Deep Linking Troubles Continue 257
Glothar writes "There is a case currently before the US court system (somewhere) based on one web site linking to content (trailers and other fun stuff) within Universal Pictures' web site. Universal is basically saying it can not be done. There is an article on Wired about it. Basically, they want it to be a copyright infringement. In reality, they are upset because they want everybody to have to look at advertising. However, it may make the URL I just gave you a copyright violation as well. Ironic. " Proof once again that the old school business world has a lot to learn about
the Internet.
Duh (Score:1)
Bandwidth, as well as content is the issue (Score:1)
I run an atari emulation web site. It's not exactly 'good' but it serves its purpose. On the site there is a large of collection of various files. Now whilst I wouldn't mind someone linking to my site, if they were to link to the files directly then that would get to me. Bandwidth would be taken up, and the whole point of running a web site would slowly diminish.
So, if a web site on a slow line links to another site for various downloads, then the slow site is in the wrong... why not ask the webmaster of the fast site if it's alright to do so in the first place ? If they say no then count your losses and link to the main site. Is that too much to ask ?
International (Score:1)
Re:Just a quickie... (Score:1)
Not only do they want people to come and watch their ads, they want to get paid for it at the same time by having those people load their banner ads.
-Snibor Eoj
Re:Just be careful with IE 5.0 (Score:1)
Or you could detect IE5 and just transparently redirect them to Netscape's download page.
I'd never use that site again! Isn't the point of a browser to be able to view HTML? Well, Netscape isn't HTML compatible.
Next magazine publishers will sue you... (Score:1)
Extrapolating, will periodicals in e-book form force you to scroll through pages of ad-crap before you get to read the articles?
Perhaps there is something to be said for paper, after all.
Re:A tidbit from the story, and a comment thereupo (Score:1)
Scary Dutch court ruling on this very subject (Score:1)
Now this can be extrapolated to mean that *any* company or person that complains to a service provider about a link to works that company or person has copyrights for can force the service provider to remove the link under penalty of law... I'd personally love to see (say) Universal take on (say) Altavista like this...
(Oh yeah... CST is Scientology... ;))
Put ads in the trailers... (Score:1)
Re:Linking for Fun and Profit (Score:1)
I strongly disagree. In the examples you cite, there is no copying. Nothing is being reused, repackaged, or resold. A reference is not the same as a copy!
Suppose you run a site that serves copyrighted material, where the users have to pay for access to the material. If you want to charge users for content, then that's where the charging should take place: when they access the content. When someone tries to retrieve a not-free file from your server, whether it was refered to by your site or elsewhere, you still should have a username/password on it, or check a cookie or something. Either way, they either agree to pay, or they don't get the file.
If you're relying on your customers to retrieve some files before others, then you've missed the point of hypertext, and probably shouldn't be running a business that uses it (a pay web site).
This Reminds me... (Score:1)
Shetland times case - '97 (Score:1)
Re:Banner filter (Score:1)
(So I didn't bother learning junkbuster's cookie jar configuration. But it looks on the face of it very useful)
--
I think everyone is missing the biggest Point (Score:3)
Re:Free Speech (Score:1)
If lots of people started blocking TV commercials, the Nielsen ratings most definitely _would_ take it into account.
Similar situation here. They're not really worried about people taking their own content, they're worried about people taking it without the lucrative ads that go with it. And if the advertisers conclude that there's a lot of deep linking going on, they'll stop advertising.
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
All Universal is concerned about is its ad revenues, nothing more.
paranoid.android
Isn't there a technical fix these sites could use? (Score:1)
With this mechanism, if sites don't want outside referrals to their pages or content, it seems to me that they should take responsibility themselves to block access if it doesn't come from their own referring pages, and not run crying to an outside agency.
I of course apologize in advance if I'm dead wrong on how this blocking mechanism works.
For yet another take on this... (Score:1)
lets make them sue us all ;-) (Score:1)
Information WANTS to be free... (Score:1)
If they win this suit what next? Will they sue me if I tell (ala voice) someone the direct URL to an image on their site too? What's stoping me from instead of linking saing check out "www.universal-pictures.com/images/tippytoplefthe
Please if you have a problem with how the web works.. then don't use it.
Ex-Nt-User
Tell Universal what you think and... (Score:2)
They have a feedback page for you to send them email about whatever you want (except creative movie ideas). If we go there and tell them that they can create a script or something to block or redirect unwanted links, then maybe we can avoid this legal battle. Instead of talking about it over here on
Um, sorry. (Score:2)
It's time for the studios and media to wake up and realize that the public isn't their bitch [microsoft.com] anymore.
By the way, Universal, do you plan on releasing anything resembling a good movie [usc.edu] in the near future? Or do you intend on blowing all your dough on legal battles?
Next thing you know.... (Score:1)
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Lovely Quote (Score:1)
Is it me or does this say that they (Movie-List people) must detroy their films. Sorry I know what they meant but this is really bad english. "remove all images from our films" - huh? As well as "links to other sites that have our servers" - what's that mean? I can't link to a site that owns their server? Doesn't a server own a site? Argggghhh my head hurts. Can't translate.
-cpd
Fighting back the idiots (Score:1)
Re:NEWSFLASH: Supremes rule anti-advert-ware illeg (Score:1)
3M lawyer Charles U. Farley had this to say, "This decision is a clear vindication of our rights. We were able to conclusively prove that the information on most direct routes these "maps" provided led to significantly reduced travel time, and therefore reduced viewings of our product, decreasing the value of our holdings."
All roadmaps are to be recalled, and Congress has passed a federal law allowing the police to search cars that look as though they might be carrying maps, such as those with out-of-state plates, rental cars, and foreign-looking drivers. Possession of a map will be punishable by a $1000 fine and use of a map by up to 6 months in jail.
Yes, this is basically what I'm talking about. (Score:1)
>advertising their damned movies. They should be
>paying him. And if they're that concerned about
>it, check the HTTP_REFERER!
Companies are evidently afraid that somebody else is making a profit from adds while using the company's server to offer content.
My idea is that the linker would have his adds to make money, he'd use a frame or something to display a frame-ready page from the company being linked to. The framed page would have it's own adds on it that generated revenue for the company. The company could check the referrer tags and such to award the linking entity for linking.
If such nettiquete could be adhered to, then such things as lawsuits (with the associated common law precendents) and loss of internet autonomy could be avoided.
Everybody wins!
Re:Intellectual Dishonesty (Score:1)
Why should linking to images from other web sites be wrong? If you don't want people to link to your stuff, don't put it on the Web.
Re:Information WANTS to be free... (Score:1)
Sorry for being off topic here but if a tree falls in the forest and kills someone.. what actually killed that person..?
Ex-Nt-User
Fair Use on the Web? (Score:1)
Sure, most sites just use links as navigation controls ("Next Page", "Top", "Home", or even "click here"), but good sites also use them to direct a user to more information on a topic [xerox.com] within the context of the page itself.
Where I think the problem arises is not "how do I ensure that my valuable ad banners get seen?" (Jakob Neilsen wrote in 1997 that advertising doesn't work on the web [useit.com] and in another article about research on web users' behavior [useit.com] that while ad banners are the most-used form of advertising on the web, it is the least successful.) but "how do I protect my intellectual property on the Web?"
In this case, I went to Movie-List [movie-list.com] to check it out, and it is a banner-driven (hence, I assume, ad-supported) site that is, essentially, a "link farm". He takes the trailers for movies and wraps his own HTML around them (complete with banner ad), and doesn't even acknowledge the movie studios the trailers are coming from. If I see a trailer from Universal's web site, I should have the option of hitting a link to their site to look around; Movie-List traps you there so you can look at his banner ads.
I would think that this is a violation of fair use (which is going to have to be redefined somewhat, if it hasn't already, to handle the Web) made worse by the fact that he's not incurring any bandwidth penalty himself; he's using their servers to host the information he's supposedly getting ad money off of, the trailers. My gut feeling is that Universal is in the right on this one.
Obviously, the concept of "fair use" on the Web is going to need to protect both the rights of the person who makes their intellectual property available on the web and the right of the person who wants to provide a link to it.
I would think that a good "fair use" policy for the Web should have the following requirements:
1) People should be allowed to point to copyrighted material on another site without obtaining explicit permission if they acknowledge the copyright holder of the material (either by providing the link in the context of their site, as my Alertbox [useit.com] examples do, or in the case of an image or movie, providing a link to the source of the copyrighted material). If search engines were to use the "copyright" LINK attribute (if properly set) on a page, I'd think that covers their backsides neatly.
2) People should only be able to place a page from another site within their own frame if the owner of the content of that site gives their permission (as I did when I set up my home page at XOOM) or for educational or informative purposes (a site that teaches good/bad web design, or a live "portfolio" of a webmaster's work). In the latter case, the frame should not have any ads on it.
3) A subscription-based site shouldn't include any copyrighted material from another source without that source's permission, period. Just live a print magazine.
This is just off of the top of my head; what else should go into a decent "Fair Web Use" policy?
Jay (=
Re:Why not have a linking policy posted. (Score:1)
The sticking point is that the server being used to serve the content is in the cost center of the objecting party. The objecting party may have rights based on the fact that their machinery is being depreciated and are suffering the costs involved in bandwidth and administration.
My proposal, which may need to be amended, is to find a way to avoid such litigation and to award the participants. Your idea of a password protected site would work for the purpose of security but... the whole reason for the litigation is that the serving company wants add revenue - it needs to be publicly available. Can't they come to some mutually beneficial agreement without litigation???
I do agree, however, that it would be a seriously detrimental thing if the internet were to become bogged down in a complicated rights and priveleges quagmire. I'm certainly open to suggestions!
The meat of the issue (Score:1)
One interesting argument is this: Consider a movie theatre owner. At the front door, he charges admission (or makes people watch advertisements, or whatever). However, his theatre has a side door that is always unlocked. The theatre owner does have the right to post signs telling people not to come in through the side door-- it may not prevent people from coming in, but he can at least prosecute those who do.
This is all well and good for theatre owners.
However, there is a major distinction between theatres and the Web, and the distinction is this: the Web is a public forum.
When placing a work in a public forum, you are the one responsible for restricting access to that work. Plain and simple.
I understand UP's position, but it's their responsibility to restrict access to the site, not the responsibility of everybody else on the web.
Best wishes to MovieList-- stick with it, this is an important issue!
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
Just because the components are legal does not mean that the combination is legal. (Though I will grant that it probably should be legal)
Re:What about bookmarks? (Score:1)
same thing...
Anyone who makes browsers better watch out! Disable bookmarks or be sued for copyright infringement (or perhaps just "accessory to copyright infringement.")
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
This is a little silly. Do you really believe that if someone downloaded a trailer via this link would believe that it was created by MovieList? I'd think that the huge "Universal" logo at the beginning of the trailer would be a tip-off that it was, in fact, created by Universal. Besides, trailers are esentially advertisements. Would an advertiser (in this case Universal) be upset if you were to show their ad for free (or at least provide another route to it)? I think not.
Free Speech (Score:1)
Here's an analogy:
Imagine that Wired magazine (for example) has a great article about Linux in its latest print issue, and I want readers of my web site to know about it. Obviously, I couldn't post a verbatim copy of the article on my site -- that would be copyright infringement. But I would be able to write, "There's a great article about Linux on page 50 of Wired." Should Wired be able to sue me because people wouldn't read the ads on pages 1-49? Of course not.
Re:Information DOES "want to be free"... (Score:1)
Let your information be free, but it's okay to make them pay for it.
What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re:NEWSFLASH: Supremes rule anti-advert-ware illeg (Score:1)
Now I'm worried. I realize that this is a satire since I haven't seen such a report anywhere else. The thing that bothers me is that with all the things we've heard in the last month or two (i.e., Echelon, the Armed Services Committee bill, the ability of law enforcement to get info without a warrant, etc.), it doesn't sound the least bit far-fetched. I think the government has just raised the bar on satire. You're gonna hafta go a ways farther out on that limb to make it really sound like satire. Otherwise you're just gonna freak people out and have them checking all the other news sites for more info.
I really don't understand Universal (Score:1)
pr0n has the answer (Score:1)
My question is of course "Why would you want to keep people from seeing your trailer?" Do we have to pay (by ignoring banner ads) just to see your other advertisement?
If you really want to limit acces, then REALLY limit access. Password protect the file, make a login necessary, require blood pacts, but don't post something on the Internet at large and then get pissed when people link to it. THAT'S WHAT THE MEDIUM IS!!!
We (those that have a clue) must be vocal in protecting the rights and freedoms of Internet users everywhere, as well as the ideals of open information and, gaddamit, the ability to link wherever I damn well please. If we don't it won't be too long before sites like
(/incoherent rant {work sux bad after vaca...I miss Cabo:(})
Re:Information WANTS to be free... (Score:1)
Stupid people.. (Score:3)
Keeps people from using your images and crap like that.
The copyright infringement thing is just silly, but I can understand why they don't want people doing that. Its easy enough to fix technically...
Linking is what the web is all about (Score:2)
So, they will subvert the whole point of the world wide web, and we will eventually build something new for them to "discover."
Sorry, I'm crabby today. If you don't want people to link to your stuff, DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB!
--
Deep links should be expected. (Score:1)
Of course, since the content itself is trailers (i.e. movie ads) this whole difficulty seems a little strange in the first place.
--
Some companies need to chill out (Score:1)
No kidding! (Score:1)
Are they going after Movie List because it's a large site? I can think of a million websites I've been to with the most non-descriptive links in the world.
Eventually someone's going to hit a Universal ad on their site, so what's the big deal? Don't they have enuf $ and hits already?
Is this just silliness or plain greed?
>I hope the judge is technically competent enough to see it as such and throws it out.
Indeed! A guy (I should scan in this article) tried to sue the Cdn government claiming he was being discriminated against because he was a martian. The judge threw it out, saying the Constitution only applied to human beings, and if Mr. X believed he was a martian, then it didn't apply to him...god, it was so dumb!
Re:Stupid people.. (Score:1)
If you mean that pages shouldn't be linked to, that wouldn't make sense. Could you clarify this?
Universal's reactionary tendencies (Score:1)
Their demands for total control of content and legalistic sabre-rattling are completely in character.
Re:Stupid people.. (Score:1)
Re:Stupid people.. (Score:1)
If you don't want the link, find a way to prevent it - it's not that hard. Stupidity doesn't make good law.
---
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
They have this wonderful new invention. It has a funny name, so try not to laugh. It's called "authentication".
You set up an anonymous FTP server and got rolled for your goodies. Why do you find that surprising?
Finally, there's a real important point here - this is UNIVERSAL's content. If they don't want anyone linking to it, then no one should. Intellectual Property, people - if you want their product/service, do it their way or not at all.
I don't understand how Universal's IP rights are violated. They put those materials on the Web for public consumption, and the public is consuming them. If you want to funnel people through your advertising blitz, there are a wide variety of technical solutions to do just that.
Supermarkets are carefully designed to put you face-to-face with hundreds of expensive luxury items (junk food, etc.) while collecting your necessities (milk, bread, etc.). If I give people a map that routes them around the junk food displays and sends them right to the staples, am I infringing on their right to influence how people walk around their store?
Universal is just being lazy. They're losing hits because someone is doing a better job of indexing their content than they are.
Sorenson video can't be done either way. (Score:1)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
It's not just U.S. companies... (Score:1)
Interesting to see companies getting in on the act. In Germany, there was a court ruling about a year ago stating that it was forbidden to link to hate sites or sites containing illegal material under German law. Thus, if you are in Germany and link to a site containing, say, pictures of Nazi leaders (regardless of where that site is), you could be in trouble with the law in Germany (pro-Nazi material and political parties are strictly forbidden), even though you may think you bear no responsibility for what is on the other site.
Unfortuntately, I can't remember exactly when or where that ruling was, but I certainly remember the impact it had on my mind: utter disbelief.
ISTR that this ruling was linked to the prosecution of a CompuServe Germany exec for supposedly facilitating access to illegal pornography. Obviously, he had nothing to do with it, but he was held responsible anyway on behalf of CompuServer by a Bavarian court. Go figure.
Ethelred [surf.to]
You need deep linking (Score:1)
**(All of the previos is under the assumption that user is comming from one site to another that does not allow deep linking.)
Too trigger happy (Score:1)
I have to wonder why they didn't take that route. Is their web team clueless? (Surely the first thing you do is call your webmaster and say "how can we stop this?") Do they just like lawyers? Or is this part of some bigger, submarine int-prop scheme -- what advantage are they going to take if this sets a precedent?
Hey, does anyone know which, if any movie studios are behaving rationally on this issue?
Re:What about bookmarks? (Score:1)
An open letter to Universal (Score:1)
Boy, are you in virtual hot water! Your position on deep-linking to parts of your web-site that bypasses your main page has made you the subject of debate (and anger) on the nerd site slashdot.org. That can't be good for PR.
Before you called out your lawyers, you should have talked to the people who run your web-site: what you wish to accomplish is quite possible and relatively easy, technically.
The World Wide Web was designed to make deep--linking possible and painless. That said, there are circumstances, such as yours, where doing so can lead to misunderstanding and confusion regarding copyright ownership, and avoidance of banner ads. Understandibly, this is not in your best interest.
Technically, it is possible for a web server to check the referring link to one of your pages, and if not another of your pages, to refuse to provide the requested data, or otherwise wrap it in an appropriate page (which might include a copyright notice, banner ad, etc.) Even if your web server can't be configured to do this, read-only CGI-BIN scripts can be used to accomplish the same effect.
Hope this helps. Remember, if there is a need to restict access, there is likely a technical solution available, or easy to implement, without having to resort to what amounts to using a legal sledge-hammer to swat a fly.
Regards,
Rene S. Hollan
[address omitted]
Deep Linking: A Double-Edged Sword (Score:1)
It's worth noting that while using some other guy's image is a quick and dirty way to make your web page look like it has more content, it also places your web page at the mercy of those whose content you've linked. You might link to somebody's nifty icon, but if he replaces it with pr0n, your pages are going to look pretty bad. Professional sites go out of their way to avoid this, often explicitly notifying the user when links leave their site.
I know someone who posted an auction on eBay, complete with a picture they went to the trouble of scanning, cropping, etc. Someone else with a similar item to sell linked to his image, so we went back and added some text to the image -- nothing profane, just a note that it was an original scan intended only for use in a specific auction. The lazy bum who linked to it had no alternative but to either close his auction or put up with the modified image, although I doubt that he ever noticed. With CGI, we could have been much more creative.
Bottom line: this will sort itself out without lawyers, if given a chance.
How to block outside link with Apache (Score:1)
SetEnvIf Referer yourdomain\.com internallink
2)In the
order deny,allow
deny from all
allow from env=internallink
3) When somebody clicks on a link to a fiel within that directory the will get a 403. This will also prevent people from being able to type in the URL or use it as a "Favorite". So if you were using this for images you'd probably want to keep your images in it's own subdirectory so they are protected, but the HTML file which uses them isn't.
Did that make sense?
If anybody else has done something similar I wouldn't mind hearing from them
brian@alienwebshop.com
Uh, what advertisements? (Score:1)
www.waldherr.org/junkbuster/ for the blank-image patched ver + central blocklist
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:1)
But, he dosen't link to any pages on Universal's site. Only to the
All URL's are not created equally. Admittedly a movie trailer is a bit different than a photograph. It's not like he's modifying the trailers to remove Universals name and copyright info. I say if the work of art is clearly identified within itself as being copyrighted and is available on the net through a simple URL then you don't have a leg to stand on legally. It may be in horribly bad taste and exceptionally poor nettiquit but should not be illegal. If that work of art though does not or can not carry it's copyright information within itself then linking to it without giving credit is not only bad taste and all that but should also be illegal.
And as many have said before. If Universal wanted to keep links out they could. The law should not be used to protect the lazy from their own ignorance.
Lots of Technical Solutions (Score:1)
(check out Doug McEachern & Lincoln Steins _Writing Apache Modules With Perl & C_ for detailed instructions) such that the actual link itself is just a query to a program. They could then do a scheme a-la pathfinder where the URLS are garbled unless you surf through all the advertising crap.
I'm all for that method. If you gotta have the crap to support the content, by all means post the crap
Dan
Re:There's no beating - deep linking. (Score:1)
blacking out all the ads, and leaving it in a public place?
After all, I have bypassed all those potential click-through ads (for other readers of the magazine), no?
This is silly. Universal is stupid.
Universal sells movies. The more people are exposed to their movies, the more the company makes money.
It's too bad their web group probably needs the clickthrough/popup ads to get income to justify their expenses on web stuff (servers). Maybe if they were smarter about it, like clickthrough ads for quick interest surveys, intelligent links to moviephone.com for current movies, etc., and it just wouldn't be a big deal for them, either.
But no.
Big bussness and the internet (Score:1)
or, unfortunetly Proof that the internet, at least what were used to may cease to exsist once big buessness has there way. If this case sucseeds, the effect would be detimental to the intnernet.
the internet is about sharing ideas, and the old ways of information distrobution really don't apply anymore unfortunetly these big busness don't want to hurt there revinue stream, and since they never really wanted the 'Net in the first place, are willing to bring it to its knees. (and of cource, since there the ones giving money to congres....)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
A stupidly obvious solution... (Score:1)
Okay, real easy solution... if the document referrer isn't from one of their sites, they simply redirect to the home page, or whatever. It'd take like 5 minutes to configure the average web server to do this. And if you really wanted to get fancy you could make the site 100% CGI-driven and just make a page right on the spot with all the advertising you want!
Such a solution requires no lawsuits, and for the very minimal solution, just a few minutes of time from the guy who runs the server.
Sheesh. Maybe I should ask Universal for a job as Webmaster. The one they have now obviously can't do anything that requires changing config files or writing if-then statements. He's probably got every M$ certification in the book, too.
Re:The new advertising model (Score:1)
Overall, I think Universal misses the point. They should not expect a non-porn, non-financial, non-ecommerce site to make money or even break even. They should instead create a site that has good content that makes people want to watch their movies and tv shows and buy their music, blah blah blah.
Re:This is Universal's problem only (Score:1)
Not even that, really.
The link to the content (i.e. movie trailer) is put on Movie-List's site in such a way as to make it appear that the trailer is stored on Movie-List's site. Universal's pissed because nobody looks at their banner ads anymore.
I say if Universal can't make people want to come to their page, screw em. Either fix your server or shut the fuck up.
Re:Banner filter (Score:1)
Re:Clueless linkers and linkees (Score:1)
Spyky
Search Engines & Bookmarks (Score:1)
say good bye to search engines and bookmark files.
If a company really wants to serve content only in context, they can use the refering page information submitted by the client. If a request is referred from outside their site, they can:
1) refuse it
2) bounce you to the main page
3) give you a version of the page you want, only reformated with lots of stuff (perahaps a frame) to get you to look at the rest of their site when done.
Obviously #3 is the best solution for all concerned, but not everyone will make the effort.
On banner adds - I fear we may eventually see servers which refuse to serve content until they are sure the adds have been received. Of course you wouldn't have to display them, but you would have to waste bandwith taking them.
There are no ad banners (Score:1)
URL hiding (Score:1)
And the adult sites have to be doing this programaticly -- it's too much maintaince to do it by hand.
Check referer URLs, use cookies, change your 404 page to redirect to the root of the site -- it's not like these are new ideas. Admittedly, this is kind of underhanded (which explains why the adult sites have done it) but that doesn't mean it's not good to do, and worth it. Especially if your sole reason is to get people to see ads.
Copyright (Score:1)
The new advertising model (Score:1)
But to do it the way that they are trying is to basically say that it is against the law to focus in on a piece of information and present it without the accompanying advertisements.
What does that mean? Well it means you can't clip an article out of the newspaper. It means you can't photocopy something out of a magazine. It means that you can't even reference it in a term paper specifically by page numbers. You would have to just say that you got the information from Time magazine issue #105, go find it yourself. It would mean that you couldn't walk up to a friend and say, "I read this great article that said..."
Deep linking has been around since the dawn of time. Think beyond the web and look at everyday occurrences and you'll find it happening all over the place.
The real source of the problem is that ad agencies have developed a new model for advertising. Before they paid for the ad to run in a magazine that went to 10,000 people. They couldn't tell how many of the 10,000 read the ad. But with the web, they pay by each viewing because they can track on that. And that's the problem.
Deep linking bypasses the new model that ad agencies have developed and site admins don't like getting hit in the pocket book.
My favorite Link ;) (Score:1)
ftp://warez.eu.org
It's my favorite I hope I won't get sued by Software compagnies for posting this URL -
If you don't understand the joke, do a nslookup on the given URL
Missing The Point (Score:1)
Now I have no problem with companies and businesses having a presence on the net [I'm not so old fashioned that I'm totally against commercial traffic] but I do think that it can become too commercial [as it seems to be doing]. The companies need to realize that the web was not put up to help their profits, but to encourage the dissemination of information. I hope there are some web designers reading this, and I hope they can keep this in mind when designing sites. We need to make sure that the primary goal of a website is information, whether it be information on a geek and his/her cat, or information about a company and it's products. If the information is clear and easy to get to, the hits/sales will come, otherwise we will start ignoring you.
Ender
The information doesn't "want" to be free. "I" want the information to be free...
NEWSFLASH: Supremes rule anti-advert-ware illegal! (Score:5)
Washington DC - After more than two years in and out of the courts, The Supreme Court today upheld the lower courts' ruling that the viewing of a website in any other layout and format other than the one set-up by that site's authors.
The original suit was brought by a cartel of web business all over the country, initially sponsored by by the Direct Marketers Association (DMA). The defendants were Junkbusters Inc and thirty-four other businesses and individuals who had created software to let users by-pass blinking pictures, pop-ups advertisements, and intended controls on font, color, size, and backgrounds.
This means that the lower courts' previous award of seventeen billion dollars is due immediately. Upon hearing the ruling, Junkbusters immediately filed for bankruptcy, but it is widely believed that their the software authors and corporate directors will be personally liable. Furthermore, the text-based web browser, Lynx, is now illegal to use except on your own sites, as are any proxies that filter or rewrite incoming webpages in any way, including the suppression of blinking text. Both Microsoft and AOL Microsystems must immediately issue mandatory patches to their browser to disable the users from being able to disable automatic loading of images or moving GIFs.
A joint statement issued by the not-for-profit American Association for the Blind and the International Epileptics Support Center decried the decision as essentially barring their members from the web. The DMA praised the decision, stating that ``the needs of Commercial Enterprise would no longer be stymied by Communists and other PBS and NPR sympathizers.''
President Gore also weighed in with his pleasure at the decision, adding, ``This just blasted away the roadblocks in my Information Superhighway. Next term, we're going to the stars!'' This appeared to be an oblique reference to his constituents' efforts to gather re-election funds through click-through advertising fees. The president was in closed conference this afternoon with top members of Congress and with his InfoBahn Czar about how soon they could implement a new mandatory A-chip to be placed in televisions and VCRs so TV and video advertisements could no longer be avoided by consumers through editing, muting, fast-forwarding, or channel-surfing.
A hacker squad known only as the Spamvert Amnesty League (SAL) briefly seized control of the Whitehouse website, where they replaced the campaign advertisements with malicious notices of revenge against all spamvert supporters everywhere. At the same time, a digitized parody video of Clockwork Orange appeared on the Fox channel's satellite download in which consumers were held prisoner as commercial advertising was blasted into their propped-open eyes and ears. Credits on the video listed the SAL, and their choice of the European anthem, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, has led authorities to look in Europe for their homebase, since as we all know, uncounted intellectuals, artists, anti-commercial socialist sympathizers, and other commie rats have long taken refuge there from the righteous wrath of invasive American Plutocracy.
Not Linking to HTML (Score:5)
This is an extremely sleazy thing to do in my opinion. I wonder how he would like it if slashdot linked directly to his http://www.movie-list.com/smalllogo.jpg image whenever it posted a movie story. I think this guy would get really pissed at the amount of traffic this would generate on his server. Bandwidth usage = $$.
Now, that being said, Universal did not handle this correctly. Calling in the lawyers will not fix their problem since I could easily post the same links to newsgroups, etc.. They really need to look for a technology solution. Heck, I can think of at least twenty pr0n sites that would be able to give them a clue.
In any case, both sides screwed up. If we end up having some clueless legal precedent set by this then BOTH parties should be blamed.
I'm inclined to blame movie-list more on this one. Universal has already talked to them once before and from their point of view this new stuff could look pretty spiteful. I still don't think they should have called in the lawyers but I understand why they did.
Intellectual Dishonesty (Score:3)
It's intellectually dishonest, in fact. It's not the stubbornness of old media saying this, it's everybody but the pants-less newcomers in love with the idea of content free for the taking. Even if it's not truly free. Merely linking to pages is perfectly acceptable: that's what the web is about. By linking to pages, not content, you provide the originating site with due respect, earned revenue and earned visits, publicity and promotion, increased identity and branding. You provide your visitors with the full experience and an opportunity to view an item in context. Withholding context is like hit singles: what is the rest of the album for? Why did the creator spend all the time and effort and money? Shouldn't the opportunity for immersion be offered?
When I see what I consider stolen links, there's always a sense of unease, discomfort, and dislike. Part of it is that these sites keep poor company: the worst offenders are porn sites, warez sites and the banner-laden pages of wimps with puny get-rich-via-banner schemes in their heads. But it's also because it's unfair, unreasonable, arrogant; it's the maneuver of the stupid and the cowardly, the uncreative, the lazy, those lacking in judgment and intelligence, the pimples on the ass of humanity.
If you wish to include an excellent trailer or movie or gif, provide your users to the link of the page of the owners of that content: your site gets credit for the referrer URL, your site becomes and avenue for path-making to other sites and your site still is given credit for the new information by your visitors.
Where are the rules of gentlemanly and gentlewomanly conduct that guide most of us? They should apply here, too. It feels wrong to link to images on another site. At least, it should.
Re:Why not have a linking policy posted. (Score:2)
But the basic problem is, I need absolutely no license to link to anything on anybody's site. The only possible exception is if I electronically "sign" an agreement (like you do with the NY Times site). If I don't have to do that, I can refer to the data however I care to.
The mundane equivalent to deep linking is referring or footnoting. If somebody publishes a book, and I access it (buy a copy and read it), I have the right to give referential or navigational data to anybody I care to. I can tell you that the good stuff is in figure 38 or page 182. I simply can't give you figure 38 or page 182, but I can tell you where to get it. This interferes with no copyright law, since I am copying nothing.
Per the above book-based example, ownership of content does not imply ownership of its locational metadata. That is all a URL is; locational metadata.
The fact that the end user sees it as a copy of the information is an illusion. The reference (URL) gets interperted by the browser, and the data is retrieved. This is only possible because the data is publicly accessable (not public domain).
This is like me referring to a publicly accessible book (say, one that is in libraries). The difference is that the browser will actually search the stacks and retrieve the book for you--all under the covers.
A LINKING document might be usable for politeness, stating the terms that one should link up. However, such a document should not carry the force of law. The legal precedents all flow the other way.
What about Search Engines & portals ??? (Score:2)
First off, I need a definition of what is a "deep link" vs. a shallow link, but I digress.
So... all the benefits of the web and hyperlinking get categorically thrown out the door beucase linking directly to content "steals" the right of the website to throw garbage in your face.
Well, what about search engines, then? They're nothing but "deep links". They steal *everyone's* content and make money by forcing ads to be displayed while they hawk other people's stuff.
(so, by not having a robots.txt file, do you grant consent to have your content snatched up?)
I think that we're approaching a time when the old-school and new-school will have to come to some concessions about the way the world works. How do you enforce one country's law on international users and content that may originate from any country or no country?
And.... if search engines are guilty, then I'm 100% certain that ALL portals except for opensource-content ones are violating the same rules.
I'm sure things will get worse before they get better. Technology is much more advanced than the laws that govern it. Just look at how complex US law is, and then look at how little of that law relates to regulating modern technology.
Fear the US Lawyers who have free cycles to "port" all their progress-stifiling regulations to high-tech!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for justice and rule of law, but when law gets so complex and obfuscated that nobody understands it and it takes months to interpret it, something's gone awary.
What about bookmarks? (Score:2)
Wow 182 post, I'd be suprise if anyone actually reads this.
Anyway, I just skimmed the comments and I didn't see anyone mention this (if you did, I'm sorry for being redundant). But is it a copyright infringement if I make a deep link with a book mark. I mean I'll just go directly to the location. Or is it just a problem if I make my bookmarks available publically.
Anyway I believe that ANYTHING that is published on the net is worthy of being pointed to by a link. If you don't want something linked to, then have users create accounts (free like NYT). Or have some sort of CGI script to point to the information that dynamically changes.
So much for writing this since I don't think I'll have a soul to read it
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Careful linking (such as us practised by
What really burns me about all this is that at the end of the day, both parties could settle this reasonably - there must be a middle ground that could be taken to allow links to the content, while still presenting Universal's advertising content. Alternatively, a financial arrangement could be reached.
Personally, I always advise my clients to link to a new window if they wish to provide deep-links on their pages, or alternatively, to make an arrangement with the owner of the pages.
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Ain't it grand?
You make "making money" sound like a bad thing. Frankly, it is a laudable goal.
Like everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to make money. The right way (per capitalism) is to increase your wealth by increaing your customers' wealth. Take a car company for example. They increase their wealth by selling me a car. I increase my wealth by buying it; I lose money, but I gain the wealth of the ability to go 40 miles without breaking a sweat. The companies that can make their customers the wealthiest (the most prestigious car, the cheapest car, the most maintenence-free car), tend to come out on top. This is what capitalism is all about.
The wrong way is to get money from somebody else without giving him anything back. Extortionists and muggers do this. You can argue that peddlers in addictive drugs (or addictive operating systems) do the same.
BTW, not understanding the Internet is not about making money. Not understanding the Internet is just about incompetence. If you take two similar companies, and only one understands the Internet, it has a competitive edge. Ignorance in a capitalism is self-correcting; the ignorant tend to either get illuminized or replaced. The fact that it hasn't happened yet simply means that Titanics don't turn on dimes. Inertia only takes you so far.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Just a quickie... (Score:2)
--
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4)
You should not have to consult a lawyer or get permission in writing before making a link.
If Universal is that concerned about people getting to the content without going through the main page, they should have their web server check the HTTP_REFERER variable and deny requests that are from non-approved sites.
Just think. If Universal's webserver admins were a bit more competent, we'd have yet another "Interesting Legal Question" going unaddressed.
Re:Just be careful with IE 5.0 (Score:2)
Or you could detect IE5 and just transparently redirect them to Netscape's download page.
I can open a newspaper to page X column Y. (Score:4)
Re:Banner filter (Score:2)
I have a proxy that runs on the fast side of my frame line and gzips everything before sending it to my browser, makes my 56k work like a T1... Somehow it breaks the ad stuff on here though.
I've seen commercial programs that specifically block domains that ads are served from, though.
Wouldn't be hard to write one.
Free Speech (Score:2)
For one thing, it's a free speech issue. If I can't link directly to another site, can I post the url in plain text and let people paste it into their location boxes ? If I can't do that, can I send a url to my buddy with the url in it as a link ? as plain text ? Can I publish a book with the url in it ?
The fact is that the trailers are publically accessible resources for which the poor defendant is simply publishing the location. If Universal doesn't want the resource to be publically available, they should make it so (as other posts have indicated), rather than throwing it up there for anyone to look at and then trying to legally prevent people from speaking about where it is and how to get to it.
Why not have a linking policy posted. (Score:2)
The LINKING page could give explicit license to link to the page as long as certain criteria are met - any violation of the criteria voids the license immediately and may cause litigation.
The first site linking to the second site could get monetary compensation for LINKING under license in order to provide incentive to link; the threat of being sued would be the disincentive to link improperly.
One of the criteria might be that contact with and permission from the administrator of the site being linked to is imperative.
Re:Stupid people.. (Score:2)
Hey providers, you make content and services available. You have the right and technical ability to determine who uses your servers and for what purpose. Using lawyers is the wrong way to resolve technical problems.
That said, I think that it is unethical to repackage someone else's content within your frames without explicit permission.
Architecture is policy, code is law (Score:5)
HTTP and HTML were not designed to force people to view advertisements, they were designed to share and link information. If you don't like the limitations of a technology, don't use the technology.
The culture of the net says that the right to link is implicit. If you don't like the customs of a people, don't enter their territory.
Now, it is a bit dishonest to deep link into someone else's site without attribution, but it can't be illegal. For the courts to allow ownership of the address of a copyrighted work would make most periodical indexes, card catalogues, bibliographies, and footnotes illegal.
This is Universal's problem only (Score:2)
Universal published their content on the web with no access restrictions. If people go to that content and download it, I don't see a problem as long as the referring site didn't misrepresent the actual source of the content. A previous article on /. discussed displaying someone else's site in your frame with your advertisements. This wouldn't be OK, because in a way that misrepresents the source of the content. But if the Movie-List says "Go get movie trailers from Universal", then no one is deceived and I don't see how Universal can complain. Apparently in this case Movie-List didn't list the source of the content, so their case isn't as strong. But if the source is attributed, I don't see a problem.
As another poster mentioned, there's no reason that Universal can't set up a technical solution - generate random URLs for each visitor, only serve the content to browsers referred from one of their sites, etc. But if they make content freely available on the 'net with no access restrictions, I don't see how they can complain if people download it. What if I just typed in a random URL and happened to hit one of their trailers without going through their site?
Clueless linkers and linkees (Score:3)
So this idiot writes a threatening e-mail to me because his site wants to refer people to my site (bus schedules) and keep a frame up top with their advertisements in it. Their reasoning is that they are driving traffic to my site, so they have a right to show advertisements around it. They are upset that I won't allow that.
Clueless idiots. Of course, if he had any brains, he could write a LWP perl script to just grab my content and embed it into his pages.
So the same with Universal. Plenty of technical solutions to prevent your pages from being pirated, as well as to pirate other pages.
But no, let's fight this out in court... :(
In Norway ... (Score:2)
Hopefully we can have similar results in the "Land of the Free".
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3)
Big companies don't know how to cooperate; they could have asked him nicely to link to the main page, or perhaps compromised, and had him link to some internal index page. When you get letters from lawyers, though, some people are naturally going to get their back up, and be *less* cooperative. But I imagine that these large companies don't know how to do anything without using lawyers.
Yes, it would be nice if people could just cooperate. That was, after all, the model the web was designed with. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to know how or want to do that.
--