Grab some lawyers boys, there's (intellectual property) gold in them there hills...
Wired News revisits the issue of deep linking. Via [Scripting News]
The Wired article says that "legal experts" conclude that deep linking may violate Copyright laws. I don't pretend to be a legal expert in the area of intellectual property, but I have read a lot and informed myself to the point where I can sniff out something that doesn't make sense.
Copyright laws protect (1) creative expression (2) fixed in a tangible medium. And a hyperlink (even one that bypasses a home page) is simply a pointer to a source of information or creative expression. Now we all know that what fuels the contention that it is wrong to deep-link: the person who enters a site through the back door avoids the trail of advertising that has been so carefully laid out for site visitors by the site operator. They come in the back door, sure. But where's the copyright violation?
If all I do is point someone to a location on the web, then what have I done that triggers the copyright laws? I haven't made a "copy" of anything. I have simply directed traffic to a particular place at that site. I suppose one could argue in certain cases (but that facts would have to be egregious) that there is an unfair trade practice or some other legal issue. But not a copyright violation. And by the way, doesn't Google often point people into sites in a way that bypasses the front door? To me, if some form of deep linking serves a common good (and clearly it does) then all deep linking should be allowed. We don't have time to parse this issue just so that we can zero in on some microbial examples of wrongdoing.
This is just one more example of how we are running amok with intellectual property claim-staking. It's like the California gold rush of 1849 all over again. Does common sense even matter any more?
10:59:59 AM 
|
