http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/23/texas_court_bans_deep_linking/ Understatement bolded by moi... Let me guess... The judge is >70 years old? He thinks the web is made of tubes? He thinks eBay consist of white sandy beaches? He thinks Google is some sort of an ecyclopedia? He is a moron? What do you think he is? Blogger responses: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&entry=3344233717 http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/12/gentlemen-stop-your-linking.html
And he probably thinks the US should conquer California back because they have all these liberal rules and strange technology...
An appeals court will reverse it as soon as it gets to them though with all the case law already established. Of course, the lawyers still make out like bandits
What I don't understand is that judges don't understand the particulars all the time, but they don't go around making new case law. I don't fault the guy for knowing nothing about the internet because he can't be an expert on everything but crack open some case law for god's sake.
Aw, don't blame the judge. I respect any old people who don't understand the Internet; it's really not their fault, it's just a new generation, that's all. I think Internet issues should be proposed to different courts and judges, who specialize in Internet regulations, etc. We can't use Judge Judy for scams and happenings that occur on the Internet...it's just too difficult to explain things to people who don't understand. They need to be taught the basics, first.
It's a whole load of bollocks because how can it come under copyright if the guys didn't even copy anything. He just points to the source. The people running that cast can just use htaccess to redirect to the ad plastered page if they detect direct access. What's next? Is Picasso's family going to sue musea for allowing people to look at the work they have rights to? Is Michael Jackson going to sue the newspapers because they point out where to watch his clips?