>It seems to me, as has been suggested by many throughout this thread, that
>if companies want to protect their information the answer is simple -
>Don't publish it!
Very good advice.
>
>If, on the other hand, they want to make information available, but want
>us to visit other parts of their sites before reading it, then make it
>*not possible* to get at it in any other way.
As pointed out perviously, the law can, sometimes, be used to protect your
interests without having to resort to technical measures.
>
>The principle seems much the same as citing a reference to the Times or
>any other newspaper. One can refer to the article directly, but if we
>don't have a subscription (or another legitimate means to access the
>newspaper) then we can't read it. It really is a matter of site design,
>and I would be surprised indeed if any lawyer could successfully argue
>that "deep-linking" to web pages was anything other than reasonable!
But that's exactly what they have successfully argued! As Laurence pointed
out, deep linking court cases are rarely to do with copyright, but are more
often to do with trade marks, appropriation of business and the like.
Frequently the law is counter-intuitive. Don't rely on your intuition, but
accept what lawyers are saying - if you deep link, do it with great caution
and recognise that you do it at your own risk.
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Dept of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
|