Judge Rules Against Deep-Linking of Content

[w1z4rd]

"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.)'"

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/22/2032221

 

[jontyB]

I think we should be worried about this little development. The Internet works because of hyperlinking.

 

[bwana]

I think we should be worried about this little development. The Internet works because of hyperlinking.

Why sould we be losing any sleep over this? It only comes into play if the original source objects to the linking.

I know it's often not really practical to do so these days but it used to be a common courtesy to ask first anyway - in fact I often still do.

 

[w1z4rd]

Bwana there is a little bit of a larger picture to look at. In theory, Google is breaking the law now a billion times over. It links to everything.

There is no evidence that SFX tried technical countermeasures, such as referrer logging and blocking anyone coming from Davis' site.

....dodge....

 

[bwana]

Bwana there is a little bit of a larger picture to look at. In theory, Google is breaking the law now a billion times over. It links to everything.

....dodge....

The law is only conceivably being broken if someone refuses to take the link down.

Dont misunderstand - I'm also quite prepared to lay blame at the feet of the offended webmaster though as there are procedures in place to prevent linking, searching etc. Why they didnt, if in fact they didnt, implement these is beyond me.

Here's what actually annoys me - sure perhaps they feel they should have to but we shouldn't have to lock our doors at night but we do. Since when did litigation become a replacement for common sense?

 

[jontyB]

Why sould we be losing any sleep over this? It only comes into play if the original source objects to the linking.

I know it's often not really practical to do so these days but it used to be a common courtesy to ask first anyway - in fact I often still do.

Search Engines, Blogs, community websites such as MyADSL, etc may well now be breaking the law in terms of that test case. Generally, it is frowned upon to reproduce content from one website to another, particularly if that content was copyrighted to the first website owner. However, linking to content from one website to another with a static link is now effectively outlawed. Imagine if Naspers or Johnic decide from now on no one will link to their websites? Considering that between the 2 of them they own and publish about 90% of all News content in South Africa, this could have serious implications.

 

[bwana]

Search Engines, Blogs, community websites such as MyADSL, etc may well now be breaking the law in terms of that test case. Generally, it is frowned upon to reproduce content from one website to another, particularly if that content was copyrighted to the first website owner. However, linking to content from one website to another with a static link is now effectively outlawed. Imagine if Naspers or Johnic decide from now on no one will link to their websites? Considering that between the 2 of them they own and publish about 90% of all News content in South Africa, this could have serious implications.

Like I said - I believe it is also the responsibility of the webmaster who objects to linking to at least implement the standard countermeasures.

However once those measures are in place they should be respected.