04-23-2018 04:59 AM
The way I read this the problem is that he linked directly to a webcast rather than to a web page, i.e. it was a "deep link."
Based on that I wonder how we're supposed to know how deep is too deep? With some content it might be fairly clear -- a link to a photo or movie rather than to the page containing that photo or movie can make it unclear to the viewer who owns the content.
But what if the content in question is primarily text on an html page? If a story is on an html page and you link to it, is that a deep link or not? What if on the original site that web page is generally displayed inside a frame, and the frame has advertising around it? Does that make a difference?
And how would one know? You might link to a page and the site later embeds that page in a frame in order to put advertising around it. Did your link suddenly become an illegal deep link instead of a legal link?
Does the text of the judge's ruling would shed some light on these questions and give guidelines?
Any help will be apprecited.
I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.