[LINK] Legality of Linking, incl. 'Deep Linking'

[Eric Scheid]

On 1/4/03 5:21 PM, "Ivan Trundle" <ivan.trundle at alia.org.au> wrote:
> The concept of having linear links into a website that require 'click here to
> agree' displays breathtaking arrogance (or ignorance) on the part of the
> website designer.
 
That some content should be partitioned isn't arrogance, but you're not
saying that it is (I think).

> If it *IS* possible to 'bypass' such important pages, then the site has failed
> from both a user perspective, and from a business-rules perspective.

Fully agree here, from a UCD web developer POV.

On the other hand, could your argument be twisted to say that if you don't
implement *technological* measures which prevent me copying and reproducing
your content, that I could then freely ignore your copyright statement?

(yes, I am mixing linking and copyright, and yes, they are not equivalent)
 
> My view is that it is entirely possible to construct failsafe pages that only
> deliver upon a display (reading and comprehension is another matter entirely!)
> of the 'conditions' of entry.

It is possible, though a tad trickier than simply slapping pages onto a web
server*. It may not be possible under some third party hosting contexts, and
the details would differ from host to host depending on what the backend is.
In practice, not really an option for the mug punter and his website.

Is protection against deep linking therefore only available to those with
deep pockets, and not as a general principle?

e.

* There are a client-side only methods, mostly involving javascript,
cookies, or even embedding within Flash. Should cause any problems or
complaints, right?