Chris_Boggs - 3:27 am on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: Chris_Boggs at 3:41 am (utc) on Feb 15, 2013]
ok good point but there are also 400k plus link violators. :)
thanks for the link - I wish the subsequent link to the tickets.com article worked, but I find it interesting that chillingeffects says that deep linking hasn't been found to be illegal, and insinuates that it isn't, yet the references states that Microsoft settled and agreed not to link to deep pages at Ticketmaster - does that mean they were afraid they couldn't win?
(I think this is interestingly relevant to the most recent problems Yelp was having with Google and is actually part of the FTC settlement structure from Google's perspective but with content instead)
(added) I love the DMCA last question on that link too... I read it as saying that that you would only receive protection as long as you took down a link as soon as you were legally informed you were infringing. To the point of "who" would be someone you don't want linking to you I think it's fair to say that it doesn't matter who. Then as long as you formally ask them to remove a link then they should comply, right? So if I don't like certain segments and I don't want them to link to me then I have that right? (to Lucys point the makeup of this segment could be drawn by race or other demographic status.
It seems to me it's the same thing if I own any type of digital content that I can block someone from linking to it, at least in US under DMCA. But since the DMCA is based on the (World treaty) WIPO why wouldn't this be globally accepted as fair right to block people from infringing through their link?
[edited by: Chris_Boggs at 3:41 am (utc) on Feb 15, 2013]