Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Danish Court Rules Deep Linking Illegal

CmdrTaco posted about 12 years ago | from the link-this dept.

The Internet 382

Jstein writes "In a court ruling today Friday, the court in Copenhagen, Denmark ruled in favor of the Danish Newspaper Publisher's Association against the online news aggregator Newsbooster. Thereby deep linking has been ruled illegal for the first time." Currently the story is only in Danish (from Computerworld Denmark, Online). Update: 07/05 23:15 GMT by T : ttyp writes "Here is a link to an English language story about the Danish deep linking case."

cancel ×


Encore, encore! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3827971)

sung to the tune of Send In The Clowns
Isn't it brown?
Gigantic and round?
You know it's distended when it
no longer makes a sound.
Where are the trolls?

They tick you off
(you stupid asshole.)
Tilting your monitor with PWP
is their goal.
Where are the trolls?
There ought to be trolls.

Just when I stopped
giving a shit
they send news of hot grits
and petrified chicks exquisite.
We all should remember
Junis the Afghan
or my favorite

Where'd the time go?
Troll Tuesday's near;
a guaranteed free-for-all.
I like cold beer.
And where are the trolls?
Quick, send in the trolls.
Don't bother, they're here.

? []
! []
More laughs than you can possibly
fit in your palm.
And where are the trolls?
There ought to be trolls.
Just ask your mom.

Re:Encore, encore! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3827978)

I Agree With This Post. Well done.

PHUCK you AC! (-1, Offtopic)

Phist Phucker (587366) | about 12 years ago | (#3827979)

I claim this first post for the CLIT!

I never really knew what deep linking meant... (3, Funny)

cca93014 (466820) | about 12 years ago | (#3827973)

until now:

"Jeg er dybt chokeret. Vi taber på alle punkter, men det er sikkert, at vi kærer til Landsretten, siger han."

Re:I never really knew what deep linking meant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828002)

means "I'm deeply chocked. We are loosing on all fronts, but it it's certain that we take this to the National Court."

Re:I never really knew what deep linking meant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828012)

hva' fa' noget? hvad er betydning af "dybe links"?

Re:I never really knew what deep linking meant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828212)

For an awkward but semi-functional translation, try TransExp []

Or... The text

Fogedforbud against deep linker
From: Germ Elmose

Nyhedstjenesten Newsbooster shall brake by that publish the news letter by deep linker to commodities at danish dagblades websider. A upset manager Duck-breeding Lautrup discloses, that Newsbooster lost at all points.

It is a upset managing director by Newsbooster, Duck-breeding Lautrup, there has received the award from Copenhagen Fogedret. The judge Michael Chest treats Danish Dagblades Brotherhood (DDF) medhold to, that there shall pack fogedforbud against nyhedstjenestens the news letter by deep linker. The award and its premises fills 38 pages.

- I am deep chokeret. Vi loses at all points, however it is certainly, that vi dear to Landsretten, says he.

Known retsmødet monday the 24. june beat Newsbooster themselves at, that deep linker is a integral part from internettets nature and that the service just gelejder readers to they danish dagblades commodities.

Other way round reason with DDF, that Newsbooster wheeler-dealer at jobs, that others has exported. DDF lead two vidner, partly director of studies from DDF, Holger Laudatory, and koncerndirektør by That Berlingske Official, Lasse Bolander.

if you link deeply to this post... (0, Offtopic)

Uthiroid (521577) | about 12 years ago | (#3827975)

would it still be first?

Re:if you link deeply to this post... (0, Offtopic)

Uthiroid (521577) | about 12 years ago | (#3827991)

guess not. worth a shot i always say...

Re:if you link deeply to this post... (-1)

TheBahxMan (249147) | about 12 years ago | (#3828087)

The gay is strong with this one. is a fag

No googling in Denmark? (2)

sthiyaga (529538) | about 12 years ago | (#3827985)

So no googling in Denmark now ?

breakin the law (5, Interesting)

iosphere (14517) | about 12 years ago | (#3827988)

Aren't you in violation of Danish law by linking to the story?

What are they going to do? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828031)

Send upset but incredibly good-tasting pastry over here to arrest them?

Re:breakin the law (3, Informative)

Penguin (4919) | about 12 years ago | (#3828204)

Computerworld actually would like to intervene with Newsbooster, but wasn't allowed.

Furthermore, since the case is under private prosecution, Computerworld would have to run their own case against /. - and the case would be an entirely different. The arguments against Newsbooster wouldn't be relevant (if Computerworld would make a fuzz about it - but as mentioned, Computerworld supports Newsbooster in this case)

And let me emphasize: We don't have a final ruling yet.

Hmmm. (2)

ranulf (182665) | about 12 years ago | (#3827992)

This is all starting to become a dangerous precedent... I hope deep-linking is only considered illegal if you explain how to find something by following the links.

Does that mean that if I link to slashdot which has an article that links to 2600 which links to DeCSS source (or something that is illegal in whatever country), or even any other convulted route that I am breaking the law? Surely not. Or is it only if I say, "click here, follow link x, follow link y and then link z".


Re:Hmmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828143)

I think you're confused as to what deep linking is. It's not linking to a site that's linked to another site, etc. It's when you link to a second, third, fourth, etc level of a website. Basically, linking to anything except the default index page.

Deep linking? (5, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | about 12 years ago | (#3827993)

Too bad. Next week Time Magazine will require you to read pages 1-36 before reading the article you want on page 37.

Re:Deep linking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828030)

Next week we'll also hear some dumb-ass remarks from a major print publication CEO on how not reading the ads is considered stealing, as will be discarding those stupid inserts they cram in just so you can't flip through the pages to find the article you want.

Re:Deep linking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828120)

It can be solved via cookies or some other dynamic solution, so I don't see what the problem is other than laziness on the part of content providers. That is, letting the law fix what they won't do via technology is utter BS.

Woops, that's the DMCA!

Available Now at Denny's (3, Offtopic)

L. VeGas (580015) | about 12 years ago | (#3828001)

Danish Deep Links --

mmmm, breakfasty!

Deep linking implications (5, Interesting)

SpatchMonkey (300000) | about 12 years ago | (#3828003)

Just because one instance of deep linking has been ruled illegal, doesn't mean all instances are illegal. There will have been specifics to the case that causing the ruling to made. Unfortunately, as the article is in Danish, I don't know what they are.

There are technological ways around deep linking, of course. Checking the Referer header in an HTTP request is one option, and dynamically creating unique URIs on the pages you allow people to visit from is another.

It would be nice if technology was used to prevent this rather than court rulings, but hey, what can you do?

Anyway it's only been ruled in Denmark, so the effect on the Internet as a whole is negligible.

Re:Deep linking implications (2, Informative)

Mad-Mage1 (235582) | about 12 years ago | (#3828042)

Actually the effect will be rather pronounced. Denmark is part of the European Union, as a matter of fact they were recently confirmed to the office of the Presidency for the EU. Since the EU holds laws across national borders in certain cases, there is the potential here for deep-linking cases to be heard all over the EU and use the Danish Case as a precedent. Think on that and say it is only negligible.

Re:Deep linking implications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828102)

Denmark is part of the European Union, as a matter of fact they were recently confirmed to the office of the Presidency for the EU. Since the EU holds laws across national borders in certain cases, there is the potential here for deep-linking cases to be heard all over the EU and use the Danish Case as a precedent>

Like he said, "the effect on the Internet as a whole is negligible." Eurotrash don't matter.

Precisely... (3, Informative)

Beautyon (214567) | about 12 years ago | (#3828210)

And thanks to the European arrest warrant, anyone anywhere can be arrested in Europe for remotely breaking the laws of one European state from another jurisdiction. Your local courts will have no power to stop you being transported and incarcerated in another country by foreign police.

This is not entirely new. Before this (1996) the Germans were able to raid an address in the Netherlands over the magazine Radikal. Read about it here. []

The fact is that anywhere in Europe that absurd laws are passed, the practical effect now is that the law is simultaneously passed everywhere , for all people. This is A Bad Thing.

Re:Deep linking implications (0)

Danta (2241) | about 12 years ago | (#3828168)

It's not all over yet.

According to the article, NewsBooster is going to appeal the decision.

I can't imagine that the higher instances won't throw this decision over.

By the way, the Danish Publishers Association actually didn't really believe much in this lawsuit, they just wanted some time to develop their own common news deep-linking site. Apparently NewsBooster accounts for a large part of the traffic to the Danish newspapers' websites.

Re:Deep linking implications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828189)

Yes... it's a sad day to be Danish today :(

Without being completely sure about the legal details:

The court which ruled was "foged-retten" (in Danish). Which means that it is not a general decision, but an explicit prohibition that "Newsbooster" can no longer do what they have been doing.

The matter will most surely be appealed.

Deep L:inking Defined (5, Informative)

grungebox (578982) | about 12 years ago | (#3828005)

Deep linking is when you link to an interior page. For example, Ticketmaster filed a lawsuit a while back (I think) against sites that linked users directly to interior pages to buy tickets for a specific show. Instead of going to and then searching for, say, Radiohead...a site that linked directly to the "Buy Radiohead tickets" page would be in violation.
This lawsuit is pretty deep.

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | about 12 years ago | (#3828044)

Deep linking is when you link to an interior page. For example, Ticketmaster filed a lawsuit a while back (I think) against sites that linked users directly to interior pages to buy tickets for a specific show. Instead of going to and then searching for, say, Radiohead...a site that linked directly to the "Buy Radiohead tickets" page would be in violation.
This lawsuit is pretty deep.

That I can almost understand, since Ticket Master is relying on people to visit their website and see all the shows that they have to offer rather then just that one. It could possibly be proven that if everybody did that then ticket master would lose sales that it might have otherwise gotten from customers who would be enticed by other shows. In addition it also limits the customer's knowledge of the full range of 'services' (ick) that Ticketmaster offers.

On the flip side, fuck'em, user referral headings like the pr0n and warez sites have been doing for years.

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (2)

spencerogden (49254) | about 12 years ago | (#3828085)

Poor them. They are lucky that people should send customers their way. It boogles me that these site complain about have eye-balls sent to their sites.

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | about 12 years ago | (#3828177)

Yah, that is rather amazing. I could understand them bitching if they got massive links to some special offer of there that was below cost and designed to just draw in customers (loss leader), it would be the same as if somebody was standing outside a safeway offering to, at no cost, run inside the story and buy all the items on sale for you, but other then that. . . .


Re:Deep L:inking Defined (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828099)

Ticketmaster, however, lose. Ticketmaster is foolish to refuse business. People aren't being sent to deep-links for fun, but because there is something specific there for people. If I run a site devoted to rap music in Las Vegas, and there's a big rap show there, then it makes perfect sense to me to link to that ticketmaster sales page. My site visitors will want those tickets.

If they just wanted to look tickets, they'd go to ticketmaster itself.

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (2, Insightful)

silicon_synapse (145470) | about 12 years ago | (#3828159)

If I go rent a movie instead they'll lose business too (even more so). That doesn't mean it should be illegal. Life isn't fair. You can't legislate a profit although many seem to enjoy the challenge.

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (2)

C0deM0nkey (203681) | about 12 years ago | (#3828197)

I realize that you are not saying that you necessarily support this decision but...

That I can almost understand, since Ticket Master is relying on people to visit their website and see all the shows that they have to offer rather then just that one. It could possibly be proven that if everybody did that then ticket master would lose sales that it might have otherwise gotten from customers who would be enticed by other shows.

1) Tough. The original purpose and goal of the Web was the dissemination of information. Even today, with all the commercialization, the greatest benefit of the web is the ability to get information fast. Last time I checked, banner ads (in all their annoying glory) generally appear in headers that are pasted on EVERY PAGE of a site -- what difference does it make whether I hit the "entry" page or a "buried" page.

2) If you went to Ticketmaster (or wherever) for tickets (or whatever) and were then interested in other articles/services from TicketMaster you might visit their entry page ... if you weren't you'd buy your tickets at the deep-linked location and move on. What's the difference besides user choice, ease of use for the customer, etc. If the site is well-designed and appears pertinent to the interests of the viewer, the viewer will explore the site... 'nuff said.

Saying deep-linking is illegal is about as insightful as saying that failure to watch television commercials is theft.

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (2)

dattaway (3088) | about 12 years ago | (#3828075)

Why couldn't tickmaster simply check for the refer link and have their webserver decide the policy, rather than sicking lawyers on "bad" people? Are ticketmaster's webmasters that clueless?

Re:Deep L:inking Defined (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828107)

Why couldn't tickmaster simply check for the refer link and have their webserver decide the policy, rather than sicking lawyers on "bad" people? Are ticketmaster's webmasters that clueless?

But everyone deep links (2)

DABANSHEE (154661) | about 12 years ago | (#3828178)

Anyway why should I care.

I'm unsueable - just by having an ungarnishable income, like drug dealing &/or being on welfare, & making sure I have no assets that are bailifable (by making sure they are in a relatives name or by having a flatmate in the house who can say 'don't take that, its mine' & then leasing anything I need)

I can get up & slander the most law suit happy people in the world & there's fuckall they can do about it.

So if you want to deep link, give me some cash & I'll be your silent partner & you can do it under my name.

I plan (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828010)

on an immediate boycott of all Danish newspapers in response to this tyranny. Who will join me?

Re:I plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828113)

I have been boycotting Danish newspapers all my life, and I don't even know why. In fact, I didn't even know they had newspapers in Denmark.

Re:I plan (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828150)

we can still watch the swedish bikini team, right?

Re:I plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828208)

Yes! Er, maby. As long as they are wearing something other than newspapers when you are looking.

Sorry is a word not big enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828016)

On behalf of all Danes I would like to appoligize for this very poor example of good judgement. Sorry.

Mmm (1)

Sturm (914) | about 12 years ago | (#3828017)

That's OK. I never cared much for Danish. I always liked doughnuts better anyways.

So, How Long Before Footnoting is Banned? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | about 12 years ago | (#3828018)

This decision is the best argument I've ever seen for continuing education requirements for the judiciary.

Also Illegal: (5, Insightful)

tswinzig (210999) | about 12 years ago | (#3828021)

- Sending specific URL's to your friends via email.

- Citing specific pages in your footnotes.

- Pointing at specific locations with your finger.

Re:Also Illegal: (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828052)

I'm pointing at a specific location for them right now. And guess which finger I'm using ...

Re:Also Illegal: (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | about 12 years ago | (#3828061)

- Citing specific pages in your footnotes.

Oooh ouchies, hadn't thought of that one. Eek. That could be. . . . . icky.

Well, I for one will not be citing Danish newspapers in any of my future research projects, so hah!

Oh wait. . . .


Any ways though, yah, with the recent trends towards trying to make inane rulings in one country applicable to multiple other countries, these types of rulings could very quickly become very very dangerous. :(

Re:Also Illegal: (0, Flamebait)

streetlawyer (169828) | about 12 years ago | (#3828148)

Do you have a translation of the judgement from which you are drawing these implications, or are you just making Chicken Little "the sky is falling!" prophecies on the basis of no real knowledge of the specifics of the case?

Oh sorry, this is slashdot.

Re:Also Illegal: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828192)

"the most controversial site on the Web [] "

Nice try, but I'd have gone with:

"the most recent in a long line of discussion forum sites"

or maybe

"Like K5, only without the users"

Re:Also Illegal: (1)

Koyaanisqatsi (581196) | about 12 years ago | (#3828199)

Gee, what's wrong with you people? the parent post should be moded as 5:Funny, it's pure irony!

More info (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828023)

Here's [] another article on this. Sorry, danish and pdf, but very informative.

Sighs (1)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | about 12 years ago | (#3828024)

They didnt need to take it to court, all they have to do is block it at the web server to prevent deep linking, just put em to the front page.

Re:Sighs (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | about 12 years ago | (#3828082)

That also Kills Bookmarks though, doh!

(well unless implemented VERY VERY carefuly it does, ouch)

And then you have little old ladies bitching at you too, and they tend to be a primary demographic of newspapers, not to mention repeat customers.

Re:Sighs (3, Interesting)

scott1853 (194884) | about 12 years ago | (#3828098)

Personally I'd stop going to a site that did that. Especially a news site that changes it's content every day. If I was a day late I'd have to dig around and find what section it should be in and then what date it was on. It would be like trying to find an article from last week on ZDNet.

On the other hand, I probably would never find out about that site because nobody would link to them.

Also, in order to enforce the ruling they're probably going to have to implement that referrer check on the server anyways, which somebody could easily fake the referrer if they really wanted to get around it.

the only true on-topic response to this story... (-1)

TheBahxMan (249147) | about 12 years ago | (#3828026)

"Daddy would you like some deep sausage links?" is a fag.

Texas, and now Denmark (5, Informative)

User 956 (568564) | about 12 years ago | (#3828027)

Wired News [] has a similar interesting article about a cease and desist letter [] sent to an independant news site [] by Belo [] , corporate parent of The Dallas Morning News [] , forbidding them from linking to individual stories within the site. They claim that the author can only link to the site's homepage, and attempting to link to stories [] within [] the site violates their copyright.

Another example why online newspapers blow (1)

Fastball (91927) | about 12 years ago | (#3828032)

Is there a print newspaper in existence whose online content isn't wrapped, shrouded, boxed, and wadded up in advertising and other unrelated nonsense? Print media has never understood the Internet, so we owe it to ourselves to deep link [] to their sites when possible.

Re:Another example why online newspapers blow (2)

Bazzargh (39195) | about 12 years ago | (#3828145)

I think the International Herald Tribune's UI is very purty (and it works ok on lynx too, though it looks worse because the link map hasnt been shoved to the bottom of the page). It does have ads but they're not the huge intrusive kind (yet).

Hmmm. (1)

Paraplegic Vigilante (590364) | about 12 years ago | (#3828034)

Setting a precedent for the illegality of deep linking is not automatically bad. There may be some works of art that deep linking would have strange copyright issues with. However, if this is applied to all (or even many) companies/sites, it is a very bad thing.

Re:Hmmm. (5, Insightful)

Fastolfe (1470) | about 12 years ago | (#3828092)

I disagree. If you're sticking something up on a web site, that something has a URL. Every entity on a web site has its own unique URL that should be retrievable anywhere.

If you don't like this behavior, and you want "pages" on your site to only be accessible by people browsing through your site, you're going to need to stick a "document retrieval" application layer onto your site. Users start a session when they enter this application, and are only able to retrieve stories through this application front-end. This can be done through HTTP as simply as with a session ID, but the web was not meant to work like this.

Again, we have a rather useful technology being twisted and warped by corporate interests instead of those corporate interests funding a proper technological solution, just like the intellectual property crap associated with DNS nowadays.

Let them prosecute (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828035)

<Exaggerated Monty Python voice>if they can!</Exaggerated Monty Python voice>

Wrong....Deep Linking.... (0, Offtopic)

curtisk (191737) | about 12 years ago | (#3828036) the latest trendy fetish, you know the one where the one person takes sausage links, a tub of "I can't believe it's not butter ©", then using a rachet set........ ..oh, that "deep linking"......hehe my bad!

Re:Wrong....Deep Linking.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828070)


Temporary ruling only... (5, Informative)

mortenf (191503) | about 12 years ago | (#3828039)

Actually, the ruling is not that deep links are illegal, it's a temporary ruling that makes Newsbooster take their service down until a real trial can be held.

Newsbooster has a press release [] on the matter.

Analogies... (2)

lostchicken (226656) | about 12 years ago | (#3828041)

I hear people making analogies about deep linking, and I think I have a good one. Many phone systems force someone to dig deep into a tree to get to the person who they want to talk to, i.e. tech support systems. Deep linking would be like making a preset speed dial to phone 1-888-555-8765-3,2,6,3,7,2 so that someone wouldn't have to climb a phone tree.

I'm not making any claims to the good/badness of this, but it is a good way to explain deep-linking to non-internet users, without presenting a bias. Personally, I think it is wrong to do, if the site admin doesn't want it, but it sure shouldn't be against the law.

Re:Analogies...the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828214)

your point is correct. the damn problem is these idiots don't have the technical ability to create a website that forces linear entry, therefore they go to the courts to make up in their lack of budget, lack of knowledge, and lack of motivation to create a website with limited points of entry.

This is the same thing as having an open air market and a Food Lion. If you don't build walls and a main entrance, then people will come in what ever damn way they want. That is the price of not building those walls.

MORONS!!!! I think these are the same people that you tell over and over how to check their e-mail, but they just dont FUCK!NG get it! They call you once a week asking the same question, because they are too lazy to remember it themselves.

Moronic. (5, Insightful)

wirefarm (18470) | about 12 years ago | (#3828056)

If you put a document on the web and make it accessible through the use of a(n) URL, anyone can use that URL to access it.

Of course you can use referrer technology to block how people get to your document, but these people seem to lack the ability to do things like that.

What if I bookmark a 'deep link'? What about Google?

Personally, I think that the term "deep link" is a misleading term - each document is equally accessible from outside, well except for a few bytes in the length of the URL.

Jim in Tokyo

Does the URL in the above write-up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828062)

(the one reading "only in danish") constitute deep-linking?

New Meta Tag? (4, Insightful)

randomErr (172078) | about 12 years ago | (#3828072)

Just a thought but how about a couple of new Meta Tags:
<meta http-equiv="LinkStatus" content="NoLink">
<meta http-equiv="LinkTo" content="False">
If the browser and search engine was setup properly they could read the tag and ignore the link(s) on the page or give a page is unavalible security zone warning.

I Corinthians 6:1
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Sensible in moderation (5, Insightful)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | about 12 years ago | (#3828074)

Let's hope that this doesn't mean that deep linking in itself becomes illegal. There may be a case where advertising revenue pages are bypassed or some other legitimate reason exists that the content publisher would rather users came via their front page.

However, it is well known that deep linking is good linking [] as far as users go.

I don't suppose there's any chance that publishers will come to a gentleman's agreement that it is improper to deep link if they explicitly ask not too (in the same way as it is considered "impolite" to provide direct links to files on others servers.

Finally, if DeCSS code can be considered "free speech", how can writing an URL not be subject to the same rational?


Poor web design skills... (2)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | about 12 years ago | (#3828076)

I think all this mess can be traced back to the fact that everyone on earth seems to be an actor/waiter/web-designer.

So now it seems the inability to have skilled web design is somehow the fault of third parties who want to deep link?

Stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish my 45 minute long Cold Fusion developer program.

and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828078)

Excuse my stupidity, but why is anyone getting upset about linking to a particular page rather than to the top level page ?

What's the big deal ????

Re:and... (-1)

TheBahxMan (249147) | about 12 years ago | (#3828125)

ask her []

she knows the answer.

Re:and... (2)

SirSlud (67381) | about 12 years ago | (#3828163)

you can find out by going here [] , then clicking on the orange menu in the lower left corner, scrolling down the page until you see the link entitled 'deep linking explained', and then clicking on 'details' in the top menu bar on that page, and then pressing the 'i agree' button that appears on the subsequent page.

(sorry, I would have provided a direct link, but its illegal)

now do you get it?

this is absolutely bs (5, Funny)

lingqi (577227) | about 12 years ago | (#3828083)

in real-life terms, it would be the equivalent of:

"look for this and this information in THIS book" would be legal.

"look for this and this informaiton in THIS book, PAGE # xx-yy" would not be legal.

rediculous. -- heh, but it does make writing bibliographies easier -- "information obtained from"

Re:this is absolutely bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828198)

So, if I read this story correctly and the Danish court ruling document is composed anything like those in American courts, legal citations within the ruling would themselves be illegal because they refer to a specific section (a deep link) within a larger work. A certain irony there, hmmm? I wonder if they're going to take themselves to court.

who cares about Denmark?? (2)

mcdade (89483) | about 12 years ago | (#3828084)

Uh.. this is a moot point.. just make sure that your Deep Links are not going to/coming from denmark.. it's not a 'global ruling'... I'm sure if it does get over there there will be business agreements to deep link, after all lots of the time it promotes more commerce. I think that it's pretty much trying to protect copyright type voliations..

just thoughts though.

Obviously . . . (2, Funny)

vegetablespork (575101) | about 12 years ago | (#3828086)

there's something rotten in Denmark.

heh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828090)

There was an indian who had a hen and his next door neigbour was a paki! every morning the indian's hen laid an egg for him, one morning the Hen jumped over to the paki's garden and laid an egg there, The indian saw this as he saw the paki run to his garden and runs in with the egg! the indian goes and knocks on the pakis door and he goes to him "thats my egg" and the paki goes "it was laid on my property" after a big argument of who's egg is it, the indian came up with a plan, the indian goes "ok lets make a deal, i'll kick u up the tate (balls) and i'll time u for how long does it take u 2 get back up, then u can kick me up the tate (balls) and then u time me fow how long does it take for me 2 get back up, the one who gets up fastest wins" the indian went first..he ran back and charged in full speed towards the paki and SMACK! up the tate (balls) after 30 mintues of agonising pain the paki got back up..then the paki goes " its my turn" then the indian goes "u can keep the fukin egg!!!"

Referer (2, Insightful)

sirisak (590510) | about 12 years ago | (#3828103)

A number of large sites, both corporate and strictly informative, use a HTTP-referer mechanism to transport you to the top-level page if you just "ended up" in the middle of the site. Used properly, this is a good example of user-friendly interface engineering without being obnoxious. Just my $.02.

Please note: (2, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | about 12 years ago | (#3828105)

While Denmark may seem a good distance away from many of us, the Hague Convention [] may hold all of us responsible for the silly laws one country imposes. Unfortunate indeed, because it may mean no deep-linking for us and the DMCA for the rest of you, and it seems like a rather convenient but nasty way of sidestepping the controversy surrounding each piece of legislation like this by simply allowing it to take effect without any discussion.

Rather foolish (1)

Sebby (238625) | about 12 years ago | (#3828109)

considering that it's fairly easy to check the referrer and deny the page based on the result.

And besides, if you don't want people to see the content from just anywhere else, then put it in a protected area of the site! Don't rely on some 'judge' and 'laws' to help you and set dangerous precedents.

For more reading... (2, Informative)

chacha (166659) | about 12 years ago | (#3828110)

There's a story on Yahoo news regarding the deep linking brouhaha - it was written before the actual decision, but goes into what the big deal is. I will now deep link to it: deep linking story [] . Ironic, eh?

What Will The World Wide Web become?... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828117)

a grid? a bunch of parallel lines?
give all of the beurocrats and thumb suckers
their own little corner of the world to destroy
don't let them come out and ruin the original
selling point of the Internet, to have direct
access to information that you sought, NOT to
read some jerky-shmoe's ad for "Butter flavored
Penis Creme" while trying to find an article
on the Declaration of Independance (USA Ref.)

Thanks I'll be leaving now...

It was nice while we had it. (1)

pornaholic (242268) | about 12 years ago | (#3828123)

The internet that is. The real question is: will the buffoons in the US Congress screw us over too.

bookmarks (1)

pheared (446683) | about 12 years ago | (#3828129)

So, are my bookmarks now illegal?

Re:bookmarks (1)

stikves (127823) | about 12 years ago | (#3828138)

Unless you port them on a web page, they are legal.

Re:bookmarks (1)

pheared (446683) | about 12 years ago | (#3828193)

they are stored in html, usually. the concept of 'webpage' is kind of grotty.

what happens if my girlfriend uses my computer and clicks-through?

'post' is sort of subjective too. there are plenty of webservers that run sites that were not meant for public consumption: they just happen to be accessible that way. if I put it on my personal account with no index file and someone access it without asking me I'm supposed to be liable. lame indeed.

Can't read Danish.. (2)

Kredal (566494) | about 12 years ago | (#3828137)

So I'll assume this is a followup to the paper being miffed that someone is linking past the front page, and hurting their front page revenue...

Hopefully no judge in the US sees this as a precedent, or Slashdot will be a very different place...

"In's new article, (Go from the fron page, about half way down, in the tech section, click on the second link from the right, spin around in a circle, and click next to the picture of the space shuttle) there's a new flight plan being shown. In related news, go to, find the Sci/Tech section, and hope that the story hasn't already changed. The link you're looking for might be called "Shuttle takes off from California" if they haven't renamed it."

And of course, this doesn't even begin to touch on the Slashdot effect, when 100,000 people have to pull down three pages (or more!) to reach the story of interest, rather than just pulling down the one page story that they're looking for. Three times the traffic means only a third of the people will be able to reach the site before it's slashdotted.

This is a scary precedent.

Boycott.. (1, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | about 12 years ago | (#3828140)

..all danishes.
No more bear claws.

fucking danish (0, Offtopic)

j1mmy (43634) | about 12 years ago | (#3828147)

I've always believe that Denmark is full of morons. This is just further proof.

Well, well, well. (0)

BigChigger (551094) | about 12 years ago | (#3828153)

All those comments about "stupid US courts" from the Europeans look a little hasty now, don't they?


Need directions (1)

Zabu (589690) | about 12 years ago | (#3828154)

Deep linking becoming Illegal? That is like making it illegal to ask for driving directions. "Do you know how to get to McDonalds?" "Yeah, if you drive around long enough, you'll find it."

deep linking or data mining? (3, Informative)

fermion (181285) | about 12 years ago | (#3828169)

While deep linking to individual pages within a web site is generally a good thing, what about data mining a site and displaying content as ones own? I would like to know if this ruling has more do wi'th deep linking or data mining.

For instance, we should be able to send a browser to any page 'within' a site, but what about aggregating information or links in a way the designer of the website never intended, or publishing the information in a new media. Is there much difference between data mining a web site and publishing public comments on a site such as /. in dead tree form? I certainly do not know, but it seems to be a relevant question.

There are clearly limits to deep linking. Jakob Nielson gives the example of a quiz [] on his site. Going to anywhere but the first page of the quiz renders the process meaningless. It is true that in most cases you want as much help as possible to get a user to an 'inner' page, as this appears to one of the greatest impediment to usability, but do we really want people to pull, for example, images or frames from our sites and display them as their own content. As the previous NPR discussion [] illustated, there are times when this will unfairly transfer hosting costs

Why they don't want to go after Google (1)

lskovlund (469142) | about 12 years ago | (#3828170)

I was there during the proceedings and when the ruling was made. With Newsbooster, you can pay a fee to have Newsbooster store a set of search criteria _and perform that search continually_ so that you can just log in and have the search results displayed. Several members of the DDF (that's the Danish abbreviation) intend to jointly create a service that does this. Newsbooster also contains a (free) standard search engine, which the DDF did not object to. A classic case of trying to destroy the competition.

Clarification (5, Informative)

Penguin (4919) | about 12 years ago | (#3828172)

I was present at the court (yup, I'm a Dane) - and let me clarify the matter:

First of all, this is only the first part of the case, whether Newsbooster should be temporarily prohibited until the case is settled. Todays case wasn't settled by a judge, only a "bailiff" (according to my Danish/English translator :)

Second, the Danish Newspaper Publisher's Association weren't concerned about search engines like Google or just a few deep links. Newsbooster did a systematic index and furthermore sold services for update-information whenever your predefined search words matched any news article.

Third, the case is very specific and isn't as much about technical details as it is of legal matter. It was concluded that Newsbooster was in violation of Danish law of marketing ("good ethics", mainly concerning not gaining/harvesting of other companies products and services) and Danish law of intellectual property, since the articles at the Danish newspapers' sites were to be considered as a database, an index. Databases are also covered by the law of intellectual property (as a simple example: A name and an address wouldn't itself be protected by the law, but an index like a phone book would as a whole) - and since Newsbooster copied what would be considered as a database, the ruling was against Newsbooster.

Danish Newspaper Publisher's Association is obligated to present the case in court in less than two weeks. There wouldn't be created a precedent until that case is ruled.


And some personal comments: My hope was that Newsbooster wouldn't be prohibited, but the following meeting at FDIH [] (Foreningen for Dansk Internet Handel / The Danish eBusiness Association) mostly concerned techniques like robots.txt, usage of Referer and stuff like that.

I believe it's important to notice that the violation might have nothing to do with links, search engines and other tools, and as such the problem shouldn't be solved with technology.

A modest proposal: (2)

mbourgon (186257) | about 12 years ago | (#3828174)

Everytime someone sues over deep linking, no-one link to these sites anymore. No links. Whatsoever. Have them removed from Yahoo, Google, everywhere. Remove entries from your own DNS servers. When they go from 10000 hits/day to 2, they'll change their tune. A harsh punishment, but amazingly appropriate.

I solved my 'deep linking' problem... (2)

Sun Tzu (41522) | about 12 years ago | (#3828187) making up the URL's as I go along. In a multiplayer strategy game [] it is important that players not be able to simply look into the other sectors to see who is/what is hiding there. Not being a complete fool [] I didn't just make any URL resolve directly to the game sector in question. You have to log in, get issued a 'ship' and navigate to that sector.

Of course, I'm not a professional webmaster who knows all sorts of sophisticated web stuff, so it wasn't a problem for me. I guess it's much more complicated if you know what you're doing.

BTW, I'm wondering what part of 'Uniform Resource Locator' these yahoo's don't understand.

I am surprised- (3, Funny)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | about 12 years ago | (#3828195)

Being Danish myself, I am surprised by this ruling. 99.999% of the time the Danes are the ones with a clear head about all things.

Well, they *are* only human, perhaps this judge has some, ah, non-Danish lineage. This would explain this temporary lapse of judgement.

well, I guess this just goes to show you... (1)

elphkotm (574063) | about 12 years ago | (#3828209)

that... KALROTH SUX!~!!

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3828216)

next time you eurotrash talk shit about america remember this crap...and all the other stupid fucking laws in europe that you conveniently forget during a good america bashing...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account