Slashdot Log In
Restrictive Linking Policies & The Net
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:23 AM
from the lets-just-be-buddies dept.
from the lets-just-be-buddies dept.
Masem writes "News.com reports on a new site set up by Prof. David Sorkin of the John Marshall Law School that points out web sites with restrictive linking policies, entitled Don't Link To Us. Sorkin set up the site as a way to enlighten net users on the impact of such policies in the aftermath of past and pending court cases over deep linking policies. An owner of one site on the list, law.com, was suprised to discover that their site has a restrictive linking policy, and already plans to implement changes to it."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Restrictive Linking Policies & The Net
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 267 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Beautiful (Score:5, Funny)
More Beautiful (Score:4, Insightful)
This is almost as good as going against someone who buys their ink by the barrel.
Lets see, 1 law professor, 20 students needed project for class. Hmmmm.....
Simple way to accomplish this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple way to accomplish this.... (Score:5, Informative)
Just find your webserver and configure it to check the referer field and enforce your policy. If it means enough to you to have a policy (and sue), why not enforce it? This was brought up during some of these court cases. To me, that should have reduced any damage claims to zero, but it didn't.
Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Puhlease!
If you don't want people linking... (Score:5, Insightful)
But secondly, and this is usually mentioned when this comes up, but I'll say it again.
If you don't want people deep linking into your site, put some sort of CGI in place. Either with refer checking, cookies, or a server side stateful mechinism that tracks a visitors progress through the site. The first two can be defeated if someone really wants in, but will stop most linking.
But this is just stupid anyway. If people weren't ment to link between sites it would have been called the World Wide Line, or the World Wide Collection-of-Sites-that-You-Have-to-Remember-Eve
Re:If you don't want people linking... (Score:5, Informative)
what i dont get... (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case - checking referrer tags in http requests and blocking them as appropriate instead of litigating the defendant into removing a link.
Linking vs Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that three of the linchpins of the arguments for, say, making spam illegal are 1) the email was unsolicited, 2) the spam potentially interferes with "legitimate" emails, and 3) the downloading of spam can force the recipient to incur costs he did not intend to.
These arguments can be made for unsolicited/unapproved deep-or-otherwise- linking. Often links to websites - and the manner in which they are linked - imply a relationship or endorsement of a website that an organization might not accept. Unauthorized links to websites can interfere with normal traffic to that website, at times bringing such services down, - as surely users of Slashdot know. And moreover, unauthorized links - again, as from Slashdot - can force users to incur not-insubstantial bandwidth costs.
So from this analysis, if making spam illegal is a desirable goal - and it seems to be from the cheers here whenever charges are pressed against spammers - then I think it's difficult to simultaneously rationalize and argument against companies' attempts to control linkage to their sites.
Re:Linking vs Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
A web site is pubilshed with the intent of being publicly viewable. While the /. effect (and similar problems from news sites) can cause problems, the content was placed there for public release and viewing. Generally web pages are placed on high-capacity ISP's. By publishing, you are explicitly offering it to the public. If the individual has a problem with their bandwidth agreement (such as automatically charging more rather than capping use) then it is the individual's problem, not the community's. It is of the form that the publisher pays to publish, and the viewer pays costs associated for viewing, and both consent to those fees.
An email box is a low-bandwidth item where everything must be reviewed by hand. Spam is unsolicited and can cost a significant amount to the reciever without their consent.
So in my view, posting and linking imply consent, spam is without consent. That's where the law should come in -- just like sex with consent is okay, but without consent is rape.
frob.
Got to love HIS linking policy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Rock on, dude.
--Jim
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Link to the Kuro5hin article [kuro5hin.org]
So stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I get the feeling that its not the IT departments of these companies that are making these demands. I can't imagine that they would be so hopelessly inept as to propose such solutions to problems that can be easily solved without ever talking to a lawyer.
-Restil
You know who else hates linking..the ASCAP mafia.. (Score:4, Informative)
ASCAP wanted them to fork over royalty fees even though the music wasn't archived on their site! The links were clearly denoted as external.
Then again this isn't suprising behavior considering that ASCAP tried to strongarm the girl scouts into paying royalties for songs sung around the campfire [umkc.edu].
Whats next? (Score:4, Insightful)
The /. effect commeth... ? (Score:3, Funny)
mod_rewrite is your friend (Score:5, Insightful)
The point isn't to send the people away who, through no fault of their own, don't arrive by the front door. The point is to convert them to your own customers.
One response (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the reasons is that they fear that the appearans of a link from you to them implies some sort of reciprocal approval i.e. that they know of and might be assumed to approve of you. Now, to anyone here, this is absolutely dumb, but corporate zecks and AOLers might not know better.
So here is an idea of how to deal with them. When they post court papers (which are surely public documents), post a reciprocal set of papers requiring them to remove your name, addresss, URL etc. from their papers because they imply they you endorse them etc. Use wording as close as possible to theirs and petition that your case be heard first.
One of two things happen: either the court is sensible and throws out your petition as riduculous, in which case you return with that rejection as a precedent, set in the same court, to justify your linking. Or the court grants your loony case, in which case (by the court's own loguic) they have to withdraw their case against you.
Simple Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Hree's my favorite - created for a friend who didn't want folks including her images in their siges by link:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://foo\.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI}
RewriteRule
This one should just give the bugger a 403 if they link directly to anything on your site - might have to add exclusionary logic for the home page to avoid locking everyone out.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://foo\.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ - [F]
my comment (Score:3, Funny)
the point is i don't allow people to web surf to my comments. i only explicitly allow people to view my comments who contact me first. that is why i post comments on slashdot in the first place. do you get it?! good, because i don't. but i have the right to dictate to you how it works even though i don't understand it. ok?! ok?!
now that you have read this comment, please email me and get permission first before you read this comment in the first place! understand?! no???!!! DO I HAVE TO SUE YOU NOW?!
how can anyone legally deny a link? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not illegal for me to refer you to Joe's Pizza. I could also tell you where Joe's Pizza is and supply you with directions. I could also tell you where to find the Joe's Pizza menu (for example's sake, on the counter by the cash register, in the restaurant).
So where's the difference if:
My website refers you to Joe's Pizza website, and I supply you with directions (which in the context of the internet is providing a URL) and I tell you where to find Joe's Pizza menu (propviding a deep link).
If Joe doesn't want you coming in his restaurant, he can deny you entry, and it's the same with the website, but is there any legal ground for a person or business to prevent another person or business from making references, regardless of whether they are hypertext links or word of mouth? Couldn't this almost be a constitutional issue?
Grrr!! (Score:4, Insightful)
While I will admit that commerical sites with no linking policies
The site belongs to the owner
The owner is paying for bandwidth and hosting
The owner can invite who ever they want on to their site.
Now granted
Re:Vegan.com Links to Huntington Life Sciences (Score:4, Interesting)