Links and Copyrights

[Silverwire]

This is not exactly a domain name question, but one that I'm sure may be of interest to any members who develop.

With regards to linking to any outside site, I understand that the safest way to do it legally is to link to the home page and avoid "deep linking".

However, whether I link to a home page or any other page, does it make any difference from a legal perspective whether I use an actual link (that may become eventually stale) or if I copy/archive the page to my own server to make sure the link/content is preserved?

On one hand, I do expect the legal treatment to be different. On the other, it doesn't seem like it should really make a difference whose server it is on.

I suppose someone will tell me that without permission it is all wrong, but in the practical world of liberal linking, is one in reality more risky than the other?

 

[namedropper]

If you copy/archive the page you better be certain that the original owner doesn't mind, and most would.

The major difference is control of copyright. In the first case you are linking to someone else, who can do whatever they want on their own pages... update content, place ads, etc. In the second case you have stolen someone else's property.

Links, under most uses, have survived the legal test. Copying would not.

 

[Silverwire]

In the first case you are linking to someone else, who can do whatever they want on their own pages... update content, place ads, etc.

Thanks, that makes sense.

In the second case you have stolen someone else's property.

Well, that's not my intent. I'm talking about preserving the entire page, as-is.


Permission is a great thing, but also a very time consuming and frustrating exercise, especially when most really appreciate the link (but you have to get to the right person with the time and patience to deal with the issue).

Example: www.StirlingInfo.com links to technical articles/pages that are useful references for research, academics and business. While I only link and do not copy any pages now, it is pretty frustrating trying to keep up with valuable links that go stale, especially when I don't think most would really mind if I did copy the page (though I'm not willing to take that risk).

 

[jberryhill]

"Permission is a great thing, but also a very time consuming and frustrating exercise [...]"

Relative to what? Being sued?

Dan is bang on. You should not even *think* about copying someone else's content unless you are permitted to do so.

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"Permission is a great thing, but also a very time consuming and frustrating exercise [...]"

Relative to what? Being sued?

Dan is bang on. You should not even *think* about copying someone else's content unless you are permitted to do so.

Now I feel guilty although I feel my words have been twisted. I was speaking to the general issue of gaining permission, even as many recommend (and many say unnecessary) for any sort of link as well as for the issue of "copying"/archiving. And to be clear, the type of copying I'm referring to is the archiving of an entire page that is linked to, so that it would not become a dead link if removed later on the original site I get that this is not legally appropriate, but it seems (imho) a much whiter shade of pale compared to plagiarism and other copyright violations.

To repeat in part:

While I only link and do not copy any pages now, it is pretty frustrating trying to keep up with valuable links that go stale, especially when I don't think most would really mind if I did copy the page (though I'm not willing to take that risk).

with an emphasis on "I'm not willing to take that risk." I thank you Mr Berryhill and Namedropper for your posts and will NOT “copy”. (although some very large and reputable sites, including Google, archive or “cache” pages – I assume their legal team is better funded than mine and can sustain a challenge. Perhaps a little insight on why it is different for them than StirlingInfo.com?).

"Deep linking", on the other hand, does require acute judicious discretion, and I'm not advocating it as an indiscriminate policy. I'm sure you even think I'm really stupid for publicly posting an admission that I have linked without permission. OMG! But I firmly believe that if everyone who wanted to ever create a link deeper than a homepage waited for permission from the website or his attorney, then we all need an attorney with us to cross the street. OK, there have been a handful suits, but consider how common linking is. Google does it. Almost everyone does it (and I know that doesn’t make it a good excuse).

Where the page is freely accessed on the web without membership or subscription requirements, the terms and conditions and notices on the site do not expressly prohibit linking to the site, and where my gut intuition tells me that the website owners would APPRECIATE the link, as it promotes their site and the information, I do sometimes link below the homepage level. Yeah, I’m sure websites would rather have users go through its homepage first, but the link is an alternative to the user not finding the website at all! So sue me for crossing the street (or can’t you do that to a client, Mr Berryhill, since I have transferred Dnbucks to you? Lol.) !

 

[DomainPairs]

There are actually quite a few issues here.

Linking and page content affect search engine placement, and what happens if another site links to your copy (google for example).

If you place malicious comments on a page and then link to a site, I suspect you may be liable for damages.

Will you copy the whole page structure? Banners, pictures and sub-pages can add up to a lot of space and bandwidth.

What happens if the site owner updates his pages? Will you keep the out of date pages?

What happens to the affiliate links on that page? These may be essential to the survival of the site.

Will you supply traffic analysis for the site owner? He may be maintaing this site to gain information about web activity in a specific niche.

 

[Dominata]

How does the waybackmachine (internet archive.org) get away with archiving peoples websites without having their pants sued off???

 

[domainAddict]

I wonder that too..

 

[jberryhill]

Just because someone hasn't been sued for X, does not mean that (a) they won't be sued for doing X, (b) you won't be sued for doing X, or (c) doing X is okay.

In the case of archive.org, you will note that they have a specific page there, which explains how anyone who does not want to be in the archive may exclude their site from being archived. I am also personally aware of situations where they have been threatened, and have agreed to remove material. Again, most legal disputes do not result in someone being sued, or in the public generally ever hearing about the dispute.

Proposing to copy someone's content permanently onto your own server in order to preserve link integrity is also very different from the automated process by which Google temporarily caches information.

 

[KatieBeez]

It may be easier to get permission than you think it is-especially if your site is for mainly educational purposes. Aside from requiring copyright/author identification requirements, they may not be as reluctant to do it as you may expect.

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by KatieBeez
It may be easier to get permission than you think it is-especially if your site is for mainly educational purposes. Aside from requiring copyright/author identification requirements, they may not be as reluctant to do it as you may expect.

Katie, I don't know how much experience you have in this, but my experience has been that although many websites are very good at responding, it is not as much "reluctance" due to unwillingness, so much as just websites that are either very slow or just fail to respond at all to these types of inquiries (apathy? procrastination? internal passing the buck?).

 

[KatieBeez]

I do permissions at my company now-my boss encourages the use of most of our content. I also worked at Infoseek where I did content agreements, permissions, linking agreements all the time. But I was quick to respond to people as it was my job, of course other individual sites, as you say, are probably less forthcoming. Doesn't hurt to try though.

Of course this was before Disney bought Infoseek, they are about as strict with their content/property as you can get(even within the company).

 

[DomainPairs]

I don't understand why any webmaster would allow site content to be copied. Maybe a couple of paragraphs and a link with a credit, but not an article. It takes a lot of time preparing information pages, and I would resist any attempt to copy without benefit to me.

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by DomainPairs
I don't understand why any webmaster would allow site content to be copied. Maybe a couple of paragraphs and a link with a credit, but not an article. It takes a lot of time preparing information pages, and I would resist any attempt to copy without benefit to me.

The issue in context is permission for either deep linking or to copy/archive an ENTIRE web page as-is (I would use the imperfect MHTML format if I did this a lot for space purposes, but I am not doing it at all now).

I agree with the points you made through the implications of some of your earlier questions (eg affiliate link credit). However, the advantage to the content owner is to expose a wider audience to the content, preserve the content, and drive users to the source (as many will do). There are disadvantages to the website/content owner as well, but personally IMHO (in most cases) I think the benefits exceed the negatives.

 

[jberryhill]

"preserve the content"

Sometimes a copyright owner doesn't want their content "preserved". Try to buy a copy of the Disney film "Song of the South" sometime.

 

[KatieBeez]

Have you watched "Dumbo" lately? Even it is a bit on the line.

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"preserve the content"

Sometimes a copyright owner doesn't want their content "preserved". Try to buy a copy of the Disney film "Song of the South" sometime.

I did say "in most cases", not all.