He says they are "totally within their rights", but he is wrong. He's making links to their web pages. They are not "totally within their rights" to try to forbid that.
As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no.
Creating deep links to their content would be launching Mobile Safari with their content in it.
Now, it could be that after he talks to them and they have a look at his app, they decide that yes, he's framing their content but he does so in a manner they feel is in their best interests and is compatible with their business model as they see it. In which case, they will give him written permission to do so.
I'm dubious about this idea that web site owners have the right to dictate which web browsers their users are permitted to use to access their site, but it's certainly more colorable than a complaint about launching Mobile Safari with their page. It could be passing off, if nothing else.
I know, it's hard to draw a nice objective line in the sand. A general-purpose browser with a new UI, for example, ought to be allowed without requiring permission from anyone.
On the other hand, what if I write an iOS app just for getting answers from Wolfram|Alpha that displays the content using Webkit? I could certainly understand Wolfram arguing this kind of thing requires permission.
I'm curious about DuckDuckGo's use of Wolfram|Alpha content. There's an example of framing content and deep linking together. I assume they have permission or an army of lawyers?
2 points by agiletortoise 1 hour ago | link [dead]
I expect they are. In retrospect, I should have asked first.
It something like going to a dinner party and having the host throw you out for placing your fork to the left of the plate, because they put them on the right at their house. Runs contrary to expectations.
--agiletortoise
-----------------
This doesn't look offensive to me, so I presume it's a glitch. It would be ironic if it was killed because of the signature at the end in violation of local norms. :)
Is there any way to see the justification for killing a comment?
I trust HN's moderators, but it makes me uneasy to realize that there is a whole collection of censored comments that I didn't see until now, because I had showdead disabled.
I'm curious about some threads that get killed, too--afaik it can happen due to mod intervention or when the community hits "flag" enough times, but I always wonder which one it was.
What is the difference between "linking" and "deep linking"? Whatever else W|A is, it is a web server and it responds to my requests by sending me web pages. Why does Wolfram get to decide for me which web browser I should use to view those pages?
On a slightly related note, what do you think about framing another site's contents? The original article is closer to framing in this respect, i.e. showing stuff in a UIWebView is more analogous to framing.
I am currently developing a content aggregator site, but haven't decided how to link/display original articles. Should I be putting a frame at the top (or display orignal content in an iframe?) so that users don't leave my site, or should I directly link to the original article? I have strong suspicion that doing the former would be unfair, but some sites like stumbleupon do it to improve user experience.
It is similar to the difference between "citing" and "copying"/"plagiarizing": a gradual thing where the distinction is clear at extreme ends of the scale, but muddy in the middle.
There may be cases where linking violates copyright (Total News seems reasonable, although that's really probably more of a trademark issue), but I think the main problem is that most judiciaries and legislatures are a bit unclear on how the internet works.
However, I'm also in a better position than judiciaries and legislatures, since I'm talking about right and wrong, not legal and illegal.
Ah OK. I was thinking of rights in the sense of "rights enshrined in law," as in "European Convention on Human Rights," rather than what is ethically or morally right.
> You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.
You seem to be confusing copyright law with contract law. ToS are generally considered part of contract law, under which anything that is not illegal can be part of the contract, and the parties agreeing to the contract would be obligated to comply.
There are exceptions to enforceability (like contracts of adhesion and unconscionable terms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract) that may limit enforceability of a contract or terms of use, but "basis in law" is not necessarily required.
In contrast, copyrights (and patents, and trademarks) involve certain rights granted by law and explicit and unstated limitations to those rights. Owners of copyrights/patents/trademarks may make assertions that go beyond their rights and are thus not enforceable as they have no basis in law.
In the Wolfram|Alpha case, then, the questions involve (a) does linking to a site constitute acceptance of the terms of use? (b) does using the site constitute acceptance of the ToU? (c) are the terms actually an enforceable contract (not illusory/unconscionable).
It would seem that the person violating the ToU is the user of the app, not the application writer. Using Apple to enforce this seems to be quite a stretch.
If you want to say creating a deep link is a copyright violation, then any browser which allows bookmarking is in violation?
In the US you don't have to sign a contract or be part of an agreement to be bound by it. For example, if an MS exec has a noncompete and Google hires him, knowing about the contract, but not being party to it, Google can still be sued.
I have trouble believing this is the case. Perhaps only in a very limited set of circumstances. Can you give us some references?
The reason I doubt it is that it opens a huge can of worms about how I could entrap a third-party into a contract that they haven't accepted and haven't exchanged consideration for.
" If your non-compete is valid, then a third party who induces you to break it can face the same liability as you, and possiby more. To avoid this liability, the new employer will often terminate the new employee, which it is free to do."
b) Would it be illegal to put up a website and say that essentially no one can use it? Aside from some exceptions like discrimination, ToS's define how you can use a tool, which is exactly what they were doing. Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like?
There is a serious legal question about whether or not a ToS for a website is enforceable. Probably, if ANY ToS is enforceable then this one is. But it's an open question. The argument against enforceability goes something like this:
TOS enforcement stems from contract law. A principle of contract law says that a contract is binding on both parties if they agreed to it, but there must be SOME benefit to each party. A TOS between a website and its users clearly meets this threshold, but in this case agiletortoise didn't gain any benefit from the website -- he simply wrote a program that directed the user's browser to go there.
That being said, the best solution is the one that agiletortoise used: simply direct people to someplace less hostile, like Google, Bing, or Wikipedia, instead of Wolfram Alpha. Wolfram Alpha loses, everyone else wins.
Yes, I got a benefit. There were users that like the Wolfram links and will be sorry they are gone.
As I said in my post, I'm fine with it. I think Wolfram's Terms are OK. I think it's a bit tenuous only in that if they were really serious about it, they could enforce that requirement in their code. They are not doing that, because it's to their benefit to allow some linking -- they are just reserving the right to selective enforce those terms, which seems a bit sleazy to me.
I think there is a very plausible argument to be made that it was your CUSTOMERS who benefited, not you.
In other words, I think that if Wolfram chose to sue you for thousands of dollars plus court costs because you violated your contract with them that you would be able to say, in defense, "I never agreed to anything." Since Wolfram delivered the goods (some answers, in this case) to the USERS of your application, not to you, I think this might be a valid defense.
Of course, the strictures of polite behavior extend further than the iron force of the law. Polite behavior suggests that when they ask you not to link to them you shouldn't... which is exactly what you did.
I don't know your product, but if your link takes them to the actual Alpha page, and they can interact with the Alpha page, you should make the argument that you're bringing them customers. I think if they're reasonable, they may actually appreciate the traffic in that case.
> Is there some law stating that if you host a website
You're looking at this backwards.
The TOS is not a contract that automatically applies to everyone; I don't have to agree to it if I link to your site.
Generally, if you want to prevent people from using your website in a certain way (that's not blatant abuse/hacking/etc), you're going to have to resort to technical solutions, because your only legal recourse is copyright law, which may or may not apply.
>Is there some law stating that if you host a website, you must allow users to link to it in any way they like?
None that I know of specifically - however putting a website up is an implicit contract allowing normal web usage (for credits: now define normal and enforce that contract).
I don't think you have to bring implicit contracts into it. If I walk down the street and someone's shadow falls on me, I simply don't have a cause of action against them. If someone looks at me, I don't have a cause of action against them. If someone calls my name on the street, I don't have a cause of action against them. (Barring extraordinary circumstances, of course.) You don't need to invent theories about how I'm entering into an implicit contract with the whole world by going out on the street, among whose terms are that people may allow their shadows to fall on me and look at me. It's simply that no tort is created by looking at a person or linking to a web page.
There's no law granting exclusive rights in URLs unless they're copyrightable.
I like your example but I don't think that a web page is like a person in public space. As you say their is no tort generally in approaching someone in the street but it is possible that a legal barrier has been erected and so an uninformed observer can't assume that no infringing/illegal activity is being undertaken (think exclusion orders, stalker laws, anti-social behaviour orders and the like; I think these are reasonably common across jurisdictions).
In the case of a website a copyright to that site is automatically created when the work itself is created - this is true in the vast majority of countries at least. Being able to view the site by making a temporary copy in your computer's cache is not clearly non-infringing. Someone aiding the creation of an infringing work can be acting tortuously in "contributory infringement" and hence linking to a website could, strictly, be tortuous. Applying common sense by assuming an implicit contract avoids the need to concern oneself with such apparent infringing actions.
> Being able to view the site by making a temporary copy in your computer's cache is not clearly non-infringing. Someone aiding the creation of an infringing work can be acting tortuously in "contributory infringement" and hence linking to a website could, strictly, be tortuous.
Hmm, I hadn't thought about it from that point of view, but I think you're right. It seems like clear evidence that your copyright law (I assume you're in the US) has gone mad and needs to be put to sleep.
