Chris_Boggs - 1:15 am on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0)
Leosghost I am curious also why the judges would laugh at someone not wanting to be pointed-to via hyperlink. It is a privacy thing at the core I feel.
I do agree "enforceable" is a vague word but I also think that the courts would side with a company that had clearly stated and very specific anti-linking policies such as these.
Some examples of where I may not want people to link to me:
I have original artwork or other digital assets that I want to keep from being scraped and copied all the time, so I may limit the number of ways to get to me, without having to implement password protection>
I have unique educational content and I don;t want people to "piggy back off my content" (I guess this is cabbie's argument that there is value in some content you link to that transfers back to your relevancy score - just for the record I do believe this concept of "content extension" beyond your own domain to have merit and I have seen examples of performance increases after new outbound links added)
what are some more?