Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: I Require Permission

Author:Bruce Wyman
Posted:9/3/1999; 4:02:00 AM
Topic:Automated deep linking
Msg #:10491 (In response to 10474)
Prev/Next:10490 / 10492

It's very different, in fact it's the mirror-image of the InfoWorld policy, and derived from their old policy. If, after deliberating, InfoWorld left their original policy in place, I had decided that I would not link to them. In other words, I required permission.

I don't follow this logic.

Here's the way that I see it: 1. Infoworld, until recently, required permission for people to link to their content.

2. People thought that was absurd. The very nature of the web is that you can link everywhere and it's one of the great strengths of the web.

3. Much lobbying and discussion ensued, Infoworld changed their policy to more accurately reflect the general nature of the web vs. the real world. The net result is that a person can now link to Infoworld's stories.

4. Now, we learn that there are autmated tools, scrapers, that are linking to content without author's permissions. It's not stealing the actual content, just the title (a link) and maybe creating a short summarization.

5. Why would someone object? Isn't this the same thing as linking to an infoworld story except that it's being done automatically?

Is the point here that an individual linking to specific stories is okay but the line doesn't extend to the point that an automated agent linking to a bunch of stories isn't okay?

I keep trying to think of a real world analogy...

Don't. :-)

Heh, reminds me of a parent answering their child's question by saying, "Because...", which always seemed like weak logic when growing up.

Please, go back to my previous post and help me understand the difference between this issue and the real world services of a news clipping organization.



There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:52:22 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.