Posted on 07/04/2009 10:47:18 PM PDT by Blogger
I thought most internet sites that are open to all comers were happy with linking because it gives them additional traffic—which is what their advertisers want to see.
On the other hand, there are sites which protect some of their content with paid entryways—like the Wall St Journal—for content they think they can sell. Even those sites often have a ‘teaser’ which lets you get a small portion of the content for free in the hopes you will pay to see the rest.
This not only kills the internet but would end any scholarly research. A link is, to me, no more than a foot note in a book or informative paper. Of course, without linking, fewer people would read the article in question and then the drive by media will drive away.
Notice how they point out that he's conservative. There's nothing conservative about violating the first amendment.
Stupid. Linking is like a reference to a book in another book, with the difference that clicking on the link takes you to the other site.
But then I don’t expect any judge to have the faintest concept of what linking means.
I was thinking his proposal would block online catalogs in public libraries from pointing to the location of books on the shelves based on searches for subject, author, title, etc.
Hey, it’d be a hoot if every public library had to get permission from the publisher of every book it owned to enter it into their online catalog.
Another digital Luddite strikes again!
So we can't even talk about something we read?
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.