Many people have hit the "real issue" (IMHO) right on the head. It is whether the content being linked to is really completely "public" information. Universal appears to feel this way, but is still exporting it on their web server as if it were. Universal intends the content to be viewed only by users in a particular protection domain: those who entered by the front door. This problem stems from a poorly implemented (or poorly thought out) sharing model. If you have information you want only your employees to see, you post it INSIDE the office, not on the billboard outside of the office. Many people have pointed out the obvious technical solutions to the problem already; referer tags, sessions, free logins,... The semantics of the web allow linking to any URL. I think that neither URLs, nor the use of URLs should be prohibited. Trying to use legal action to prohibit this, in order to "redefine the semantics of the web" is clearly misguided.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people have hit the "real issue" (IMHO) right on the head. It is whether the content being linked to is really completely "public" information. Universal appears to feel this way, but is still exporting it on their web server as if it were. Universal intends the content to be viewed only by users in a particular protection domain: those who entered by the front door.
This problem stems from a poorly implemented (or poorly thought out) sharing model.
If you have information you want only your employees to see, you post it INSIDE the office, not on the billboard outside of the office.
Many people have pointed out the obvious technical solutions to the problem already; referer tags, sessions, free logins,...
The semantics of the web allow linking to any URL. I think that neither URLs, nor the use of URLs should be prohibited. Trying to use legal action to prohibit this, in order to "redefine the semantics of the web" is clearly misguided.
-david