blog.oflaherty.dk — Krak.dk wants 5625 DKK about 940 USD from a Danish Blogger because her linked to their site.This post was written by me but I want to bring attention to this and force the company not to demand money from the blogger!Lets get attention to this one so that their stupid practice is stopped!
Jan 20, 2007 View in Crawl 4
mooferJan 21, 2007
Dead (ass)Krak:If you don't want to serve something on the internet, don't publish it. As soon as you put something online, and it gets dugg or slashdotted, you have to be willing to deal with it. A good server admin will have monitoring in place to alert them to such problems, and remove images that may jack up their bandwidth. If you can't play the game, you shouldn't dress out - stay home and watch it on TV.
jchillerupJan 21, 2007
Yes, and ForsLag means suggestion. Forlag means publisher.
ceejaydkJan 22, 2007
I'm pretty sure Paul didn't mean to spell it that way .. it's likely just a typo.I noticed several typo's in the article .. Salg was spelled sald f.x. (there were many more typo's as well)
pauloflahertyJan 22, 2007Submitter
Yep, I made some typos sorry! I did spell check, but apparently the spell checker in Windows Live Writer missed some of them. Sorry! Have fixed some that I noticed, the rest will just have to stay there!
cyberdudedkJan 22, 2007
@SpiriYes, as a matter of fact, Digg does that many times!But please notice what I wrote, I did state that you are really only breaking the law when a Company deeplinks to another Company page! This is the whole problem in this case! Per is the owner of the dog kennel that deeplinks to krak, Per is guilty in breaking the law. As a matter of fact, yes digg has the responsibilty of what is being posted, and I think (without doing any research) that digg is in fact registrated as a company, and thus all the deep links people post in here are breaking the law. Not saying it should be that way, but that is the law! Deal with it.@pauloflahertyYou sir, are an idiot! Sorry for expressing that!"Per actually has a real daytime job! The reason you are registered as a company if you breed dogs is if you intend to sell the puppies. He has 2 champion dogs, so legally has to register to sell the puppies when they breed. It's still a hobby and not a commercial venture. If he had 20 dogs and was actually actively breeding them specifically for money that would be another matter."Doesn't make a god damn difference, kennelkarup is a registrated business, and therefor Per is breaking the law! No excuse here!"Also, following your logic any or all links are illegal, even to the frontpage, because according to the WC3 <a class="user" href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking.html">http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking.html</a>all links are deep-links.""The formal definition of the URI, on which all of the software that successfully drives the Web is built, is in [RFC2396]. This formal definition has no notion of a "home" or "portal" page, nor does any of the vast amount of software deployed to process URIs. Thus, from the point of view of the underlying technology, all links are deep links."See the thing is, that there is a difference between WC3 and the Copyright law, and as you know, you have to obey the law!The law clearly states that you are not allowed to deeplink from a company to another company unless else is specified.In legislation, there is a difference between link to the "main" page and a deeplink.The thing is that deeplinking to a page might mean that the user skips some of the chances of noticing an advertisement, and even clicking on an advertisement.If the users goes from the "main" page and takes all the steps it takes to reach the deeplink in discussion the user is seeing some ads and navigating through the ads, this means that deeplinking will mean that the user will not be affected by the same number of ads, which then changes the business of the company.The law doesn't care about "I'm using Adblock, so I won't see the ads anyway", the law doesn't give a f**k about that statement or anything like that! Forget it!Just forget you humble try to make a company look bad! Instead you should try to go into legislation and try to change to the law or make the law more specific.The case here is that Per is the breaking the law, no matter how you twist and twirl the case!
andybeardJan 23, 2007
I would suggest Krak read Google's terms very thoroughly, because they allow deep linking to any of their maps even if it is being performed by a company. What they wouldn't allow is retrieving Google data and caching it such that users wouldn't have to retrieve data at all in the future.If the Krak policy is to really be interpreted the same, then any business can link to their map.I would also link to point out, as someone with some SEO experience that those deep links actually help Krak generate revenue. The point of entry is different, but still provides a reader other avenue to explore.It is also all those thousands of deep links that provide Krak with their current search engine results.
poulmoellerJan 23, 2007
I totally disagree concerning the Google terms. Here is no API involved and Google on top of that stresses that imagery cannot be distributed commercially e.g. satellite photos. Deep linking to Krak involves copyrighted material both cards and satellite photos.This is however not about deep linking. We run a pretty large search operation and I believe we have some SEO experience - and we of course appreciate having our pages shown. You can compare our model to the shareware model. You can use our stuff, but if you make money on it, please pay us.The issue is commercial companies using our copyrighted material to make revenue without paying a fee. Sometimes it is very difficult to guess whether a website is commercial or not. Apparently the website in question, is giving their goods away for free, so they can use Kraks map for free. We apologized, and they accepted the apology.
pauloflahertyJan 24, 2007Submitter
@cyberduke.. I may be stubborn.. but you do seem eager to comment without (apparently) actually reading the post I linked to...
maxx001Jan 24, 2007
Poul, you seem to not understand the difference between linking (referring) to copyrighted material and making an actual copy. Google allows the first option and not the last one (as you also point out).There is a reason why the internet is called the World Wide Web; because thats what it indeed is and always has been. The term deep-link is something invented by lawyers and other people who has no fundamental understanding of the underlying technologies that drives the www. There is no definition of a "start page", "portal page" or "end page" on the internet. And therefore there is no meaning in the term deep-link as all links are equal. This can be compared to the question "What way is up and down in the space?" - A question that gives no meaning and has no reference, just like a hyper link on the www.If your company had familiarized itself with the fundamental standards and recommendations created by W3C when expanding your business to the internet, then you would know what terms your business had to operate under. One of the prime and most important terms is that all links are equal and shares the same weight of value. Your company can either choose to follow these standards and adjust your business platform for them, or stay out of the web.And as a question to your issue about commercial use of your maps:I work for a small company that have received the notorious letter from your company stating that we have to pay you 4500 DKK and remove the link. Now, our company have a maximum of 3-4 visitors in a year. We sell electronic products mostly to the industry on a small scale. How is it that we make money from a link to your maps?And why have your company chosen to send out "fines" without any kind of warning first? Oh and please show me where you make any distinction between private use and commercial use of your maps. I have read your copyright section on your website and it states explicitly that no one may link to your maps, not even private persons.