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."

Good Morning Slashdot!

I just wanted to tell you how much I love you! Have a great day!

Re:Hmmm

Here are a couple of examples of why someone would want to deep link:
A competitor may want to deep link in order to directly compare rates for flights... similar to what Progressive does with car insurance. Or, some unaffiliated company (like a travel agency) may want to build their own travel web portal and simply use the Orbitz site to show/reserve flight information without Orbitz's permission.

Re:Hmmm

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;

Re:Hmmm

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.

Re:Copyright infringement?

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.

-

Re:Hmmm

Actually, It does not matter if you sign the agreement because there is no exchange of value. If there is no exchange of value, a contract is not legally binding. The problem is that Orbitz wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too Bad for them!

Re:Hmmm

There are laws about "unauthorized" use of computer resources. Cite 18 U.S.C. 1030.

And that's what US Federal Law actually is. I agree with you -- US law /is/ overboard here.

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.

Re:Hmmm

"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."

No, you wouldn't -- just e-mail your friend the link and don't worry about it.

It seems clear to me that Orbitz put this into place so that they have the grounds to go after others that are putting permanent deep links on their web sites. They're going after the aforementioned competitors, et al., and not you.

"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.""

I'm not sure what the point of this would be, other than to get attention. If you want to send a link to a friend, do it. Their TOS hasn't been written for the purposes of what you're doing. No need to be a martyr.

In case I'm not being clear, here's a similar example. I run a web site which has a TOS that states that we have the right to bounce accounts for excessive profanity and various other naughty things. Now, this does not mean that we're running a profanity filter and proactively bouncing anybody who utters the random "fuck." The TOS is in place so that we have a clearly defined right to bounce people who are being obnoxious. If somebody were to send me an e-mail similar to yours -- "I would like to use your site but since you won't let me use profanity I'll go somewhere else instead" -- I would rightfully point out that they were being a moron.

Re:Hmmm

I have a problem with all this 'what you can look at on my website business'.

I liken a website to a public street, you have no real expectation privacy on the street, I don't think you should have much in the way of such on the web. The website is a public offering.

If I sat on the street, played guitar, I could not tell people passing by not to tell anyone about me, nor should they hum any tunes they heard me play.

Likewise with a website. If you don't want everyone to access it...don't put it out there.

They certainly shouldn't be able to sue you for nothing else but deep linking.

Re:Hmmm

Their pop-up/under ads are exactly why I have never been to their web site nor will ever use it. Even their TV commercials were annoying. I guess this latest "policy" sounds like business as usual.

Free advert

Ok, they have some unenforcable legal nonsense in their terms & conditions, but does that justify giving them a free advert on slashdot?

Re:Free advert

Well, that's exactly the point. The people who would be 'members' are people who book flights, not people who run the sites that link to Orbitz (of course, such a person could also be a 'member' too, but they don't need to be), which is why it's pointless. All it's there for is to try to control what their affiliates do with linking to the site, that's all. If I wanted to deep link I'm free to, as I'm not a member of the site, here you go, just for an example [orbitz.com] - I'm perfectly free to do this. Companies try this sort of things in terms & conditions all the time, not to stop deep linking completely, but because lawyers love to feel they are in control of everything 'just in case'. Jolyon

Re:Free advert

It's because there's a lot of really stupid people making laws, and some really smart lawyers trying to make more money.

There's a lot of rules that apply to one medium that does not apply to others.

You can have a dog on a rope outside barking his ass off 24 hours a day, and it's fine. But if you play your stereo for 20 minutes too loud, a neighbor can call the cops and have it turned off.

You can make a copy of a CD for backup purposes legally, but you can't circumvent the copy protection to do so without breaking the law.

You can be charged $50,000 for downloading a 2MB MP3 from an internet source, but only $300 by driving 50Mph over the speed limit.

There's so many examples of "What the hell? This makes no sense!" that it's become a sad fact of life.

They need to read the Ticketmaster case

Deep Link Away [wired.com].

Or maybe, Legality of 'Deep Linking' Remains Deeply Complicated [beachbrowser.com]

BTW, anyone who reads this post owes me $20, that's my TOS.

Re:They need to read the Ticketmaster case

BTW, anyone who reads this post owes me $20, that's my TOS.

That's okay, I'll just subtract it from the $350 "Proofreading Fee" you owe me for reading your post.

Come on...

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.

Re:Come on...

I think your only naiveté is believing that the managers who made the decision lend any weight to what their web developers tell them.

Re:Come on...

They wouldn't even have to go that far. Just explaining to them how much possible money you could be losing in free advertising is enough.

When people link to their site it's advertising. Yes it's a double edge sword to allow linking but regardless it's getting the orbitz site some publicity whether good or bad.

By not allowing links to your site in any form, their basicially relying on their Thunderbirds puppets and that gay sounding guy playing hide and seek to promote their site.

Word of mouth is the strongest form of advertising a company can have. Period. One person satisified/dissatified with your service will tell anyone interested in their product their experience. By not allowing people to post in their blogs or their site or even e-mail for that matter, your basicially cutting a large portion of free advertising you could be using to promote your business.

Terms and Conditions of this Comments

By reading this comment, you agree that you will not link to this comment or any of its child comments. You also agree to mod it up, using any and all mod points that you currently have.

By reading the terms and conditions of this comment, you are locked in to obeying them by the most basic laws of physics of the universe and failure to obey them will cause you and your entire family to instantly cease to exist.

Re:Terms and Conditions of this Comments

You also agree to mod it up, using any and all mod points that you currently have.


Holy crap, it worked.

A Cease to Exist notice?

By reading the terms and conditions of this comment, you are locked in to obeying them by the most basic laws of physics of the universe and failure to obey them will cause you and your entire family to instantly cease to exist.

Man, your lawyer must have friends in very high places if he can issue a Cease to Exist notice!

How is such a thing delivered? Does the Reaper come in person?

Blockwars [blockwars.com]: Free, multiplayer, Tetris like game.

Re:Terms and Conditions of this Comments

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 [slashdot.org] 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

Re:How Does This Affect My Rights??

Ahh, until their webmonkeys forget to put out the robots.txt file...

I'm afraid they remembered: http://www.orbitz.com/robots.txt [orbitz.com]

Oops, I just violated the Orbitz TOS. How careless of me. ;)

Orbitz can suck my danglybitz

You mean this link:- http://www.orbitz.com/robots.txt [orbitz.com]?

Afraid they can't sue me for that. I've never visited their site (except for pop up ads which I didn't give permission for), so I haven't agreed to their silly EULA.

That was so much fun, I think I'll do it again. http://www.orbitz.com/robots.txt [orbitz.com] !!! http://www.orbitz.com/robots.txt [orbitz.com] !!! http://www.orbitz.com/robots.txt [orbitz.com] !!!

Neh neh nyeah-nyeah neh! :-P

Message to Timothy

Ok, so if you post a dupe of story it could be serious. No dupe postings of this story after March 12th :)

When will companies learn

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!

Use the referrer field

Can't their web server just reject or redirect any page requests that don't have a referrer field of their own web site?

Re:Use the referrer field

Can't their web server just reject or redirect any page requests that don't have a referrer field of their own web site?

Of course they can. But how in hell will they ever see another new customer via the internet again?

Too funny.

Re:There is no such thing...

I'd never heard of them

Congrats to whoever wrote your popup blocker.

maybe we should oblige them

By removing all links to Orbitz from other domains, watch them fall in search engine rankings. Orbitz fails to realize they only are high in the search results because other sites link to them. Their current policy indicates they don't want to even show up!

Re:maybe we should oblige them

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.

Re:maybe we should oblige them

You could always link to Orbitz' competitors instead.

Ok Orbizt, come and get me!

I'm breaking section 6 of your stupid and unenforceable rules [orbitz.com] by not getting a 'separate linking agreement' with you before posting that link, and I'm not going to edit this post if you ask me to, becasue slashdot doesn't let anyone edit posts.

I challenge you to try and enforce your new terms and conditions, or drop them.

Too much of something good?

Generally I think their idea may be good, but maybe taken too far and/or poorly executed.

Here's why:
Orbitz is a travel site for purchasing tickets, etc. The price and availability of these things changes constantly. Additionally, I would bet they may run into customer service problems if too many people are all trying to view and/or book the same flights at the same time. The system is really designed to be a point in time quote system. The problem comes when someone does a deep link, to a quote for example. Chances are if a link is posted on the web (or sent through email), the page the new visitor sees may be different from the page/price/availability the creator of the link saw.

That all being said, there are technical means to reduce, if not eliminate this problem. Could be they are implementing a technical solution, and are putting this in the TOS so they have something to point to when deep links suddenly stop working and customers complain.

PR wise they could have done this better, but I bet they never thought a place like this would publicize a TOS change.

On the other hand, I could be all wrong about their motives. :-)

-Pete

reading != agreement

Just by reading an EULA doesn't mean you agree to it.

Maybe, _maybe_, if you click 'I agree' you are bound to some parts.

Anyway, if they want to be a little island in cyberspace, then fine by me. If they really want to protect their IP they can pull out the ethernet cable from their webserver's N