Beta
×

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!

You Can't Link Here

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the watch-me dept.

The Internet 325

An anonymous reader writes "Last year several news sources reported about the website dontlink.com from David Sorkin, associate professor of law at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago. His website fights 'stupid linking policies' that attempt to impose restrictions on other sites that link to them. Now a German law student joined the fight against linking restrictions and starts getting media attention in Germany. His list of stupid German linking policies can be found at the website Links & Law. Contrary to the model of dontlink.com, the German site refrains from linking to companies that prohibit linking without their consent. The site only states the URL of the websites with the linking policies. The page with the linking policies is in German, but the rest of the website is in English and covers many legal aspects of linking."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043205)

fp

Re:fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043243)

Re:fp

Maybe there just scared (5, Funny)

ifreakshow (613584) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043206)

These companies probably don't allow linking because they are afraid of a slashdotting.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043337)

... American Express links to dontlink.com!

Re:Maybe there just scared (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043411)

I don't go on the streets at night because I'm afraid of niggers.

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043207)

I fail it.

Cat got your tongue? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043208)

Hacker's Quicky #313: Sour Cream -n- Onion Potato Chips Microwave Egg Roll Chocolate Milk

Re: Cat got your tongue? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043324)


Cat got your tongue?

No, but I've got my tounge in your pussy.


Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (5, Insightful)

_Sambo (153114) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043217)

An unenforceable rule is almost always a stupid rule.

More Stupid rules/laws can be found here. [ahajokes.com]

The fact of the matter is that it's impossible to hold any but the largest of businesses to such a silly policy. If they really don't want people to link to their stuff, don't put it where the public can get to it.

It's that simple.

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043321)

It's the other way around: Why call the bloodho^Wlawyers, when there you can use technology to prevent deep linking? If a rule can be easily enforced by the potential "victims", should there be a law about it anyway?

Not necessarily unenforceable (with commentary). (2, Interesting)

$$$$$exyGal (638164) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043394)

It's not completely unenforceable. You just need to look at yer HTTP_REFERER log to see who is linking to you. Then you just bring up their site, print it out, and take it to the judge.

How does the linker not get caught? Just add this to the web site:

Warning: You must get written permission before printing this site. If you print this site without prior written permission from noprinting.com, you will be fined $50,000 per offense and/or 3 years in prison.

--naked [slashdot.org]

Re:Not necessarily unenforceable (with commentary) (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043572)

>>It's not completely unenforceable. You just need to look at yer HTTP_REFERER log to see who is linking to you. Then you just bring up their site, print it out, and take it to the judge.

And then the Judge says "show me where they agreed not to link to you" and throws the guy out of the court room.

Re:Not necessarily unenforceable (with commentary) (2, Informative)

neur0maniak (322791) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043573)

HTTP_REFERER can be faked, or unused. It cannot be trusted.

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (5, Funny)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043403)

Ahahahaha.
Chico, California: Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043563)


Most of those laws are bullshit. They sell books and get traffic, but they stink like the fresh warm turn straigh outta my anus. If you put it in your mouth and press up with your tongue it will squish between your teeth.

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043443)


If they really don't want people to link to their stuff, don't put it where the public can get to it.

I've heard this logic before ... where was it ... Oh yeah!
"If she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have been dressed like that.
It's that simple."

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043505)

It's an easily enforceable rule...

If the user does not already have a recent cookie from me, user gets my home page instead. If the referal in the header is from anything but me, user gets my home page instead.

There are plenty of stupid server tricks available to make it impossible to link from outside the site.

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (2)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043587)

He was, I'm sure, referring to legal enforcement. As in, they wouldn't get anywhere if they took you to court.

Re:Principles of Un-enforceable Rules (3, Insightful)

EvilAlien (133134) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043535)

We also need to take the time to recognize the contribution of incompetant judges to stupid laws.

While we're sharing sites, don't forget Dumb Laws [dumblaws.com] .

Nehmen die Plakate viel der Drogen kürzlich? (2, Funny)

loggia (309962) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043224)

Nehmen die Plakate viel der Drogen kürzlich? Mit allem passenden Respekt uns ist zu informieren über jemand anderes, das bereits erfolgtes etwas tut - auf Deutsch nichtsdestoweniger - nicht dieses germane. Ich würde nicht sein, also störte, wenn ich nicht mehrere meiner eigenen Unterordnungen - die gute - zusammenfassend vor kurzem zurückgewiesen gesehen hatte.

I am a WHORE! (3, Informative)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043226)

Translated Site [google.com]

If this has already been posted, please mod /. as slower than poo. If not, enjoy the whore.

Whore!

Re:I am a WHORE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043332)

how do you pronounce your nickname?

Re:Am I a WHORE? (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043370)

'team has no I' as in "There is no I in team, Johnson, so get out there and sell some shoes and shoe accessories."

Re:Am I a WHORE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043426)

shoulda used capitals then, like TeamHasNoI

Re:Am I a WHORE? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043473)


Or, alternately, IAmFuckingGay

Does this apply to (-1, Troll)

Trolling Thunder (639121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043232)

the holy goat [goatse.cx]

7th post! WHHHEWWW!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043236)

whhhhhewwwwwww!

IN NAZI GERMANY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043237)

Website gasses you for unpure linking!

IN FASCIST USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043503)

LINKERS WILL BE SHOT!

Hypocrisy ?? (0, Interesting)

RallyNick (577728) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043238)

Most ./ers would like others to obtain their explicit permission before emailing or calling them (spam, telemarketing, etc). Also most ./ers would like to be able to link to anyone else's wesite without restriction. Wasn't that called hypocrisy?

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043267)

Having a public website, a public server, implies that you are willing to serve content to the public. If you aren't, then you either need to add access restrictions, or take it down. Whether that means referer checking, a user login, or whatever, that's up to the owner.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043354)

Well, you have a publically reachable telephone and most email servers don't ask for the invitation either. People publish their email addresses on their webpages and have their phonenumber listed. How does that not imply that you are willing to receive messages/phonecalls from just about anybody? I see how someone may see a difference, but it is mostly a "protect the small" kind of difference.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043420)

Email/telephone calls are personal (if we're not talking about commercial telephone/email address which I would say fall under the same rules as websites) and highly intrusive. Someone visiting a server isn't. I read (or atleast see) every email I get, and I hear the phone ring/answer it/get messages. When someone visits my website, I may see it in a log, but each time it happens, I don't get a notification. And each time someone makes a link to it, I may never find out! Making a link is a step removed from clicking on it. It's more similar to someone writing down my phone number.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1)

RallyNick (577728) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043355)

And if I have a private website on a private server that I don't feel like password-protecting? If I leave my door unlocked you think you have the right to get in?

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043433)

How would I know about your private server? If I have to hunt to find it (ie port scanning), it'd be just like going around to every house or car in a neighborhood to check if the door was unlocked. I doubt that's legal, either.

But if you're a company, and you make a website, 99.99999999% of the time, it IS a public server. We're not talking about intranet access.

Re:2D analogy in a 3D world... (2)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043471)

that is the root of the problem, if you connect to a public resource is your website truly private ? I can see both sides, but the physical analogy falls short in this case. There is NO PHYSICAL presence, hence NO TRESPASS, so if you failed to take the rudimentary steps such and POST A NO TRESPASSING sign(login or legal disclaimer), then I think actually the problem does rest on your shoulders.

Re:2D analogy in a 3D world... (1)

RallyNick (577728) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043577)

Ok, now go back and read again the original topic. There are people fighting the right to put "You cannot link here" signs on your webpage... see where it's going?

I don't think the analogy falls short, as it's just as wrong to trespass on my property as it is to mess with my property (bandwith/server) without my permission.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1)

harlequinSmurf (620030) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043361)

Linking to someone's website and not wanting to receive spam or telemarketing are different and therefore no hypocrisy is involved

It would only be hypocrisy if they had their own sites and did not want people to link to them but still wanted to link to anyone they liked
-OR-
The didnt want to receive spam and telemarketing but wanted to be free to indulge in it themselves spamming and making telemarketing calls to anyone they liked.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1)

RallyNick (577728) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043419)

spam/telemarketing creates (possibly) unwanted traffic on your email accout/telephone and wastes your time. linking creates (possibly) unwanted traffic on your website and wastes your bandwith. where's the difference?

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (5, Insightful)

Cyclometh (629276) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043438)

If you don't want people to read/obtain data on your web server, take it offline or put it behind some kind of access restriction. If it's a "public" web site, then I think the assumption should be that you want people to read it. The biggest difference is that for people to read your web site doesn't require your personal attention; you don't have to answer every HTTP/GET request individually, but you do have to answer your phone or let the machine get it.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (5, Insightful)

Cyclometh (629276) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043393)

It's can hardly be seen as hypocrisy when you consider the difference between your personal phone line and private residential address and a web site ostensibly for providing information to the public.

It gets even more silly to make this comparison when you look at how the WWW is intended to operate- the word "hypertext" isn't just fast words, it's about links. Requiring licenses to link is totally against the entire basis of the technology, and has been pointed out, patently absurd, as restrictions on linking are totally unenforceable in any meaningful sense.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043531)


It's not a question about how the WWW is intended to operate, it's about control. I want to know who is in my website. Basically, I want to allow anyone to get information from it except for niggers. I need a way to keep them out. They'll just fuck it up and leave trash all over or spray paint on it or something. And it decreases the value of my advertising real estate.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (4, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043400)

No. By linking to a site, you're not bugging the owner of the site (short of using a little bandwidth).

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (2, Funny)

RallyNick (577728) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043448)

>(short of using a little bandwidth)

huh? ever heard of slashdotting?

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1)

dagyo (544701) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043583)

In some cases, when a site is /.'ed its not the bandwidth that kills the site, its the load on the server.

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043484)

if you were on my analysis team...i would have you killed.

idiot.

telemarketing: human>>>human or computer>>>human

spam: human>>>human, computer>>>human

linking: human>>>computer

DO YOU SEE A TREND YOU FUCKING MORON?

Re:Hypocrisy ?? (1)

bninja_penguin (613992) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043524)

Because a website has always been a "public face" to the world. It is a 'mostly' static information repository, much like a book. Calling someone on the phone is different. The author's of books don't normally give explicit rules on who can read their book, or how to read it. If an author wants to do this with his book, he doesn't let the public have access to it!! Maybe that's why webpage writers are usually called authors. If you want a public webpage, don't place rules on how it is to be used. If you don't want the public to use your page other ways than you intend, don't make a public webpage!!

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043239)

In Soviet Russia, government forbids links from you!

Sad news ... Stephen King is dead at 55 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043244)



I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Why so upset about this concept? (4, Insightful)

AuraSeer (409950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043245)

Maybe somebody has an underpowered server, or pays a high rate for bandwidth usage. Such people would prefer to avoid a /.ing that would kill their mission-critical machine or drive them into the poorhouse. That's a perfectly valid reason to deny other sites permission to link.

I fail to see why this is a free speech issue.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043290)


If it weren't linking it wouldn't be the World Wide WEB now would it? More like the World Wide Stick. If you're server is underpowered because you insist on running a duct-tape shitty OS like Linux on your sister's old porno web-cam server from 1994 then get the fuck of the Internet!

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (2, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043297)

Maybe somebody has an underpowered server, or pays a high rate for bandwidth usage. Such people would prefer to avoid a /.ing that would kill their mission-critical machine or drive them into the poorhouse. That's a perfectly valid reason to deny other sites permission to link.

OK, but American Express? ExxonMobil? Orbitz? New York Stock Exchange and American Stock Exchange? I sincerely doubt any of these sites have any bandwidth problems and if you do, tough cookies. Nobody is forcing you to host a public website. Put a password on it and force people to apply for a username and password to get access to your site. Sure, 99.999% of your customers will never bother but you won't have to worry about deep linking anymore. The web was built around hyperlinking information. If you start arbitrarily cutting those links to certain sites then the thing will collapse and be useless. So why even bother having a web site if you don't want anyone pointing to it?

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043303)

So block referers with Slashdot.org in them. It's pretty easy. And, Slashdotting is RARE. How many people actually have it happen to them? A tiny tiny minority of the millions and millions of servers out there.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043456)

user_pref("network.http.sendRefererHeader", 0);
It seems that everybody is datamining these days, so why should I tell where I'm coming from? Blocks like bugzilla's not-for-slashdot-readers hurdle are just the most obvious form of referrer utilization. Amazon tried random prices, why should I assume that they won't base their prices on this kind of data in the future?

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (5, Insightful)

therealmoose (558253) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043391)

It's deep-linking that's the problem, not linking in general. It takes much more bandwidth to load the main page and click to the page you want then to just link straight to the page you want.

The problem sites have is they want you to go through all the ads before you hit what you actually want, and hopefully get lost in the store or something, nothing to do with bandwidth.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (2)

anonymous loser (58627) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043509)

If that's the case then why do so many corporate websites, stock exchanges, and the like prohibit linking? They don't have any advertising whatsoever.

I think it's more akin to opening an office and prohibiting strangers from walking in off the street to use your bathroom.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043562)

They're afraid of bad PR by association...

Remember how www.microsoft.com got associated in Google as the #1 return for "Go to hell" for a while. That's because even though that phrase was nowhere on Microsoft's homepage, an organized effort of people associated that phrase with www.microsoft.com, so Google picked up on that and declared Microsoft the net's leading authority on going to hell..

Now, that's a rather tame embarassment for a company that you could argue deserved it, but a lot of Men in Suits are affraid that they could be associated with even less desirable terms in a way that damages PR.

The only problem is, "don't link to us" is about as legally valid as "don't talk about our website" which just isn't gonna fly.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (1)

n3rd (111397) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043399)

You have a very good point, and I agree with it.

The problem is that isn't or is rarely the reason sites have linking policies. Most of the time it's so you have to wade through pages with banner ads. Sometimes this can be a good thing.

Requiring users to go through a page or two with ads either helps the site pay for itself, lower the amount of out of pocket money they need to pay each month or help the site profit and create more content that (hopefuly) you will enjoy. It's the same idea as the pages that say "If you enjoy my site please click on the ad so I can keep the site up and running" without actually coming out and asking that directly.

I personally don't mind either way. Unless there are 1 billion popups I can quickly click through to the real story and disregard the ads if I so please.

It's should be up to the site owner and we should respect his or her wishes.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (3, Insightful)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043421)

Maybe somebody has an underpowered server, or pays a high rate for bandwidth usage. Such people would prefer to avoid a /.ing that would kill their mission-critical machine or drive them into the poorhouse.

In cases like that, you simply don't put stuff on the web. You don't use publically accessible protocols, like http. Use your own protocol, and don't share it with others.

That's a perfectly valid reason to deny other sites permission to link.

Stupidly wrong. The web is ALL about linking. If you don't want links, there is no acceptable way to rule them out, and no excuse for trying. As I've already said, if you don't want it to be linked to, don't put it on the web.

In anything, if you want to participate, you have to follow the rules. One of the most basic rules on the web is that linking is ok.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043575)

>> As I've already said, if you don't want it to be linked to, don't put it on the web.

So what's the protocol for using images that are on the web? Say, for instance, Apple would rather you link to apple.com if you want pictures of their powerbook. But you find the URL of just the image you want and embed that in your post or personal web page. That's even worse than a deep link because it uses their bandwith for the image file without people even realizing what site it's coming from or giving Apple the opportunity to advertise, etc. at all.

Or does everyone have to take Tripod / Geocities type precautions to prevent the use of their images?

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043520)

fame sucks doesn't it? i mean, the internet is supposed to be about the dissemination of information. you put the info out there because you want to share it with others. if that bit of info happens to be wildly popular beyond your dreams and your server's bandwidth, well that just sucks for you doesn't it?

huh!?

the problem with this attitude is that it goes against the nature and purpose of the internet. it IS similar to the deep-linking controversy. it is just crazy for a site to not expect people to deep link to their site, or ask permission to, or expect remuneration. likewise with this attitude. both scenarios go against the spirit and purpose of the internet.

the rule should be if you make it available on the internet, you get what you deserve. and what do you deserve? by placing it out there on the internet, you are giving up your right to decide what you deserve. public information is public information is public information. end of story.

and if you get fame... i don't really understand what your problem is.

it's like someone putting information out there for the whole world to see, and then complaining when the whole world wants to see it. i mean come on, you can't have it both ways.

your post is hypocrisy and goes against the spirit of the internet and the freedom of information it represents. if you don't want to whine and bitch and moan about your server getting capped DON'T POST ANY WEBPAGES.

if you want whatever your site is about to be only for your little circle of friends, put up a password, put up a robots.txt, etc. the internet is for EVERYBODY.

this post whiffs of snobbery. whine, whine, bitch and moan. welcome to the world wide frickin web.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043554)

Ahhh the HTTP protocol was made for linking info. The internet is a public place and jurisdiction has no meaning, if you don't want your car towed you don't park it on a public street, if you don't want to stop at a red light then get your own private track. You can put up a server and say someone can't link and if that's the case and you don't want people linking put up a password on your site and only allow people with the password to get in. Just like anything else that is private, these companies are silly and if taken to court they will lose hand over fist. They'd have to take everyone that links to their page to court.

Now as for the slashdot effect, it's the same shit. Deny all referers from slashdot if you don't want your server to be a pile of smoking rubble. If enough people did that then eventually Slashdot would have to come up with a way to cache pages or get around it.

So basically, you're talking out of your ass cavity.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (1)

ice cream koan (634082) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043556)

I don't think this is a free speech issue, it's more of an issue about lawyers and businesses not groking the nature of the web. The whole point of hypertext is to provide linking capabilities between documents. (After all, there are certainly more attractive formats for marking up information. The web is what it is because it's so easy to "browse" from one place to another.) If you don't want people linking, it would make far more sense to implement some kind of technological solution (a la url rewrites, or HTTP basic auth, etc) than to add a bunch of silly legalese to your privacy policy which noone ever reads anyway.

It seems kind of like if Wal-mart put a large neon-painted trash can in the middle of the parking parking lot, and then in small print on the side of the can, wrote "Please do not use this trash can". Legally, they have the right to do that I suppose, but trying to sue everyone who uses it anyway is pretty dumb, considering they could just move the trash can (i.e the technical solution).

Well, that's my 2e^-2 dollars anyway.

Re:Why so upset about this concept? (1)

penguinland (632330) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043569)

Rather than being upset about an underpowered server, I think people are more afraid of portraying the information from these sites as someone else's work. For example, I have written a script that goes to the New York Stock Exchange (by deep link), and puts stock quotes on my homepage (currently, the entire website is offline). If I tried to pass this off as a better site than the original, I could draw all of their traffic away. They do not want this.

Another possible reason to be against deep linking is that some sites put cookies on your computer from their main page (I'm pretty sure Amazon.com and Yahoo do this). If you deep link, they cannot track you and put you into their statistics.

Although I don't agree with these people, they do seem justified in trying to avoid deep linking.

taboo links (5, Interesting)

asscroft (610290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043251)

www.kpmg.com [kpmg.com]

silly bastards, if they don't want to be linked, they shouldn't have a web page. They should invent thier own non-http protocol that doesn't allow linking, or more importantly, allows restriction of linking. As long as their using our protocol, they have to play by our rules.

nah nah nah naaaah naaaahh

Re:taboo links (1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043293)

Sure, and next time your inbox fills with spam, realize you shouldnt have one, or invent your own non-pop3/smtp protocol that doesn't allow unauthorized email.

Because, as long as your using our protocol, you have to play by our rules.

Just because somethings possible doesn't make it right to do it.

Re:taboo links (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043584)


Why the FUCK is this modded down?

Cunt shit cock cum asshole balls tits nigger piss whore dick pussy fuck

thank you

Maybe I'm in the minority here... (3, Interesting)

TheWhaleShark (414271) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043281)

But if you don't like someone's linking policy, don't link to them.

It is, and should be, up to the owners and operators of a given website to determine their linking policy. If said policy is stupid, so be it, it's stupid. There's no reason that a website should be required to let anyone link to them however they wish.

Re:Maybe I'm in the minority here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043377)

If you don't want to be linked to, don't be a part of a hyperlinked medium. Writing a link to someone doesn't add traffic by itself. People clicking on links does. There's a big difference between the two.

but. . . (1)

forand (530402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043407)

"There's no reason that a website should be required to let anyone link to them however they wish." . . .but there is no reason anyone shouldn't be able to link to public information. If they don't want people to link to their site because their server can't handle it then they shouldn't be serving the information over a public forum(i.e. the internet). The whole idea sounds like someone saying well I have this flyer that I am going to put up on every telephone pole in the neighborhood telling all my personal info and then asking everyone not to read them unless I told them they could. Doesn't seem that reasonable to me.

Re:Maybe I'm in the minority here... (5, Funny)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043409)

And how do you expect to ever get traffic?

Re:Maybe I'm in the minority here... (4, Insightful)

FamousLongAgo (257744) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043460)

I think you're missing the larger point. A hyperlink belongs to the person who creates it, not to the entity it points to. Saying otherwise is like saying I can't speak your name without your permission, or that I'm not allowed to send you a letter without your express permission..

All a "linking policy" can logically be is some kind of policy a site has for adding/deleting links on its OWN website, not dictating which sites others can link from.

Re:Maybe I'm in the minority here... (2)

kindbud (90044) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043483)

Linking is no more suspicious or unsavory than telling someone a phone number or a street address for some establishment you want them to know about. Linking is really nothing more than citing a fact: some document exists at this location. Can an author require libraries to cease indexing his works in the card catalog?Hardly! Any author that tried that would be looked at real funny, then laughed at real hard.

You can't patent or copyright facts, nor control their dissemination, unless you treat the fact as a trade secret (and the information is in fact, not publically known). Nothing accessible on a public website could be reasonably considered secret. Forbidding linking is exactly equivalent to forbidding the publication of your phone number or street address.

If you don't want links, whitelist your referers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043292)

Otherwise you can STFU.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

ComradeEnchilada (635542) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043294)

sites link to YOU!

It's important to remember that when Linking... (4, Funny)

RumGunner (457733) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043298)

You don't forget the Tri-Force.

And don't leave home without your magic boomerang either.

.

Search Engines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043305)

What about search engines such as Google that allow people to deep-link into any site popular enough to be listed? That would count as linking, but I'm sure most of these companies want to be included in search results for their product.

This just in.... (4, Funny)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043313)

Slashdot is the biggest offender of bad linking practices. Its users bring down a stagering 2 million sties a year due to its linking to anything with a "http://" in the address. Kharma Whores are thought to be at the top of the /. list of offenders. Catch the full expose on HardCopy at 9.

Irritating behavior (1)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043323)

If you don't want people reading your web pages and linking to them (or not) on their own initiative then don't publish web pages. Linking is a fundamental characteristic of the web. Objecting to it is like putting up a road-side billboard and then objecting when passing motorists read it ("Oh, but I only intended pedestrians to read my billboard!").

Come to think of it, I can't imagine why the producer of legitimiate information would object to having it linked from other pages in whatever way suits the linking page. So we're once again down to defending the corporation's right to profit. Sigh.

Re:Irritating behavior (2)

PigleT (28894) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043470)

What all you hippie leeches forget is that life is a bit different when you have a personal collection of value-added URIs to be publishing, such as a photo gallery, for example.

At the very least, think before you say "deep linking". Do you mean only an href to a URI whose delivered Content-Type is text/html or text/plain?
Or do you mean to include img src to URIs whose delivered type is image/* as well?

Allowing the latter willy-nilly still comes under *my* idea of "deep linking", and it brings with it responsibility. Not only might my wishes be different to your ideals, but *I*'ve got the costs of bandwidth to be considering, and *I* reserve the right to move / rename / remove the destinations of the links, thereby making *your* pages look crap to everyone else.

Not to mention, sensible people block images coming from different servers to the referring page in the name of blocking adverts, so that won't work reliably anyway.

Now. What exactly do you all mean by "deep linking" and how do you propose measuring and contributing to content providers' bandwidth costs?

Re:Irritating behavior (2)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043533)

Those damned hippie leeches. I put a 600-foot-tall statue of Keynes in the middle of a public square, intending to charge $100 a head to view it. But those friggin' hippies went and told people where it was! My whole business plan was based on nobody finding that out! Now how am I supposed to recoup the cost of building that statue?

Re:Irritating behavior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043530)

Linking is a fundamental characteristic of the web. Objecting to it is like putting up a road-side billboard and then objecting when passing motorists read it ("Oh, but I only intended pedestrians to read my billboard!").

No, linking without permission, especially from places like slashdot where most linked sites cannot handle it and therefore have their services terminated, is more like helping to organize 300,000 of your friends to go to the grocery and taking the free food samples, and you all leave without buying anything. Bandwidth (hosting) costs money and linking against the policy of the site to which you link is taking advantage of someone else's good faith in people. Sure, you can do it and I don't think it should be illegal to go against someone's linking policies but I also think you're an asshole if you do link to someone's site when they tell you not to do so.

Re:Irritating behavior (1)

Nazghal (550040) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043558)

Come to think of it, I can't imagine why the producer of legitimiate information would object to having it linked from other pages in whatever way suits the linking page
Advertising dollars for one thing.. If you deep link to the article/file that you normally have to navigate through several pages of indirect banner add exposure, resulting in them paying bandwidth for your visit, but getting nothing in return Session/tranient based content sites. Providing a deep link, can often lead to potential problems with sites which are session based, while it's ultimately a design problem some sites can get awfully confused when they make the assumption that to be on page x you've already visited a through w to get there. That's two reasons of the top of my head

in old soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043325)

... Here can't link YOU!

On the one hand... (0)

rolux (99682) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043330)

On the one hand, you could add two lines of javascript to your pages, in case you don't want them being linked or framed.

On the other hand, this might cost legions of "internet lawyers" their jobs....

Good Gravy! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043345)


What in the FUCK is up with slashdot tonight?! It's moving slower than a nigger with a shovel! Move this fucking thing back to the east coast or back to whatever closet or basement it was in before.

Where would /. be without cross linking? (5, Interesting)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043360)

I wonder if anyone at /. has considered the implications of restricting cross linking. It's really sad what the Internet is being relegated into. Not do we all have to battle spam, pop-ups (pop-unders), banners and other type of promotions, reducing the average site's visible editorial content down to less than 50% ... P2P is being curtailed of course and cross linking might be illegal at some point or might be so restricted that forums such as /. might risk a law suit or an injunction every time it adds a story.

Is that really what we all envisioned the Web would turn into? It's just further proof that powers in charge do not consider us to be individuals with an intellect but just as simple-minded consumers who must be herded towards maximum profit margin. Sorry for sounding so disenchanted, but when I remember the 'old' Web - I find it just disgusting what this is all turning into...

The last few sentences of his webpage... (5, Funny)

miltimj (605927) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043365)

On occasion a web site will modify its linking policy in response to public ridicule. Perhaps their appearance in Don't Link to Us! will help encourage some of these sites to move forward into the 20th century. (emphasis mine)

But perhaps they've changed their policies in the last 100 years??...

Err...history (1, Informative)

Dr_Ish (639005) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043381)

If my recollection is correct, all this linking silliness was started a few years ago by http://www.ticketmaster.com getting annoyed about deep links to their site. The really silly thing about this whole issue was that the possibility of links is what motivated the very development of the HTTP standards. Do the outfits that want to regulate linking really expect us to turn back the clock? Even the venerable old gopher system encouraged links! What is that old line about folks who forget their history...?

Re:Err...history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043541)

And, Ticketmaster lost. Too bad the Judges in Europe haven't followed this example. Of course, in the US, 2600 was prohibitted from linking, so we're not in the clear yet, either.

the amex site does NOT (2, Informative)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043386)

even mention not linking to them but has a dislcaimer to any third party links they post. Sorkin needs to proof read some of his stuff before posting it...I found numerous mistakes in his posts...

Re:the amex site does NOT (2, Informative)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043568)

Try reading section 8 of the Amex policy, titled "LINKED INTERNET SITES":
American Express prohibits caching, unauthorized hypertext links to the Site and the framing of any Content available through the Site...

if you don't want to be linked.. (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043401)

...then make your site unlinkable(at least no deep linking), or all in flash so no one wants to link to it, or better yet just don't put any interesting information that people would want to link to yur site, kinda like M$.com (ooh that gratuitous microsoft hack)!!

German policies (1)

merauder (518514) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043416)

It seems strange that a country that is openly embracing Linux and the open source movement, also says you cant link to thier sites. What is with that?

Re:German policies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043507)


It means that they learn from their mistakes.

Linking practices.... (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043461)

you know if "they" don't want people linking directly to images or certain pages - it's very easy to set this up...

take a look at game faqs for example and how they don't allow outside links to directly point to there faqs.txt file for games.

any site should be able to link to any site IMHO

Ultimatum? (2)

FleshWound (320838) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043467)

Perhaps the solution to all this nonsense is to get the browser publishers to get together and tell all the webmasters (via press release or what have you) that if they don't stop pissing on the entire PURPOSE of the web, that the referrer functionality will be removed from the browsers, and then they'll NEVER know where their visitors are coming from.

It's obvious these jackasses don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to their asses and elbows, let alone how "teh Intarweb" works. They're not going to listen to reason, so just give them an ultimatum they can't ignore.

Linking can suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5043561)

Take a look ar Drudge Report, the guy contributes an occasional "Hillary Clinton seen jogging" type news story and the rest are pilfered from the major news outlets. The typical visitor probably doesn't even realize the news articles are from outside sources, giving him all the credit as well as the revenues. Sure it's convenient for the reader, but imo the news organizations should be able to opt out of being linked there. I'd rather the stuff remain free.

Why? Is this a particularly bad place to link. (1)

smcavoy (114157) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043585)

This is our website, you cannot link here!

make your site in flash like everyone else (2, Insightful)

netsavior (627338) | more than 11 years ago | (#5043607)

Seriously if you dont want deep linkers just use flash or use some other worthlessly NON-Navigable page designs
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?