Comments on: make my day, bill-ites https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912 2002-2015 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:21:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 By: kuri https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9607 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:21:49 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9607 A not very well known political commentator complained about a Wikipedia article about them, writing in part that we had no right to write about the person without their permission.

]]> By: Cleocin https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9606 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:45:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9606 I have never seen anything like this before and I am wondering if it’s legal and how it may hurt my website in the future, since Google puts so much emphasis on who and in which context links to your website. Casodex – Order Casodex Online. Did anybody ever have any success in writing to Google and asking them to remove such links from their index?

]]> By: lessie https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9605 Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:07:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9605 Obviously “anybody can link to anybody”, but…
A couple of days ago, I was doing my routine research on who and in which context links to my website. What i found was quite a shock: my homepage (full title, website description and full url in Google index format) and many other pages link to an obscure website about “how to have sex” with dozens of links to hard core porn sites. I did “whois” on the domain and it turned out that the domain name uses illegal characters (?), but it is nevertheless listed in Google index (??)

I have never seen anything like this before and I am wondering if it’s legal and how it may hurt my website in the future, since Google puts so much emphasis on who and in which context links to your website. Did anybody ever have any success in writing to Google and asking them to remove such links from their index?

Thanks a lot.

]]> By: Bob https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9604 Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:40:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9604 I think the threats are just an attempt to take advantgage of what may be perceived as “public ignorance.” the truth is that anyone can link to anything, and it’s actually a form of speech, and I argue protected by the constitution.

]]> By: Bryan Seigneur https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9603 Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:49:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9603 The link is clearly pointing to a real O’Reilly article. Bill is never so calm and he never even seems to be clearly conveying the facts in his usual diatribes! This is clearly a forgery and perhaps that is what the nastygrams are about.

;p

]]> By: Max Lybbert https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9602 Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:31:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9602 I’ve been on hiatus for a while, so I appologize for being late to the party.

Not trying to defend the concept of “unauthorized linking” (as it seems that any material intentionally posted online is implicitly licensed for linking purposes, but I’m no lawyer), I believe Lighthouse Ministries v Intellectual Reserve does extend copyright law to linking.

Then again, in the Lighthouse Ministries case, the material online wasn’t put there by the copyright holder. In this case, the blog is linking to material O’Reilly put up intentionally.

]]> By: Anonymous https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9601 Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:57:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9601 Three blind mice – “unauthorized linking” isn’t something created by this blog’s author. It’s a direct quote from the cease and desist letter sent by O’Reilly’s syndicators. I’m curious as to what their theory is – maybe something along the lines of contributory copyright infringement, but Lessig certainly isn’t twisting the issue.

PS: blog comment spam is the worst. It seems that Anny chen has figured something out.

]]> By: Jean-Fr�d�ric Carter https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9600 Wed, 09 Mar 2005 05:59:47 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9600 Christina –
Good one!

]]> By: Christina https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9599 Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:05:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9599 I doubt that any lawyer really believes he can prevent linking; but I’ve encountered more than enough lawyers who are willing to make frivolous claims and threats, in the hopes that people will bully easily.

And they wonder why people tell lawyer jokes.

By the way, did you know that if a lawyer takes viagra, he gets taller?

]]> By: James Day https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2912#comment-9598 Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:31:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/make_my_day_billites.html#comment-9598 Yes, Google should have the right to link “coca-cola” to the Pepsi home page, in a wide variety of ways. For example, ad placements where the use of the key word is to ensure that the ads appear adjacent to the correct content. Or in its own blog if it wants to express the view that people who are interested in Coca-Cola should be visiting Pepsi.

I made exactly that sort of expressive use of links not going to a trademark holder in comments on the Louis Vuitton decision.

Do you think I shouldn’t be allowed to express those views simply because someone has registered a trademark?

]]>