Should linking be illegal?

It makes more sense to outlaw or diminish what is legal to quote than to make linking illegal. Linking takes you to the site and allows them the chance to show you more and to collect eyeballs for advertising revenue.

Journalism professors are suspect for me because of two reason.

The first is that they won't have a job as citizen journalists do the job for the so-called "pro" journalist and, secondly, that the state of journalism is so poor as it is that any opinion that comes from them is suspect for me.

Take Global Warming, for example.

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek acts as if it were obvious that it was true, yet she has no scientific training at all and, as far as I am concerned, is completely unqualified to render any opinion on the subject whatsoever, other than to mouth the opinions of others who are, in fact, experts.

This is not just true there but in every aspect of controversy today in science, medicine, economics and all the major cultural questions as well.

I mean, where is the intellectual beef, let alone the emotional intelligence to use it well?

I guess if this judge had his way it would be the end of sites like NP?

This is another chink that is being weged out of the armor of the people (the constitution).  If this ruling is upheld it will forever change the news landscape, & I don't see how it can improve the quality of our news.  The whole reason for having freedom of spech is for public discorce of current events, this discorce is what binds people together, we find out that we all tend to have the same basic wants & desires, we make friends.

This allows diffrent peoples to work together with a common ideal, for the betterment of all man

Posner's position is gathering a great deal of discussions among journalism professors in the US. 

great post, thanks. I have not heard of the plans to bar linking before. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.

When you "call out" the address of an interesting site on the street corner (functional equivalent of a simple "go to" link on a page) then you are not supplying any copyrighted material, and copyright law cannot apply.  No such future law prohibiting the described behaviour could work unless we stopped talking to one another altogether. (Albeit a little peace and quiet sounds good)

Maybe, what is in question in view of the judge's opinion is not the simple "go to" type of linking, but instead the "in-place" display of linked material.  Recent technology advances make this easier (AJAX) even on simple sites, and the result is that the linked material does not take you to the author's site, but instead shows the remote author's material on a site which has not been granted specific permission to display the original works  (separately from the original author's site)

Whether or not such a thing as "in place" display of linked material is an abridgment of copyright law or not, is dependent upon the normal rules for copyright, as have been long defined by international agreement.

Generally, there a "fair use" privilege is granted for linked in material, if the material represents a short quote, or a longer paraphrase of the original work, meant to act as a synopsis of same.

So, what is short? That is the magic question, and may be what the judge could clarify, but there exists a large amount of case history and precedent that applies to various types of copyrighted material.  For instance, in the world of software, the copyrighted work must itself be substantial (usually a hundred lines minimum),  and any copyright abridgement must describe the direct use of a significant portion of the work, verbatim, or close.

For images, there are another set of precedents.  Because of the vagueness and creativity involved, it has always been a difficult area to analyze, and the only foolproof tool for determining abridgment usually is, unfortunately, a court battle.

BTW: I'm not a lawyer, so this is not advice, it is opinion.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee wants everyone to upload our raw data, and link freely to it. He invented html and made if free to the public. Still, a majority of people want to copyright everything. The battle goes on, and  –freedom is another word for nothing left to lose. :)

I like the choice to use the highlight tool for this article. Very Rebellious.

I am not sure exactly how to post as all my attempts to use the web/internet/even my own online account were taken over since 2005 (that I am aware).  The following response previous makes sense and would possibly apply in my case:  Maybe, what is in question in view of the judge's opinion is not the simple "go to" type of linking, but instead the "in-place" display of linked material.  Recent technology advances make this easier (AJAX) even on simple sites, and the result is that the linked material does not take you to the author's site, but instead shows the remote author's material on a site which has not been granted specific permission to display the original works  (separately from the original author's site)

All my original academic and artistic works were stolen while groups of peole went about slandering me online and off until there is nowehere for me to go where I am not the recipient of inexplicable and hostile actions.  I am mob stalked wherever I go; mob stalking is not an urban myth. These crimes and more have been committed against me and continue.  I understand that still today there are those in law enforcement who have linked some writings they have acquired and passed about, saying these are about or from me, never concerning themselves with the harm they were placing on and against me, which to this day I cannot end.   I understand these writings to have been attributed to me, although it was evident that for a very long time, I had experienced extensive problems with email/puter hacking.  My attempts to report these crimes and mob stalking were ignored.   I believe that it is these kinds of misuses of the internet, computer document/email theft/ID theft/impersonation that the judicial system is trying to address.  And the real test, as someone stated previous, is in whether or not the stolen writings are true?  And just who decides what is true?  This shouldn't be the only test for web use of any document.  The real test should reside within the author to decided whether to allow web use of any data or documents.  Personal and confidential documents that appear on the web, regardless of how they got there, shoud be removed from that website immediately.  If the culprit is identifiable, then that person or entities should be punished to the full extent of the law.  If no law exists for this type of crime, then one should be immediately created.  I am experiencing much electronic harrassment after four-five years of continual mob stalking!  The crimes have not been addressed yet, because it is government that began these intrusions--before 9/11.  I cannot possibly change what was done to me; but I can recreate it for you, if you are interested.  When I set up a site for support of those targeted individuals of mob stalking, it disappears.  I try to set up confidential email, it is read before I receive it.  I can't tell you how many cell phones/chargers, computers/videocamcorders/cameras/even food and neccessities have been stolen from me...but maybe it's time to try.  Perhaps I am wrong; yet, I don't believe this Judge is trying to stop connections to official news, but those kinds of connections that are illegal and immoral in every sense of the rights of the individual, and his/her right to privacy.

I can understand a valid concern by a website if an AJAX or iframe type of embedded link is used to make an article appear to have been written on another website. 

However it is another matter altogether to make it illegal to link to a news site and pass on website visitor traffic direct to the original site.  That is foolishness. 

The more external websites that provide a link to an article on another site, it creates a higher ranking and credibility with internet search engines such as Google, which in turn raises the profile of the original material .  This only benefits the original author and website. 

It assists the process that search engines use to generate more accurate, credible and useful results to display in response to searches.

I hope that more thought and research goes into this before the judge makes a final ruling.

Neil.

http://abrahamemdia.com

Well, I saw that one coming and yet I hope that it will never pass in this form or any related form.

Still, the EU, the US and others may very well move into that direction. The question would be what then?

Can it be prevented? 

Should it be implemented in any form? 

....

Thank you for the Post on this G.D.

Perhpaps you all would be instrumental in helping to determine the details of a law, should it exist and how to prevent that law from limiting free speech, valid news stories and the links to them.  I guess I sound pretty naive; but couldn't you write the Judge?  I have been watching the various newspaper boards change members so that these certain members eventually gain a larger stake in the business.  I often wonder how much this affects news now and in the future, as these companies own larger shares of many different forms of media.  Unfiortunately, the newspapers seem to be about its loss of revenue, as people rely more often on the net.  I apologize for my overwhelming response earlier.