Case threatens to outlaw website linking

Case threatens to outlaw website linking

www.slate.com

BlockShopper was following standard operating procedure by linking to publicly available Web sites. But Jones Day got mad. The law firm (a big one, at 2,300 lawyers) has never publicly said why it sued; maybe the powers that be there thought the posts compromised their lawyers' privacy. Housing records are public documents, but the Web turns public into accessible, and the firm presumably wasn't thrilled about having its attorneys' home purchases broadcast. Jones Day demanded that BlockShopper

(visit the link for the full news article)

So now the government wants to stop you on the internet from making links to other websites? What the hell, how in the HELL are they going to enforce that? Oh wait, I forgot, you got the DHS guys on the internet 24-7 monitoring everyone instead of actually translating chatter properly and looking at picture inconsitencies of Bin Laden or other top guys.

www.slate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Darky6K


guess they want to control every aspect of everyones lives
seeing the sheer number of websites and users
good luck enforcing such a thing

reply to post by bodrul


Well we already knew TPTB wants ABSOLUTE control over everything. Though you'll have a lot of potential henchmen enforcing this if they're paid well enough.

Thats kind of rediculous..considering linked sites are not just linked by html text embedded with a url.

Sites are linked these days via flash content, advertising, business.

Take that away and you wipe out a huge contributing revenue base of the GNP. Given current economic situations...I dont think this will be anything happening anytime soon, or ever.



Cheers!!!!

What about sites that link to PAYPAL so you can pay? Nuts, that can not pass.

Nah paypal is meant to be linked to.

When BlockShopper refused, the firm sued the 15-staff startup for trademark infringement. Jones Day's legal theory was that BlockShopper's link would trick readers into thinking that Jones Day was affiliated with the real estate site.

This was a specific unauthorized linking.
You kind of have to ask first for some things.
Many things allow public linking.
They did ask them nicely, to take it off.

reply to post by BorgHoffen


Public information is just that, PUBLIC and just because they linked the info to their lawyers purchases is not a breach. By publishing on the internet the same info that is published in every newspaper does not change the facts. It is a legal and in many states a requiered element of the purchasing of property!

Zindo

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats kind of rediculous..considering linked sites are not just linked by html text embedded with a url.

Sites are linked these days via flash content, advertising, business.

Take that away and you wipe out a huge contributing revenue base of the GNP. Given current economic situations...I dont think this will be anything happening anytime soon, or ever.



Cheers!!!!

You really think TPTB care if we lose everything?

lol, exactly how would they expect people to surf the internet?

"The internet has once again evolved. Where once users browsed from site to site by following provided links, users now spend hours seeking a website related to their interests by typing random letters in the address bar.

Next week we expect this to extend to DNS linking, forcing internet users to enter their sites in the form of 4 numbers ranging from 0 to 255."



Ah well, they're lawyers, they aren't paid to think of the implications of what they're saying... they're just paid to twist facts. To make the guilty seem innocent, and the innocent appear guilty.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by johnsky]

reply to post by johnsky


You are forgetting IPV6, where the IP addresses look something like this:
2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334

I think that something like this was bound to happen, I have seen many, many sites that link to other sites without saying that we are going to a different, not related, company site. If the first site has a similar design many people may think that they are from the same company.

That is why Wikipedia articles identify external links with a specific image.

Also, the fact that the agreement says that links should show the full URL, and the only reason I see for that is to clearly show that the link is not for a BlockShopper page but to a Jones Day page.

So, I don't see it as censorship, just as a way of forcing the company to separate things from different sources.