RE: [dvd-discuss] NYTimes.com Article: Google Runs Into CopyrightDispute

["Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>]

>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dean Sanchez wrote:

>> If the copyrighted material was sent along with the ad and the link, I
>>would agree.  However, as only a link was sent and not the material, I
>>see no ethical reason for not including the ad.  Else we go down the road
>>(which a number of sites are trying to do) of stating that linking to a
>>copyrighted site without permission (as search engines also do) is a
>>violation of copyright.

>I can't even believe anyone even considers this or has to think about it
>for more than 1 second.  It's the equivilent of me saying "If you want to
>mention the name "Noah's Tire Shop", you have to include in your sentence
>", by the way, they have a great sale on tires, buy 3, get 1 free!".

I agree.  I didn't proof my sentence very well after writing it.  It should have read "I
see no ethical reason for including the ad when I send a link to a site."  I'm not sending copyrighted material, just a link to where to find the material.

However, there a currently a number of cases being litigated where the plaintiffs are alleging copyright infringement for "deep linking" to a site.  Of course, there is no difference between linking and  "deep linking". However, to someone without technical background, this type of artificial difference sounds valid.