Do they also sue people for word-of-mouth referrals?
Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#22I think the issue of it being a charity is irrelevant and shouldn't be an issue at all. I don't want to see charities "allowed" to link to others and everyone else not allowed.
This is just links. How does the World Wide Web work without linking? It doesn't.
What is the current legal status of linking? In the past it's been considered fair use.
The Belgian Google case mentioned elsewhere here was one where they were upset over the caching, text excerpts and thumbnail photos and not the raw links. At least there, there is a question to evaluate if it is fair use or not.
If referencing articles through hyperlinks is determined to be a copyright violation, then it is also a copyright violation to cite sources in the footnotes of an academic paper.
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#23I think the issue of it being a charity is irrelevant and shouldn't be an issue at all. I don't want to see charities "allowed" to link to others and everyone else not allowed. This is just links. How does the World Wide Web work without linking? It doesn't. What is the current legal status of linking? In the past it's been considered fair use. The Belgian Google case mentioned elsewhere here was one where they were…
I'm wondering if it were okay for Newspaper Licensing Ireland to write "cf. yesterday's paper, first article on page 8" without obtaining a license. If so, linking should be okay, too.
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#24Do Irish news organisations link from articles on their sites to content out on the net? What sort of license/permission do they obtain before linking to Youtube, a blog, etc?
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#25Since there's no details in the article at all, I'm going to guess that the charity was hotlinking content from the archive's servers into the middle of their own webpage. This is generally bad manners on the internet.
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#26If a newspaper doesn't want an incoming link, why don't they just block traffic that comes from a referring site? They could whitelist the sites that have paid the appropriate fee, and every other link redirects to some page claiming the link was "illegal."
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#27Since there's no details in the article at all, I'm going to guess that the charity was hotlinking content from the archive's servers into the middle of their own webpage. This is generally bad manners on the internet.
I wouldn't guess that. The newspaper industry is pretty well known for malarkey like this. A few years back the American newspaper industry famously accused Google of ripping them off by including their stories in its SERPs without paying them.
A couple of references:
http://searchengineland.com/google-testifies-before-senate-a...
http://searchengineland.com/would-someone-please-explain-to-...
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#28Since there's no details in the article at all, I'm going to guess that the charity was hotlinking content from the archive's servers into the middle of their own webpage. This is generally bad manners on the internet.
I wouldn't guess that. The newspaper industry is pretty well known for malarkey like this. A few years back the American newspaper industry famously accused Google of ripping them off by including their stories in its SERPs without paying them. A couple of references: http://searchengineland.com/google-testifies-before-senate-a... http://searchengineland.com/would-someone-please-explain-to-...
I could actually understand that, since Google actually copied their text and was selling ads next to the copied text.
Re: Charity asked to pay just to link to newspaper websites
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't guess that. The newspaper industry is pretty well known for malarkey like this. A few years back the American newspaper industry famously accused Google of ripping them off by including their stories in its SERPs without paying them. A couple of references: http://searchengineland.com/google-testifies-before-senate-a... http://searchengineland.com/would-someone-please-explain-to-...
I could actually understand that, since Google actually copied their text and was selling ads next to the copied text.
Not really. Iff the newspaper allowed it in its robots.txt, Google would copy the page title and a short description of the page. This is the same thing every search engine does with every page on the Internet. Google did not copy the actual articles and sell ads next to them. The newspapers' Web teams even knew their publishers were talking crap, which is why they didn't just delist themselves and stop complaining about it.
(Full disclosure: I work on newspaper sites. I was actually one of the people who had to have the "Well, we could opt out" "BUT THEN WE'D LOSE ALL OUR TRAFFIC!" conversation.)