FC: SearchEngineWatch.com on "Deep Linking Lunacy"

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 09:32:03 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Spam and its defense: A system administrator's point of view"

    We've covered this in some detail:
    http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=linking
    
    ---
    
    Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:55:29 -0400
    From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVYat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: Deep Linking Lunacy
    
    Today's issue of Search Day has a cogent discussion of the deep linking issue.
    
    The editor, Chris Sherman, has given permission to circulate the article on 
    the condition that I provide the authorship and copyright attribution from 
    the top of the newsletter, and include a link to the article on the web, at
    http://www.searchenginewatch.com/searchday/02/sd0709-deeplink.html
    
    
    Deep Linking Lunacy
    
    A Danish court has ruled that "deep linking" is illegal, and pundits say
    this decision spells doom for the Net.  Should you be worried?  Hardly.
    
    By Chris Sherman
    Associate Editor, Search Engine Watch
    http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/
    Copyright (c) 2002 INT Media Group, Inc.
    
    SNIP
    
    
    At issue is the practice of so-called "deep linking," creating links
    directly to individual web pages within a site, rather than to the home
    page.  Deep linking is a time-honored practice that has existed since the
    very beginning of the web.  Indeed, deep linking was one of the
    fundamental design principles that helped the web grow as quickly as it
    did, by making it easy for people to directly access individual web pages.
    
    Your bookmarks or favorites are typically deep links.  So are search
    engine results.
    
    Deep links are nothing more than a URL and some words describing that URL.
      In other words: facts.  Facts are not copyrightable.  And yet the Danish
    court has somehow managed to interpret the law in a way that disregards
    both the un-copyrightable nature of facts and the fundamental operation of
    the web.
    
    The recent deep linking court case was brought by the Danish Newspaper
    Publishers Association against Newsbooster.com.  Newsbooster "scrapes"
    news from thousands of newspapers, extracting direct links to these
    stories using headlines as the link text.  Unlike search engines, which
    also crawl and index the full text of web pages, Newsbooster and other
    "scrapers" extract only links and titles.
    
    When users click on these links, they go directly to the page on the
    newspaper's web site.  There are no frames or other devices used to "trap"
    viewers on Newsbooster's site.  Newsbooster links are similar to the news
    links in SearchDay (below), provided by Moreover.com.
    
    The Newspaper Publishers Association argued that in bypassing their front
    pages, Newsbooster's deep links deprive them of advertising revenue.
    Further, they asserted that Newsbooster is in direct competition with
    newspapers.
    
    In other words, in offering a service that makes it easy to find and
    access news stories (with their accompanying ads) directly on a newspaper
    web site, Newsbooster is somehow both competing with and diminishing the
    revenues from users viewing ads accompanying those stories.  The court, in
    a stupefying interpretation of the Danish Copyright Act, agreed.
    
    Let's follow the logic of the decision further.  If deep linking is
    illegal, search engines are the worst offenders, because they create deep
    links to the entire web.  Let's put them out of business.
    
    Next up, online phone directories because they offer addresses and
    telephone numbers that allow you to directly contact individuals or
    businesses.  Likewise mapping services, because they graphically display
    locations and provide driving directions.
    
    TV listings.  Price-comparison shopping engines.  Weblogs.  All
    theoretically illegal due to their rampant practice of deep linking.
    
    But why stop with the web?  How about those sneaky academics, citing the
    work of fellow scholars with footnotes to specific articles using exact
    page numbers in the journals that published them?  And just think of the
    worst offenders of all -- librarians, who not only help patrons find
    books, magazines and other materials but often even show them where to
    find specific information, sometimes even down to the paragraph or
    sentence level!
    
    Sites that prohibit deep linking suffer from malignant stupidity, driven
    by a fundamental misunderstanding of the web and user needs.  The whole
    point of having a public web site is to encourage users to visit, and deep
    links make finding and visiting sites easy. Home pages, typically offering
    cluttered design and feeble excuses for site search tools, make finding
    content much more difficult.
    
    And as any webmaster who has even a whit of experience knows, it's
    incredibly easy to force pages to "redirect" with just a simple snippet of
    code.  Don't want a visitor entering your site through a given page?  Add
    a redirect command and they'll automatically -- and instantly -- be
    viewing any page of your choosing, regardless of the link they clicked on.
      It's child's play.
    
    The newspapers celebrating this decision will likely find that the court's
    agreeing with their idiotic deep linking policies is a Pyhrric victory.
    This decision, if upheld, won't destroy the web -- it will Balkanize it.
    Sites that prohibit deep linking will likely encounter a backlash among
    the web community, and find that people don't link to them at all.
    
    Search engines will also be wary of these sites.  In other words, sites
    enjoining access by any route other than their home page will find that
    they are isolated and cut off from the web community.  They may have loyal
    users, but the web community as a whole will either ignore or be ignorant
    of their existence.
    
    Not exactly a winning strategy to attract advertisers, potential
    subscribers, or other sources of revenue.
    
    This isn't the first time a court has ruled on the legality of deep
    linking, and likely won't be the last.  Apart from creating a (likely
    temporary) inconvenience for Newsbooster, the ruling isn't likely to have
    any significant ongoing impact.
    
    If you want to learn more about this issue, including elegantly reasoned
    essays on the legality of linking, check out the links below.  And please
    note: According to Danish law, most of the deep links offered below can be
    considered illegal.
    
    Deep Link Foes Get Another Win
    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,53697,00.html
    A Danish company can no longer link to content within the website of a
    Danish newspaper, in the latest test on whether deep linking is legally
    permissible.
    
    Newsbooster
    http://www.newsbooster.com/
    With subtle irony, Newsbooster's front page offers links to numerous
    sources of information on the current deep linking controversy, including
    background, commentary and a transcript of the Danish's court's decision.
    
    Deep Linking
    http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/deeplinking.html
    Links to articles and commentary about deep linking, selected by the
    American Library Association.
    
    Links and Law
    http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkLaw
    Myths about Links
    http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html
    Comments from Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, about the legality of
    links and common myths that tend to persist about linking.
    
    The Link Controversy Page
    http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1/lcp.html
    Though somewhat dated, this page offers a comprehensive set of links to
    the legal issues, precedent and problems of using hyperlinks on the web.
    
    Search Engines and Legal Issues
    http://searchenginewatch.com/resources/legal.html
    As search engines have grown as an industry, a number of lawsuits and
    legal issues have arisen in relation to them. This collection of articles
    from Search Engine Watch is organized by type of dispute,including many
    articles on issues related to linking and crawling.
    
    
    
    
    Paul Alan Levy
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
    1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20009
    (202) 588-1000
    http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 10 2002 - 10:34:49 PDT