Pro-SEO

After months and month of asking the digg community have finally got what they wanted. A pic section for them to put their funny little lolcats.

When one goes to submit a story now they are offered a selection of either "news story", "video" or "image".

When the image is submitted the image is then displayed on the digg page.

But is it legal?

While this may seem like a good idea i wonder if digg have thought about the legal implications of this. If the image submitted belongs to someone else digg has no right to copy that image and display it on their site. I am assuming digg doesn't track down the owners of each image and ask their permission before copying the image and displaying it on digg.

Digg should expect to recieve a lot of angry emails from people (especially flickrers) not wanting their images to be copied and displayed on someone elses site without permission.

Labels: digg, law

A Texas district judge ruled, in a landmark case, that deep linking to a websites content is illegal if the owner of the content asks you to remove the hyperlink and you refuse.

The case in question was between Robert Davis, who operates Supercrosslive.com, and supercross.cc.com, The owners of the content, which in this case was streaming videos of motorcross events.

supercross.cc.com claimed that, by linking directly to it's audio feeds, Mr Davis was depriving them of ad revenue, and the judge agreed and ordered Mr Davis to remove the links to.

I get the feeling this court case would have made as much sense as a monkey in a box.
For one, Mr Davis is an idiot for being prepared to go to court over something as trivial as a hyperlink. Secondly, supercross.cc.com are idiots for not taking care of this on their end. All they had to do is send all referrers from Mr Davis' site to a page that contaned adverts, and thirdly the judge is an idiot for not tellling these people to grow up, go home and sort out their own childish squables.

Labels: law