W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2007

Re: XHTML2.0 - transclusion

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:12:10 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200701242312.l0ONCAD00714@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

> As far as I can tell, the attempt to prevent deep linking is motivated
> by 1) loss of advertizing revenues and 2) loss of the end-user's tacit
> agreement to terms of service on the original site.

I think 1) needs generalising to include bypassing the sales pitch and
therefore losing product/service revenue.  For example, I don't think
that the no deep linking condition on the UK D* optician's site is 
about advertising revenue.

Another important reason, is that deep links can be used to criticise a
company and I get the impression that companies believe such restrictions
override the fair use/dealing permissions to physically quote, which
would require some sort of deep link to the source (in the UK, at least),
although not necessarily in machine processable form (UK fair dealing
usually requires that the original source be credited).  IANAL.

I suspect though, that in many cases, this is a FUD exercise, in the
same way it is said that large companies patent the obvious and rely on
the cost of a challenge being too high.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 23:32:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:14 UTC