Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Against Deep-Linking of Content
An anonymous reader writes "A Texas judge has ruled that, if a copyright owner objects to the linking of content from another web site, that link must be taken down. This case, which may have some far-reaching implications, centered around a motorcross website. The site, run by a Robert Davis, provided links directly to live feeds of 'Supercross' events streaming from the SFX Motor Sports site. The company filed suit, claiming that the direct links were denying it advertising revenue. The article cites previous cases, where sites were prohibited by judges from linking to files which violated copyright law (such as DVD decryption software). From the article: 'But in those lawsuits, the file that was the target of the hyperlink actually violated copyright law. What's unusual in the SFX case is that a copyright holder is trying to prohibit a direct link to its own Web site. (There is no evidence that SFX tried technical countermeasures, such as referrer logging and blocking anyone coming from Davis' site.)'"
I can't believe it! You'd think we Texans did all our legislation and legal maneuvering by the 'Good ol' Boy' system.
Oh, wait....
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
There is no difference. There is no such thing as a 'deep link', a URL is a URL is a URL.
Bullshit.
We all know what deep linking is. I assume those that are protesting this "unfair" ruling are probably actively engaged in stealing third party content and have a vested interest in promoting misinformation on this issue.
If you direct link to someone else's hosted, copyrighted, content, against their terms of service, re-packaging their content under your own brand/identity, you know you're doing something wrong. It's called "deep linking".. You're taking content outside the original context. If you link to an image of someone else's photography and put it on a non-related site, and that photo is copyrighted and not published in such a manner as to give you such rights, you are breaking the law. It's called deep linking.
This isn't some goofy frivolous legal issue. Content providers have a right to have their hard work protected from overt exploitation if they decide to share it in some part with the online community.