Needed: Judges who aren't clueless

If you put content up in an accessible location, you are allowing it to be linked to.
If you put your car in an accessible location, you are allowing it to be vandalised/stolen/... that doesn't mean that vandalism or theft is right or legal.

Comment by James Robertson

The web isn't your house, or your car. The web works via linking, and it's well understood how they work. If you don't want content linked to, you don't make it accessible.

Actually, in the car/house analogy, it is the user who's clicking the link that's the villain. The link itself is just a piece of information - it's like if someone said "house X is locked, but you can find the key under flowerpot Y". It is the user's browser that interprets this information and follows the link. Therefore the user should be sued and put in jail! [/sarcasm]

The web works via linking, and it's well understood how they work. If you don't want content linked to, you don't make it accessible.
If you don't want VWNC to be used commercially, don't make it accessible.

Um. This "vandal" notion is plain silly. The site with a URL is not touching anyone's property. And even those who click on the url are merely *reading* the bits in the prescribed manner. Where has vandalism occurred?

As James wrote, if you don't want someone reading your bits directly, then put in a level of indirection from just the places you control yourself.

Shesh. Really! Is it the 21st century yet?

The judge may need a clue, but he is in league with many. Before he rules on internet issues, he should make sure to consult several experts or recuse himself.

But moreover, the plaintiff is the one in need of the biggest cluestick. 

Comment by James Robertson

Isaac

It looks like reading and comprehension are not your strong suits. Products have licenses. Some allow limited installations (but have no check against such usage). Your analogies are stupid. Try, just once, to not gainsay other people just for the sake of doing so.

I don't know if we've got the best possible remedy here, but I think there's more gray area here than the zealots will admit. Anyway here's some more silly examples...

• If you don't want spam, don't put up a comment page, or have an email address.
• If you don't want people with telescopes looking in you windows, don't build houses with windows.
• If you don't want to be bothered with the neighbor's loud stereo, build a sound-proof bubble around your house.
• If you don't want your servers to be vulnerable against denial of service attacks, don't make the accessable to the public.
• ...

Products have licenses. Some allow limited installations (but have no check against such usage).

Websites are protected by copyright. You can certainly have terms of use for websites. Why couldn't you include a "no-deep-linking" clause in your website's terms of use? Are you thinking it is a fair use issue?

U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis

Raise your hand if you know how hard it is to get a preliminary injunction against something. I seems to recall that there's only the "plantiff" who presents information, and if time pressure warrants it, an immediate but time-limited injunction can be granted. But there will be another hearing where the "defendent" will get to argue his side of the case. Then maybe, eventually, a court date will be set, a trial will happen, and the issue will be settled. Any lawyers here?

James wrote It looks like reading and comprehension are not your strong suits.
LOL! Look in a mirror.

James wrote Products have licenses. Some allow limited installations (but have no check against such usage).
Yes James your right to use something is governed by copyright and license, for example the www.ft.com COPYRIGHT and the www.ft.com TERMS & CONDITIONS - websites as-well-as products.

So we should never have laws against any social problems that could possibly be solved by technical means?  Have you thought this one through?  One dumb analogy deserves another...

• If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively
• If you didn't want to be called by telemarketers, you should have an unlisted number.
• A carport without a door is an invitation for random strangers to park their cars there.

<<Websites are protected by copyright. You can certainly have terms of use for websites. Why couldn't you include a "no-deep-linking" clause in your website's terms of use? Are you thinking it is a fair use issue?>>

 Well, I am no lawyer, but I would suppose the content of a website could be copyrighted (obvious), but also that the text of a url could be considered essentially a small "quote" from that copyrighted source. Copyright does not protect small quotes in any way as far as I know.

Neither does copyright to my knowledge cover anything resembling "execution" of a computer program, e.g. using quoted text to do an HTTP request to read something corresponding to the url. 

 

Comment by James Robertson

Linkable sites on the web are - by design - intended to be linked to. That's the way they are intended to operate. Pushing a public site up and then complaining about links is like hanging a sign out that says "take as many as you want" and then being offended when all the items get taken.

Patrick Logan wrote Well, I am no lawyer, but ...
I am no lawyer, maybe there's a chance that a U.S. District Judge has a better knowledge of the law than either of us.

I suspect most readers of this blog are technically savvy, and in particular are savvy with software technology, and even more so, savvy with web components beyond even browsers. i.e. many readers I suspect understand how a web server works if they've not actually coded for one or even installed one.

Can it be that the people with these truly unexpected analogies really don't get the web after all? Is this condemning our ability to reason generally? (the judge might fall into this category?)

I am simply shocked, shocked, that people would compare putting a url on a web page with breaking-and-entering and rape.

I can see the reasoning behind the telephone and telemarketer analogy. In that case I agree, I've made my number available, and anyone can call me, even a salessperson. That's bordering on rude, certainly annoying, but not illegal to my knowledge. I may be able to sign up on a list that would reduce the number of salespeople. And maybe it is reasonable for someone to say, "please don't deep link. we want to control access. we will put those links behind a barrier and you should not count on them."

 

Comment by James Robertson

Hmm:

I am no lawyer, maybe there's a chance that a U.S. District Judge has a better knowledge of the law than either of us.

Shall we just assume that judges are infallible then? How do you explain various precedents being overturned as time passes?

James Robertson wrote Shall we just assume that judges are infallible then? How do you explain various precedents being overturned as time passes?
We should no more assume that judges are infallible than we would assume that you are infallible.

We might assume that they have a better knowledge of the law than you do. Given what you've already written that seems a very safe assumption.

Isaac wrote a bunch of stuff about the infallibilty of judges and their knowledge of law.

So just what is your point?  Ignoring sarcasm and personal digs you are basically saying that judges have more knowledge about the law than the lay person and that judges can make mistakes.  So what?  How does this apply to this judge with all his law background (and maybe no knowledge of the internet) who made an incorrect ruling.  Of course, there really isn't a whole lot of law about the internet, so maybe the judge just made the ruling up.

Clearly physical assult, theft, and battery can't compair in any way to the possibilty of copyright violations.  Let's try this analogy on for size:

You put a book in a library, but then refuse to allow entry of the book into the card catalog. 

James, I think you should reconsider your position and publicly agree with Isaac.  You should do so on a number of other points, too.

Not because you're wrong, but because if you quit arguing with him, there's a chance he'll go away.

Just give it some consideration; that's all I'm asking. 

Ok I think the problem here is that people are arguing totally different points.  James Robertson is asking the question "What is the appropriate public policy for linking" and then saying the judge is stupid because he did not implement the correct public policy.  Isaac Gouy is asking "What is the legally correct answer" and pointing out that the judge know what is legally correct.  However what is legally correct and what is correct public policy are two different things.