I’ve written about hyperlinks before. I have argued that it is absolutely ludicrous that some websites want to prevent you from deep linking to content on their websites, or mandate special conditions for hyperlinking. I sent dozens of requests to such sites asking for permission to link to their sites. I was honored, but more than slightly amused, when I received a formal permission to link to the website of the government of Australia. Here it is again, a friggin government approved link!

Only one request was explicitly denied, the others never replied to my requests.

According to Tim Berners-Lee, on the web, to make reference without making a link is possible “but ineffective – like speaking but with a paper bag over your head.“

Linking is not only our fundamental right, it’s our duty. Not linking to relevant sources causes extreme frustration in most readers. I find it incredible that most online newspapers don’t link to external sites at all. Some, like engadget.com, even have a perverse habit of linking only to their own stories, whereas bloggers usually utilize a sane habit of linking.

I stumbled upon this article by John C. Dvorak. He argues (and quite rightly so) that overlinking is probably better than null-linking. He also discusses the concept of dimensional linking – the idea of different levels of links that can be turned on or off with the browser.

This would be a great idea for many sites, but no doubt difficult to implement without making it overly complex. Imagine a blog, where you could hide all unnecessary links with just one click, leaving only the really important links visible. Now wouldn’t that be awesome!

Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2006 8:03 PM
To: Australia Gov
Subject: Australia.gov.au General Inquiry

Request permission to link to australia.gov.au from a non-government organisation

Howdy,
According to http://www.australia.gov.au/about-this-site non-government websites are required to obtain a permission from Australia.gov.au Manager in order to link to the australia.gov.au site.

I hereby request a permission to link to australia.gov.au from my site (http://finnmetal.com/blog).

I understand that by linking to australia.gov.au I must not contravene government policy, use australia.gov.au solely for commercial practices or imply that the Australian Government endorses the website or product.

Sincerely,
Lauri Rantala, FinnMetal.com

I had also sent requests to Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic and other big companies, which all demand that you seek permission prior to establishing a link to their site, but never heard from them. So why do these companies make such demands, if they are never even going to handle your request? Tero Tilus explains: “Why not spray a website with demands if there is not going to be any consequences?”.

I was therefore surprised to actually receive a response from the Australian government:

Hello

Thank you for forwarding your inquiry to www.australia.gov.au.

Yes, you have permission to link to www.australia.gov.au. Please adhere to our linking policy – http://www.australia.gov.au/about-this-site#linking.

Regards
Kathy

Awesome! I may now place a government approved link to australia.gov.au! Ain’t that something. So here goes:
– The government of Australia, Govenment approved link.

That was so cool, I’m going to start collecting government approved links on my website

The Australian government however requests that all non-government organisations seek permission in order to link to austalia.gov.au. If granted permission, you must not “contravene government policy” or “provide a link to australia.gov.au from a site that is not in the public interest”. My blog is definately not in the public interest, but I sent them a request anyway. If they ever reply I’ll post it here. Meanwhile I’ll think of a way to effectively contaravene Australian government policy.

The website of the UK government states that “In entering our site you as a user (‘You’) are accepting our terms and conditions” – but as a citizen of Finland I’m thinking whether I have to accept anything from the UK government. They encourage linking to their site but add some restrictions, such as “[you must not] allow a pop-up to appear simultaneously with Directgov content”. They also mention that “If we contact you to remove your links to Directgov, you must do so immediately”. So will the bobbies soon be knocking on my door?

Unlike governments, universities are usually aware of netiquette. So too is the National University of Singapore:

The University supports and encourages good Netiquette. The University should be informed of links from external websites. However, the University reserves the right to require the removal of any links from external websites to the NUS website. Deep linking to NUS web pages is prohibited – any links created by the user to the University’s website should be text links containing our domain name and which transfer other visitors directly to our homepage.

By defining their own netiquette, these guys are right on the cutting edge of Internet technology! Seriously, what good is a university website if you can’t deep link to its resources?

Third topic today is guns and I’ll tell you straight away what I think – I fucking hate guns! Whether used for combat, self defence, hunting or target practice, guns just suck. Now check out the Armalon Ltd firearms dealer (UK). You might at this point not be surprised to hear that they don’t want any unauthorized links to their website:

Armalon welcomes the creation of authorised links to the home page of this site. However, in recognition of the potential damage that could occur to Armalon’s reputation if this site were to be associated with another site of unsuitable content, you may not create un-authorised links to any part of this site. If you would like to create a link to this site, please contact Armalon by email to obtain prior agreement to the link. By establishing a link of any kind to this site, you agree to be bound by all Terms and Conditions for the use of this site. [...] You may not create deep links into this site without prior agreement from Armalon.

I can imagine what potential damage unauthorized links could do – no more profit from selling arms to murderers, rebels and terrorists… No more innocent animals dying by the hand of bloodthirsty hunters… It would be just horrible if an arms dealer’s reputation was damaged. What about deep links from sites that contain unsuitable content? That could potentially cripple an entire industry. Imagine for example, a website that rants “don’t buy guns”, yet contains deep links to an arms dealer’s products? So hear me out kids – don’t buy guns from these motherfuckers! Yeah, I sent them a request to authorize my links. Can’t wait to hear what they have to say.

Update: My request to link to Armalon was bluntly refused. Still waiting from australia.gov.au.

It is difficult to emphasize how important these issues are for society. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for example, addresses the right to speak. The right to make reference to something is inherent in that right. On the web, to make reference without making a link is possible but ineffective – like speaking but with a paper bag over your head. [Link Myths]

Now some companies think different about this. Take Sony for example. On the Sony VAIO website’s terms of use (TOU) they claim that:

You must seek and obtain the written consent the operator of this site before creating any link to this site. Deep linking is strictly prohibited. All authorised links to this site must be to the home page of the site, must make it clear that this site and the Site content are distinct from the website containing the link and must make it clear that this site is owned and/or operated by Sony.

You need a written consent in order to link to their site? So according to the TOU I’m not allowed to make a deep link to this product for example? Now that’s bs like.no.other. In the real world, you may link to any site you want and to any page within a site (although there is some dispute about direct linking). With regards to deep linking, the W3C Technical Architecture Group asserts that:

…any attempt to forbid the practice of deep linking is based on a misunderstanding of the technology, and threatens to undermine the functioning of the Web as a whole. ["Deep linking" in the World Wide Web]

So why does Sony think that they can restrict users in this way? Well you didn’t read the fine print before viewing their site. See in their TOU it say that:

If you do not agree to any of these Terms (or any such other rules, guidelines etc.), you may not use this site.

If you look around, all big evil corporate websites have such a disclaimer, followed by absurd restrictions and limitations. Well I’ve got bad news for Sony. These kinds of TOUs are not legally binding. So I may in fact use their site in any way I please without fear of infringment, so long as I don’t break any national laws. But the Sony TOU gets stranger still:

You agree not to access this site by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Sony for use in accessing the site.

Do they mean the front page? Or the web browser? In any case, I have the right to access the website via whatever interface I desire. I can download the website with wget and grep through the contents if I want to, or I can just view the site with Firefox. CNN is guilty of a similar restriction, they want you to “access the Services manually by request and not programmatically by macro or other automated means.” CNN is not going to like this CLI command:

$ wget -R http://cnn.com

Back to Sony, somebody please tell me what the next bit of their TOU means:

Access to, and use of this site, including … [viewing, downloading, displaying etc.] is prohibited unless specifically permitted in these Terms.

So according to the TOU you are not even allowed to use the site at all, unless specifically permitted. Wow, now that’s pretty strict! It gets better though. They’ve found an ingenious way to fight spam:

[...] you agree to pay Sony 5 Euros for each item of ‘spam’ sent through your User account in breach of these Terms.

If anyone from Sony is reading this, know that you are required to send me a bag of peanuts for each paragraph you have read. If you don’t agree with my TOU, that’s too bad, ‘cos my TOU says that you may not leave this site without the written consent of me or my agents! This is a legally binding document, so start sending those peanuts! Really, by viewing this blog you agree to whatever rules and regulations I might come up with. Next week it could be bananas, so be sure to check this TOU regularly. C’mon Sony.

Prohibiting linking was hilarious, but Sony still has a few cards up its sleeve. Check this out:

Sony gives no Warranty that Site content is appropriate, available or permitted for use in all locations, that it is virus-free or as to its interoperability with any hardware, software or content or as to User’s ability throug h this site to access or interact with any other service providers, networks, users, or informational or computing resources through the internet.

So the Sony website is pretty much like their CDs – you’ll never know if they contain viruses or whether they’ll work with your hardware. The next bit is a common bit of nonsense that you’ll find in many other evil big company TOUs:

Without prejudice to the disclaimers and liability limitations in these Terms, no claim or action against Sony or Sony Affiliates may be brought by any person in relation to or arising out of this site unless such claim or action is commenced and notified to Sony in writing within 1 year after the date the cause of action first arose.

I’m sorry Sony, but I am allowed to bring claim or action against Sony or Sony Affiliates without any need of informing Sony in writing. I may even do so however many years after the date the cause of action first arose. Disclaimers and terms of use such as these are not binding legal agreements, so why do they exist on so many websites?

Some companies on the other hand allow linking and even encourage it, but add ludicrous demands in their TOU. Konica Minolta for example allows you to link to their site, but only on the condition that your website doesn’t slander them or contain inappropriate content. So lets not say anything bad about the fine Konica Minolta company, shall we? Fujifilm prohibits “caching unauthorized hypertext links” and even “reserves the right to disable any unauthorized links”. So if you link to Fujifilm they come knocking on your door or what?

I’ve saved the best for last – easyJet has a special Terms and Conditions page for linking. easyJet is bold enough to claim that they are in a position to mandate the conditions under which people should or should not link to their site:

“Linking to the easyJet Website by any means is subject to these Terms and Conditions.”

easyJet’s ridiculous terms tell you what colours you should use on your website:

You agree that you shall not use the colour orange (pantone reference 021C, HTML reference #FF6600) on your Website except as part of an easyJet Trade Mark used as permitted in clause 3.1 above.

You mean like this color:

More bullshit:

You are permitted to provide and maintain a Link to the easyJet Website Homepage only at URL http://www.easyjet.com. You may not direct the Link to any other webpage contained within the easyJet Website.

So they don’t want you to link to their routemap for example. The link also “must not disparage easyJet“.

In local news, the Finnish News Agency (STT) prohibits linking to their news topics. Imagine a news agency that doesn’t want people to link to their online content – how ridiculous is that? In a response, the Finnish Anti-Commandeering Investigation, Training and Resources organisation TKVK (website in Finnish only) ACITR has launched a “Link to a prohibitor!”-campaign, which aims to put and end to such absurdities. The ACITR has coined the term “copyright commandeering” (Fin: tekijänoikeuskaappaus) and define it as an instance of copyright misuse, whereby one adds more restrictions and limitations on the use of a product or service than actually permitted by applicable copyright law. The TKVK strives to bring to public attention any acts of copyright commandeering found in Finland. Now I see the need for an international movement – any volunteers?