Your thoughts on deep linking

[monsterfx]

This is something I've thought about before and my brain decided to get back onto it today. Is deep linking in and of itself a violation of someone's copyright? To clarify the discussion, I'm going to throw out an assumption:

Deliberately trying to pass off someone else's content as your own (even if you are linking to it and not posting it on your own site) is a violation of copyright law in my opinion. That said...

<soapbox>
How can linking to a non-home page of a web site, when clearly identified as being someone else's site, be a violation of copyright law? Isn't copyright law only there to essentially protect a covered work from being copied? By linking to a publicly published page on the internet, you are only referring someone to the publisher's web site, not copying a protected work.

One interesting aspect I have thought of about this issue is that if deep linking without permission is illegal, then Google, AltaVista, HotBot, Lycos, etc. are potentially liable for Billions of dollars in damages and fines.
</soapbox>

I could go on about this for pages (and I think I will use this to re-start my long stagnant web log), but I'll pass it on to others for comment.

What do you think? Should deep-linking be legal? If deep-linking without permission were ever ruled to be a violation of copyright law, would the web still be able to function (at least in present form)?

-monster.

[OddDog]

i am not sure i see any illegal use of others copyright here.

[monsterfx]

Odddog, I'm not referring to anything specifically in FlashKit, just the legal debate about deep linking in general.

For Everyone, here's some articles about the legal issues of deep linking (which could, in themselves be illegal links depending on who you listen to ):

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-941556.html?tag=fd_top
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/1138351
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,53501,00.html

-monster.

[octothorp]

I think that a lot of major web publications are over-protective of their brands. It all comes of people trying to make money on the internet, primarily off of advertising. Of course, advertising is directly in opposition to content, and 99% of the time, the deep-linking is to content. I'm not sure I've ever seen a deep-link to an advertisement.

A deep-link works the same as a citation to a magazine--you give the issue, page number, article. The interested reader goes out and gets that magazine, but rather than flipping through the thirty pages of Gap ads before the TOC, the reader flips right to the page and article, ignoring the advertisements.

I can see why the Dallas News (mentioned in several articles) is so uptight about the issue: I took a quick (30 second) spin on their site, and ended up with about 5 pop-up windows. They've got a crappy ad-based model. Oh, and their site contains lots of deep links to other websites.

You've got a fanastic point about the search engines!

#

[OddDog]

if this deep linking is illegal because


The DNPA says that the deep links violate the copyright over its content, and that they allow users to bypass the advertisements on the sites' front doors.


then it seems to cause problems to all meta search engines as well.

[OddDog]

interesting....

[monsterfx]

If you think about it, this really could change the web as we know it. Think about all the times you have either posted or followed a deep link. Now imagine if everyone had to (in the best-case) check the site's "terms of use" or (in the worst-case) actually ask for permission before posting a deep link. How many links do you think would be left? And how valuable would search engines be if they have to ask permission before indexing a site? We'd pretty much just be left with web directories.

Personnally, I feel that if you publish something on the web, you have given up HOW someone will access it. It's still your content and you are protected against someone trying to use it as their own, but the maner of access is out of your control. And that just sparked another idea in my mind, how about browser bookmarks/favorites? And sending a link to another person via email?

The ironic thing about it is if a web site *really* wanted to keep people from deep linking, there are technological methods in existence to force everyone to go through the home page (or any alternate page) before getting into a web site. But I guess it's easier to sue than to just solve the problem yourself.

-monster.

PS - If a site deep links to another site, have they given up the right to stop a site deep linking to them?

::edited by monster 7.5.2002::
[Edited by monsterfx on 07-05-2002 at 02:49 PM]

[serpent star]

That is ridiculous. It is analogus to me opening up XYZ Computer Magazine, going straight to an article and paper clipping an article open so that when I show you the article, you don't see the liquer ads that come before it, you just see the article I want you to see. Maybe I put a post it not on there saying that this article may be helpful to you.

Copyright infringement, I doubt it.

I just don't see why it should be any different on the web.

my 2 cents.

[hurricaneone]

What's the story here? Is the deep linking itself to be considered illegal, or is it the claiming of the content displayed at the link?
Either way, this idea is crazy. You'd have to have some pretty gullible users to believe your claim the material linked to was yours, especially when it's presented on another site. And on the other hand, if it was your material that someone else had taken and was presenting as their own, there's better ways of solving that problem than banning deep linking.

[Musicman]

Hi,

there have been issues with deeply linked pages showing up in a frameset where it was not obvious to the visitor (or, unfortunately to a not really internet-enabled court) that the content was taken from some other site.
One of these cases was related to e-commerce - the company selling the stuff was linking to the manufacturer's product description, and the opponent in court was another shop selling the competition's products. Maybe they were deep-linking to the judge's brain

Musicman

[hurricaneone]

Ahhh, now I see. But still, it's unlikely to become common practice, right? For it it succeed, you'd have to deliberately design your site to have the appearance of the content you wanted to 'include'.

And personally, I can't directly see anything wrong with a legitimate retailer of a product linking to the original manufacturer's site for a product description. If it's such a great sales tactic, surely it'd be better to match the move, rather then try and stop the practice altogether.

[Ed Mack]

And, is it FK's fault for the deep links we post, or ours? I suppose this: http://ed.gamegeared.com/flash could get them sued if so, if I say right now I don't allow deep linking to my site. If deep linking was illegal, wouldn't quotes then seem close to illegal?

[monsterfx]

Pull up your favorite web search engine (I tried Google) and search for something along the lines of:

"terms of use" "deep link"

I got about 500 results, most of them linking to the Terms of Use pages for various web sites, banning deep links (and yes, I'm enjoying the irony of that). It's definitely becoming more prevelant on the web for people to ban deep links in their terms of use. And this includes bigger technology names. So far I've seen NEC and Kyocera.

My favorite gem I've discovered in these results is a footer I've come across a couple times defining a "deep link."

**A deep link is like a hypertext link but takes the visitors into the website bypassing the homepage on the third party website.

Hmmm...not even correct (a hyperlink is a hyperlink no matter where it goes). Good job outa them.

And, is it FK's fault for the deep links we post, or ours?

Good question, Ed. If outright deep linking bans are upheld (I pray they aren't), then who is responsible for those links on a community site like Flashkit?

Still ranting,
-monster.

[OddDog]

it is necesary to diferenciate between accepted and unaccepted deep links.

in the legal case in the danish courts i can understand that a web site that has a business model based on advertising on its front page is going to try to defend itself from another company that actively tries to sidestep this front page. solutions do exist. allow deeplinking with pop up ads (or whatever, the point is solutions do exist)

for meta search engines, simply have no meta tags. and for directory listing just list the index page only.

[OddDog]

a direct quote from Eric Ward

Deep linking is not a problem that needs a legal solution. If you don't
want someone deep linking to your site, you write a two line script that
checks the referring URL, and then redirects anybody coming in from any
page that is not on your site already. It's so easy it's silly. End of
problem. I've been doing linking related consulting for 8 years, and I
would be thrilled to speak in court to the legal establishment as to why
lawsuits are 100% unnecessary for ALL linking related issues.