Re: why newspapers use in-your-face URLs rather than real hyperlinks (deepLinking-25)

On Saturday, January 15, 2005, 4:25:37 PM, Dan wrote:


DC> Maybe everybody else knows this, but it's news to me:

DC> [[The disappearance of hyperlinks from online newspapers is due to a
DC> court case[1] in which the judge ruled that hyperlinks to copyrighted
DC> material were illegal. Although this was a ruling against the 2600  
DC> website, other online newspapers have interpreted this to mean that
DC> they too could be held accountable for links to questionable sites.

Copyright material !== 'questionable' (ie, radical political, or
illegal) material.

DC>  But
DC> note that “the judgment did not specifically prohibit 2600 from  
DC> providing non-hyperlinked URLs of web sites that provide DeCSS”, which
DC> is why you’ll find non-hyperlinked URLs at the end of, for example,
DC> some New York Times articles.]]

Actually, I thought that non-hyperlinked in your face URIs were merely a
means of keeping readers stuck to your site and your ads rather than
someone else's site and their ads.

DC> --  
DC> http://www.decafbad.com/blog/2005/01/09/ 
DC> general_motors_is_blogging#comment-3146

DC> [1] A Review of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in Its First  
DC> Application Against Decryption Software
DC> by Mick Weiland
DC>   http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/fa00/weiland/

DC> Perhaps fodder for our finding...
DC> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking.html

Clearly. It strikes to the heart of the ability to link to any material
one does not own the copyright on. This is because copyright was used as
the lever to bash the DeCSS people.

DC> see also... http://esw.w3.org/topic/PoorMansHypertext





-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group

Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 16:01:11 UTC