Link risk: Free Web 2.0 is not a done deal

'Content must be paid for' business logic versus 'content must be free for the taking' Web 2.0 logic.
Written by Donna Bogatin, Contributor

UPDATE: Rex Hammock wonders "Maybe I’m just missing something," in not getting that billionaire Sam Zell laments that newspapers are "giving it away," to Google, in particular.


Maybe he is. Perhaps all those cited by Hammock as backup--Jason Calacanis, Dave Winer, Doc Searls, Matthew Ingram, Collin Crawford--also maybe are just missing something. Here are some of the insightful contributions to the "conversation" cited by Hammock re "deftly ripping into" Zell:


Winer: "what he literally said makes no sense"


Ingram: "he's a complete ignoramous"


Crawford "bonus": "they will be joining the dodo"


Contrary to popular, blogosphere and Googley belief, linking is not a done deal on the Web, as a Federal judge in Texas reaffirmed just months ago. READ ON!


BTW, Original title of my post from December: "U.S. Capitalism vs. Web Democracy"


DECEMBER 22, 2006: In “Google AdSense + Google ‘fair-use’ = bloggers ripped-off” I put forth: “When money is at stake, imitation is generally the most insincere form of flattery.”


When money is at stake, a federal judge in Texas has deemed that it is unlawful to provide a hyperlink to a Webcast if the copyright owner objects to it, CNET reports:

The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas company that is one of the largest producers of "Supercross" motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of companies that paid to be sponsors.)

In granting a preliminary injunction against Davis, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay ruled last week that "the link Davis provides on his Web site is not a 'fair use' of copyright material" and ordered him to cease linking directly to streaming audio files owned by SFX.

Lindsay applied “content must be paid for” business logic, not “content must be free for the taking” Web 2.0 logic, in determining that third-party hyperlinking enabled by Internet technology does not override original content owners’ primordial financial interests:

Lindsay ruled that: "SFX will likely suffer immediate and irreparable harm when the new racing season begins in mid-December 2006 if Davis is not enjoined from posting links to the live racing Webcasts. The court agrees that if Davis is not enjoined from providing unauthorized Webcast links on his Web site, SFX will lose its ability to sell sponsorships or advertisement on the basis that it is the exclusive source of the Webcasts, and such loss will cause irreparable harm."

U.S. capitalism sometimes trumps Web “democracy.”

SEE: Why Google WILL pay for content andYouTube: Why Google is running scared

ALSO: Google blurs line between advertising and content, again and Google clients ‘frustrated’ by unprofitable AdWords buys and Google (will be) a monopoly and Does Google SEO success ’suck’?

Editorial standards