Max More wrote:
> It does look like there is no legal case for anyone to prevent use of deep
> links. However, that doesn't mean that a deep pocketed publisher wouldn't
> take someone to court. I would be sympathetic in cases where someone was
> misleading the users into think that the linked site endorsed their own
> site, or where someone puts their own frame around someone else's content.
There might be a legal case there - it could be construed as presenting
someone else's content as your own, and thus plagarism. But that's
about the only way the law wouldn't come down solidly on the side of
the linker that I've heard of, in most countries.
> But I see no cause for threats when you are simply noting a good article
> and putting a link that takes you there. It's strange that some people
> would object to being handed business that they otherwise wouldn't have
> received.
It seems to be often more about control of their product than about the
money. Same basic principle as behind the suits vs. Napster and the
DeCSS crowd: "we don't care if you're promoting our product and
bringing us lots of money; we didn't *authorize* it".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT