A Story on the NY Times goes
into some depth on how tricky the laws are regarding
linking on the Web.
\”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
Website, bypassing its home page — still appears to be
in legal limbo.\”
A Story on the NY Times goes
into some depth on how tricky the laws are regarding
linking on the Web.
\”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
Website, bypassing its home page — still appears to be
in legal limbo.\”Some media reports on the decision emphasized
Judge Hupp\’s comment that \”hyperlinking does not
itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it
might do for other claims) since no copying is involved.\”
And in another part of his opinion, Judge Hupp
concluded that \”deep linking by itself (i.e., without
confusion of source) does not necessarily involve unfair
competition.\”
These comments appear to suggest that linking has a
green light, at least as far as Hupp is concerned. But
viewed in the context of the entire ruling, the statements
are quite limited. For one thing, Ticketmaster did not
claim in its complaint that deep linking was copyright
infringement, so the court\’s comment in that regard
was not greatly meaningful.
Recent Comments