep linking can run afoul of those laws.
So, oblige them, and DON'T DO IT. Indeed, remove all links. Link to other travel sites instead.
Just a suggestion.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061