Forum Moderators: phranque
This morning I got an e-mail from the Webmaster of a major tourist office's site who wanted a link. I looked around the site a bit (trying not to wince at the fruit-colored text on fruit-colored backgrounds), and then I found the following statement under "Copyright Notice":
"If you wish to link your site to ours inform us by email and ensure the link is to our home page. We encourage the use of links and would not normally object unless the link were to an inappropriate site. We reserve the right to object to a link."
My comment to the Webmaster:
"As a matter of principle, I don't link to sites that (a) claim the right to approve or disapprove links or (b) insist that links point only to the home page. If and when the (Name) Tourist Board understands and respects the fundamental principles of the Web, I'll be happy to link to its site."
I have zero tolerance for corporations and organizations that that think they own the Web. If they don't want to play by the rules, they should place their sites behind firewalls.
the poor webmaster is probably a member here, but unfortunately the Legal Team have been making their $$$s writing text for websites, when they have NO idea what is going on.
Shak
I am suprised how businesses think that anything related to their site is under their control. I have to agree with you that if they expect such strict rules for linking then I don't want anypart of their business.
And why do they have to put this in an e-mail in which they are soliciting the link!
Condescending blah-blahs.
let us see what they reply with! :)
[edited by: sem4u at 9:12 pm (utc) on Jan. 3, 2003]
Grr. They're still the first place I turn for news, but I'm really frustrated that their webmaster is so clueless.
I would not describe our Chair as clueless. He uses the web regularily, and obviously clicks on a lot of links to get from point A to point B. But somehow the idea got into his head that people might somehow suspect that those linking to us were affiliated with us. And that genuinely worried him
Bascially most info sites like ours want to link direct to useful info, not send people to a home page where they have to go through hoops to find what we suggested they read. As long as search engines continue to use link popularity as a criterion for SERP visibility, and sites want exposure there, sites with policies like this will just slowly drop from sight.
I think their policy in this case is aimed at amateur or innocent webmasters. One well know map site i visited once just said ouright that "Deep Linking was illegal", lying in my face. I belive that a couple of euopean legal cases have established a precedent for that in some cases and a country or two, but that statement made from that country was a blatant lie.
Still in the end, they just didnt get a link from us. We are a modest couple of sites, but Im sure many others would do the same. Their info may be good, but only time-effective for our readers if they go direct to the page we suggest.
The problem I feel probably rests with the site which does not have their internal linking done right. Every site should design their site so almost every content page is a potential landing page with good links and incentives to go the home page anyway.
I LOVE DEEP LINKING!
I mean, if you run a retail store, would you like people to say things like, "That Local Store has the best prices on Fuzzy Blue Widgets in town, look on aisle 6," thereby delivering word-of-mouth traffic straight through your doors and down the Fuzzy Blue Widget aisle... Or should they say, "That Local Store is a good store," possibly sending traffic wandering aimlessly through, not really sure what they want or where to find it.
Sure, with diligent effort on the part of your in-store sales staff, that second group of aimless wanderers may leave with a Widget in their shopping bag... but if someone first said, "That Other Store has blue widgets on sale for 50% off!" they'll likely never get to your store in the first place.
Hello! Deep links are like having free sales staff working other people's sites for you!
Next day I get an email saying they would list my site if...
Well they gave me the exact phrase, the anchor text, and a demand that I place that snippet of code on my home page. Yeah, right. I let them know that only a fool would give a first page link in return for a listing on an inner directoy's inner page, which was shared by any number of other links, and none of which had the privilege of choosing their anchor text.
Gives a new definition to the concept of recipricol linking
Its the old email spam tactic. 1 in 1000 may fall for it, and its worth the waste of time on the other 999. Its all automated i guess so no big effort required.
There are heaps of newbie part time and casual webmasters out there who dont really know what they are doing. They are targeting them.
On the one hand, under terms of fair use and so on, it is unlikely that website could prohibit you from linking to them - there are so many analogies in the 'real' world that I need not list them. The fact that they make their website available for use suggests an implied license to reference to them.
However, what the website can assert are issues to do with the way the linking should work, to prevent any concerns about 'passing off' (i.e. misrepresentation). This means that they could require that the link use specific title field/name, refer to specific parts of the website (i.e. no deep linking). If you link to them for some commercial purpose, or other purpose that seems not to be part of 'fair use', then they may also be able to dictate terms as part of a license/tos/etc.
I understand why you may want to deep link, but that's where broken links occur when the site moves content about.
I think that this makes it confusing, but my personal opinion is that deep linking could raise issues depending what the deep linking is to, so each case would needs to be judged on its merits (e.g. deep linking that bypasses surrounding content of a website could be considered improper use, as it is effectively a form of copying where important material has been removed; but on the other hand, just like refering to pages and chapters in a book, it should be possible to deep link to various parts of a site).
Some sites will be happy with deep linking as it is in their favour, other sites may not be.
Matthew
In the EU, courts found in favour of websites prohibiting deep linking
That was a very narrowly focused case in one Danish court, as the ZDNet article states.
Even if there were a broader court decision that gave site owners the right to forbid deep links to their pages, deep linking wouldn't go away (as it shouldn't, since hypertext linking is the fundamental principle behind the Web). Many Webmasters would simply stop linking to sites that banned deep links through legal language or technical tricks.
Side note: I've noticed at least one major luxury hotel chain makes it impossible to link directly to its member properties. If you link to the Hotel Whatsit in Venice or the Hotel Whatchamacallit in Paris, the user is redirected to the company's home page. That's one of the stupidest tricks I've seen from a commercial Web site. Are they trying to discourage business?
In the EU
Interesting that you would think of the EU as a uniform legal entity in this respect. ;)
Andreas
Yes, and think of the outcry when domain names throughout the European Union will have to end in .eu. :-)
First of all IMO
the Similar Pages link on Google shows sites hat have links to your site. Now if I owned a Christian web site and got a request from an Adult site to exchange links do you think I would? I wouldn't want anyone to click on the similar pages link and see Big Studs Take Teens as a "Similar Page"
So I would refuse the link...
Second of all I also understand why a webmaster wants the link you put on your site to lead to the main page and not another page of your choice. Everyone wants surfers to come in the front door not sneak in the back door and get the info they need then hit "Back" that is the least anyone could ask for in a link exchange s to link to someones main page.
But that is Just My 2CeNtS
=)
As far as how it DOES work however, hopefully search engines will focus more on giving good rankings to internal focused pages linked to from other sites, rather than home pages. If that trend continues, and search engines continue to direct the ost traffice to sites, sites who dictate terms like this will just shrivel up and die from lack of traffic!
Of course i can see some good reasons for not being linked to, but an even easier way is to make those sections of your site secure via password or something like that. Basically if its on the web, its fair game for citation, just the same way i would cite John 3: vs 23 whatever than just linking to the Bible front page. No way my readers want to go through a contents, index, or search to find what our site was referring them to. I just wont link, unless there is very good reason to go to a front page. Even if, in the case of newspapers for example, i expect the news item not to remain at the same url, I will just not link and cite the nespaper by name, rather than linking to the front page, which in most cases, would be a waste of my readers time.
Even if deep linking is prohibited, I agree that it won't go away: Life's not so simple :-). But some heavyweight indication in the courts that deep linking "is problematic" is going to lend itself to most website owners to play things safely. I certainly play safely with my websites because it's the smarter way to do things.
I think as a website owner before linking to another site, it is always prudent to check the site's TOS/terms to see whether they have any conditions regarding linking, and to follow any *reasonable* guidelines that they propose (e.g. link names, link destination, not opening link in frames or popups / non-navigable windows, consideration for any misrepresentation of the link / indication of endorsement, etc).
By the way, it's not just a danish issue:
[Financial Times, June 24, 2002, "Reasons to think before you link", Richard Poynder] (portions reproduced under "fair use" principle)
"When Ticketmaster, an online ticket vendor, unsuccessfully sued rival Tickets.com for deep linking "
(so it didn't work in the US)
"the only UK case to tackle copyright in linking saw the Shetland Times win a temporary injunction preventing a rival news site from linking to its stories and copying its headlines, settlement was reached before a full hearing"
(unknown position in the UK, but given that interim relief was granted, suggests that law is leaning towards prohibit)
"Last year ... Stepstone, the German online recruiting company, prevented OFiR, the Danish media company, from deep-linking to job advertisements on its site, with the court holding that OFiR had infringed Stepstone's database rights"
(because of more stronger EU database legislation)
"European Union's database directive ... this introduced a new sui generis right in databases that offers broader protection than copyright"
"when PCM, the Dutch newspaper conglomerate, attempted to stop Kranten.com from deep-linking to headlines on its website, the court held that the newspapers had put insufficient effort into composing the collection of headlines concerned for them to constitute a database"
(so the courts leaning towards database directive more than usign copyright law)
"When website operator Countess Joulebine placed a link from her home page to some confidential information about Sir Elton John last year, a UK court ordered her to remove the link and pay damages for breach of confidence"
(indicates that the context of links is important)
"In April, the German railway operator Deutsche Bahn took legal action against search engine Google for providing links to a website containing instructions on how to sabotage railway systems. In a related action, it also sued the Dutch independent media organisation Indymedia NL for linking to sites that mirrored the offending material - and last Thursday a Dutch court ordered the website to remove the links immediately, on penalty of being fined Euros 5,000 a day if it failed to comply"
"When, for instance, UK publisher Haymarket discovered that the oil company Burmah Castrol was framing content from its car magazine sites, it began legal action for passing off. The matter was settled out of court"
"And if you want to restrict linking to your own site, say so in your terms and conditions, Ms Barnett suggests. "While the enforceability of website terms and conditions has never been tested in the courts, it says to the world: 'If you do this, we are going to be annoyed.' "
(so website T&C is a good thing)
Matthew.
