To link or not to link?

June 10 — Nicolai Lassen considers linking such a fundamental element of the World Wide Web that he sees nothing wrong with creating a service around linking to news articles at more than 3,000 other sites. Danish publishers, however, equate such linking with stealing — and have gone to court to stop it. The case, scheduled for hearings in Copenhagen later this month, is among the latest to challenge the Web’s basic premise of encouraging the free flow of information through linking.

REQUIRING PERMISSION before linking could jeopardize online journals, search engines and other sites that link — which is to say, just about every site on the Internet.
If the Web’s creators hadn’t wanted linking, “they would have called it the World Wide Straight Line,” said Avi Adelman, a Web site operator involved in a dispute over linking to The Dallas Morning News.
Most of the court cases and legal threats have been over a form of hypertext-connecting called deep-linking, by which you simply connect users to a specific page rather than a site’s home page.
Such disputes reflect “a frustration certain people have with a loss of control” once they post something, said Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa.
Lassen’s Newsbooster service tries to make news stories easier to find by presenting links to items with keywords of a user’s choosing. It’s much like a search engine, except Newsbooster charges a subscription fee and lets users choose to automatically receive links by e-mail.
“From the home page down to the actual story you want to read can be a very, very long way,” said Lassen, Newsbooster’s editor-in-chief. “By using a technology such as Newsbooster, you save a lot of time.”
The Danish Newspaper Publishers’ Association believes Newsbooster should either shut down or negotiate payments. “We consider it unfair to base your business upon the works of others,” said Ebbe Dal, the group’s managing director.
Not that opponents of deep-linking always object to it.
Dal thinks its OK for a newspaper to offer a deep link or two accompanying an article, or for search engines to help users navigate.

BELO’S BLUSTER
Belo Corp. likewise prohibits deep-linking to its sites, including the Morning News.
But one of its newspapers, the Providence Journal, maintains an online journal that deep links to other sites. Belo spokesman Scott Baradell was quoted by several news organizations as saying the company isn’t against all deep-linking. But he would not offer specifics on why it objects to deep links to Morning News articles on Adelman’s non-subscription site, which covers local Dallas affairs. Contacted by The Associated Press, Baradell said he would have no additional comment.
Reasons for opposing linking vary.
In a federal lawsuit, Homestore.com Inc. complains that Bargain Network, by deep linking to Homestore’s real estate listings, interferes with its opportunities to sell advertising.
Others, like the Council of Better Business Bureaus, worry that a link — deep or otherwise — can imply endorsement, even if it reaches nothing more than a page with tips. The organization has persuaded thousands of sites to remove links to its Web pages, citing trademark claims.
But to Web purists, a link is no more than a footnote or a page reference. To ban deep-linking, they say, is to prohibit newspaper readers from going straight to the sports pages because they might miss advertising in the front section.
Beside, linking is a way for sites to boost traffic. “Historically at least, there has been a tradition that if you put something up on the World Wide Web, it would be a public resource,” said Matt Cutts, a software engineer at Google. He said Google removes links when asked, though few sites request it as most want to be found.

SO FAR, LAW LIKES LINKS
Early U.S. court decisions have sided with deep-linking. Exceptions are in cases of framing, where a site tries to make information from other sites appear as its own, and ones involving links to tools that circumvent anti-piracy measures built into commercial software.
“It was one of those issues that people thought was more or less settled,” said Jorge Contreras, vice chairman of the Internet Law Group at Hale and Dorr firm. “For whatever reason, these last couple of months, a spate of new disputes have come up.”
If they are resolved in favor of plaintiffs opposed to deep-linking, legal experts say that could encourage more lawsuits and more moats going up around certain Web sites.
Several sites, including the Belo papers, Overnite Transportation Co., ACNielsen research firm and KPMG International, ban all or some deep-linking. The International Trademark Association and The Washington Post reserve the right to prohibit it on a case-by-case basis.
The Albuquerque Journal and American City Business Journals have attempted to charge for the right to deep link. Although editors acknowledge they won’t take action against casual deep-linkers, they say a handful have been willing to pay — $50 in Albuquerque’s case.
“There are some companies that would rather pay to get a piece of paper and get that blessing,” said Donn Friedman, the Albuquerque paper’s assistant managing editor for technology.
Technology exists for sites that truly want to block deep-linking.
For example, the news site for The Associated Press, The WIRE, checks what site a user comes from. If it isn’t a site authorized to use deep links, the user is automatically directed to a default page and required to enter through one of the AP’s member newspapers or broadcasters.
Other sites can require registration or paid subscriptions.
Though Web site operators don’t always like technical blocks, they prefer that to a legal environment where a ban is presumed and permission must be sought each time.
Weldon Johnson of LetsRun.com, involved in a dispute this spring with Runner’s World magazine, said that as long as sites keep the doors open, “it’s totally wrong for them to say you have to link to certain pages.”

Seems it hasn't been posted yet. Forgive the formatting, I put in line breaks and paragraphs where MSNBC does, only it looks better on their site because it's a narrow column. This article seems relevant to litigation Jim Robinson has been involved in...

There are many ways to stop people from deep-linking if you want to. One easy way would be to check the "referer" — if someone links from a domain other than ones that you specify (your own, for example), you could redirect them to your home page or do whatever you want at that point.

This would take about 10 minutes of programming time... I'd be happy to do it for the right price!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

Actually this has nothing to do with the litigation FR was in. Washington Post objected (rightly, I believe) to people posting entire stories. They didn't have a problem with links to those stories on their site. That seems pretty fair to me. There's a difference between linking to a story (where the publisher still gets the page view) and taking away that source of revenue from them by copying the entire text of the article.

Of course if I've missed some fact that is exculpatory of FR and its users, I apologize in advance. I never followed the case that closely, so maybe there was some nuance I missed.

I believe non-commercial fair-use for political discussion is at the heart of the FR argument. IANAL, past results are no guarantee of future performance, YMMV, check the facts your own self. ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.