---- Something different - Revenue model of the Future?
Shaddows - 11:05 am on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0)
Seems like either Google should either stop this BS, or websites should get the legal right to stop unwanted links.
I detect a logical fallacy, possibly a Category Error.
Restated: "This private company's guidelines, which you are under no obligation to follow, is causing incidental impacts in unrelated spheres, so the State should get involved"
Choosing to play Google's game is a non-contractual relationship that should have no legal protection whatever. Consumers get protections from monopolies, but not businesses.
Now that jurisdiction has been brought up... why aren't the US contingent talking about the 1st Amendment? Could US websites be stopped from "talking" about a third party?
Anyway, IIRC correctly, the OP is not talking about stopping IBLs. Just sending an email asking for payment. At which point, one of three things can happen:
Link stays, payment made. Link removed, no payment. Link stays, no payment.
Only the third will result in any action from the OP.
At that point, disavow is a tool that has no restrictions on it. Redirects ("Sorry, this resource is not available to visitors from <referrer domain>") might be seen as cloaking, but otherwise are not controversial.
I see no need for the OP to resort to legal protection. IANAL, but I can't see how this could be seen as illegal. It will probably make money, especially if the resource is valuable and unique.
I just think it is in bad taste to restrict the free flow of traffic- its against the ideals of the internet.
But, norms change over time. There is no reason why the balkanisation of the internet is inherently worse, unless you happen to be attached to freedom of information.
Of course, as soon as you start down that route, the arguments become precisely the same as copyright- freedom of information Vs freedom of the creator to control the content, and the context the content is presented in.
But I come back to my initial point. This will NOT work for 99% of sites, simply because they do not have the inherent authority to charge for links. They are not a unique resource.
I suppose that is something that upsets people, when someone has a monetisation option that is unavailable to them.
Go for it. It's an interesting experiment, not dissimilar to a paywall. After all, people are free NOT to link to you should they choose.