Re: back door

Ivan-

         Lets do some education to relieve my naivety and ill informedness:

http://www.businessweek.com/ebiz/0007/ep0731.htm

"Most attorneys think that courts will wind up deeming the practice (deep 
linking) to be generally permissible. However, they also think there will 
be some circumstances where deep-linking is likely to be eventually outlawed."

And to continue that thought:

"One of these situations is where the target Web site, on its "Terms and 
Conditions" page, clearly prohibits the practice."
"Another circumstance where deep-linking is likely to be prohibited is 
where the company doing the linking misleads consumers..."

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/kubiszyn-2000-05b-p1.html
Specifically-
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/kubiszyn-2000-05b-p5.html

"Although the news reports on the Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com case have 
enthusiastically proclaimed that the controversy is over, that deep linking 
is okay, Judge Hupp's ruling hardly lays forth a road map telling us when 
we can, and, more importantly, when we cannot, deep link. Clearly, Judge 
Hupp leaves open the possibility for a claim of copyright infringement and 
unfair competition in cases where the user could be confused as to the 
source of content or be oblivious to the fact that he had been linked into 
the interior of another site."

Further...

"It is highly unlikely that a single, short opinion on a motion to dismiss 
will conclusively determine the issues involved in deep linking."
"The Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com case is important, but we are a long way 
from a definitive road map on how and when we can employ deep linking."

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/04/cyber/cyberlaw/07law.html

"When a federal judge issued a decision last week in a case involving "deep 
linking," many reports suggested that the controversial Internet practice 
was now unambiguously legal. But the story is more complex than that. In 
fact, deep linking -- the practice of linking to a page deep inside another 
Web site, bypassing its home page -- still appears to be in legal limbo."

"Indeed, it can fairly be said that Judge Hupp left the door open for a 
link-averse Web operator to ban linking via a contract that a Web surfer is 
forced to agree to before being allowed to enter a site."

         Anyway there is a smattering for my education, Ivan.  Naive and 
ill-informed....? From many of the comments above, it seems that my idea is 
supported. Yes you could say the current legal viewpoint recommends being 
careful about deep linking, in certain situations. However, the greater 
dicussion does not in any way unequivocally say "Linking should *always* be 
done with the permission of the linked site." That idea is in fact referred 
to, and opposed, when the judge delineates situations in which you should 
ask for permission, but gives a tenuous "green light" to others.
         Anyway, I hope that all you web developers out there will read the 
above articles and more. They certainly say something is going on in the 
deep linking area. However, it is not cut and dry. You can still exert your 
personal opinion.

-Stephen Johnston


At 08:06 AM 11/10/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>At 10:05 AM 11/10/00 -0500, Stephen Johnston wrote:
>
>
> >Ivan-
> >
> >         Not to start Ivan bashing, but this is a legal load of
> >hooey.  Never get permission to link, unless you have something to gain,
> >like mutual linking.
>
>What can I tell you all?  The law is what the law is and I am explaining
>this to you.  If you want to continue to be naive and ill informed, that's
>your choice.  Fortunately, my clients know better.
>
>
>
>IVAN HOFFMAN, B.A., J.D.
>Attorney At Law
>Lawyering With Integrity (sm)
>Internet Law, Copyrights, Trademarks, Publishing Law, Corporate Training
>and Online Education Law, Web Design Law, Recording and Music Law.  *A 5
>Times Award-Winning Site.* http://www.ivanhoffman.com

HTML: hwg-business mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA