"... what do you think of framing someone else's page -- to an unsophisticated user, making it appear as your own content? How about putting an image on your page using an "img src" tag and a full URL of an image on someone else's site? Either of these is more likely to be considered a copyright violation than a simple link, and at the moment, there is no legal precedent that would prevent you from engaging in these activities (or in having someone else engage in them to the detriment of your site)."
Yes, there is recent legal precedent focusing specifically on framing and inline linking of images. See http://www.phillipsnizer.com/int-art257.htm
Ummm, did I mention that everyone involved knows each other very well? That they are constantly meeting at races around the country? That they gossip? That from the bottom of their hearts and the depths of their souls they all share a deep love of running?
On a running mailing list, I suggested joint counseling on Oprah. Another poster suggested Jerry Springer would be more appropriate.
To its credit, RW moved quickly after its initial folly. It de-escalated when the Johnsons wanted a fight. RW are supposed to be the adults here, and shouldn't have allowed themselves to be goaded by letsrun.com... if, indeed, that's what happened. If the Johnsons were smart, they'd declare victory, bask in their new found prominence, and move on. But it doesn't look like they're going that route. I just hope their pursuit of the matter doesn't interfere with their running. That would be the real tragedy.
-Daniel FreedmanTV news director in remission, former online chief editor and biz dev director for Cahners Publishing, former chief Internet officer for Environmental Defense, current non-profit and email recruitment consultant
They aren't similar at all. Linking to content is the cyberspace equivalent of pointing something out to someone and letting them go look for themselves. Linking is like saying, "Go take a look at this article in Newsweek". It is not similar to saying "Go steal a copy of Newsweek and read the article." Are these legals then suggesting that they want to make it illegal to suggest that a friend go read an article somewhere in meatspace?
As long as we're on the subject, I don't even like the term "deep links" - links are links. Since when did a normal link become "deep" just because some legal tag-team decided they were? It's a false distinction created to make their argument appear to have a shred of merit.
I've exchanged email with the principals and read the dueling bulletin board posts and related correspondence from both sites. (Full disclosure: I'm an avid runner who has posted on the controversy to a running mailing list. A close friend is editor of a rival running publication not involved in this dispute; an acquaintance is the former online editor of Runners World.)
Executive SummaryRodale has backed down. It has dropped the threat of a lawsuit and says that letsrun.com "may not have understood the intent" of its lawyers' letters. Runners World says letsrun.com did nothing illegal. It claims it never threatened letsrun.com with anything, which is more than a little disingenuous given the tenor of the letters. It says it wishes letsrun.com well, adding that there is more than enough room on the Internet for both of them. Letsrun.com is demanding a more explicit and abject statement in the form of an apology. The dispute has degenerated into an acrimonious "he said/she said" spat over the sequence of events and the integrity of those involved. Letsrun.com is now throwing around the word "defamation."
Not so incidentally, Rodale has spectacularly inept lawyers from 12 person firm in Allentown, Pa. They were wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. rodale came across as bullies.
Ironically, letsrun.com never had any real objection to what Runners World wanted: links to pages with ads and navigation, rather than the "printer-friendly' versions. But it refused to do so once the conflict started to spin out of control. When Runners World itself changed the links without letsrun.com objecting, the substance of the dispute evaporated.
My take? The whole thing is a victory for democracy, Internet style. letsrun.com is very much the little guy here. It publicized the dispute, refused to back down, and got some pro bono legal advice along the way. Runners World was the subject of much derision in the running community. After 48 of adverse publicity, it basically caved. Letsrun.com has "won", but may lack the wisdom to realize it.
Gory Details:Wait. There's more. Much, much more. Read on, if your're a glutton for punishment. The back story: all this is really something of a family feud within the tight knit and incestuous running world.
Runners World (RW) is the 800 pound guerilla among running magazines. Slick and profitable, it is aimed at a mass audience that includes many new runners. It is not above featuring babes in bikinis on the cover. Editorial content is good to excellent, but can become somewhat repetitious over the years. "Serious" runners dismiss RW. In fact, in certain quarters, bad mouthing RW is something of a sport itself. It's one of those publications no one admits to reading -- but everyone seems to have read.
Letsrun.com is at the other end of the spectrum. Calling it a "hobbyist site" doesn't quite do it justice. Letsrun.com is a labor of love for the Johnsons, twin brothers who are national class runners and aspiring Olympians. One of them won the Marine Corps Marathon. The site is a mess. It is crude, rude, juvenile, and sophomoric. And those are its good qualities. Letsrun.com accepts advertising. It has a lively personality and a distinct voice that needs to be heard. The Johnsons idolize their high school coach. One of them was thrilled to get a free ticket (and a hotel room...wow!) to a recent race. At times, it seems hard to believe one of them is a Harvard grad who deferred attending business school to concentrate on running. Letsrun.com has a loyal and devoted following, predominately among college and elite runners. They consider it noble and pure. RW is evil. (At the same time, almost all of them would kill for an RW profile.)
Letsrun.com calls 'em as it sees 'em. Its most frequent target is -- guess who? -- Runners World. But one of the Johnsons has written a guest column for RW online. And, of course, RW covers the Johnsons' races. The Johnsons say they hate RW, but they have constantly barraged its site with emails begging for links. They've acknowledged that RW editor Amby Burfoot has always "been very fair" to them. (Did I mention that Amby won the Boston Marathon in 1968, competing against the wishes of his college coach -- thereby making him a hero to succeeding generations of college runners?)
Ready for the dimestore Freudian analysis? I'd say there was some pretty heavy Oedipal stuff going on here. The Johnson were truly shocked a get a lawyer's letter. At first, they thought it was a prank from one of their buddies.(RW says its online editor sent friendly email first; the Johnsons say they never received it and RW can produce no evidence the email was ever sent.) The Johnsons say another site also linked to RW "printer friendly" pages, but was left alone.
As for Scot Hacker, while I agree that hyperlinks are essential to the "lubrication" of the Web, we might as well face the fact that they do raise new issues related to copyright law -- issues that have not been finally adjudicated in the courts. In my opinion, publishers should be especially sensitive to the evolution of the law in this area, because in the end most benefit from hyperlinks more than they are hurt by them. (Hyperlinks are how Web content gets "passed along" -- and pass-along readership is a critical portion of the audience for most traditional publishers.) If you think that all hyperlinks are OK, what do you think of framing someone else's page -- to an unsophisticated user, making it appear as your own content? How about putting an image on your page using an "img src" tag and a full URL of an image on someone else's site? Either of these is more likely to be considered a copyright violation than a simple link, and at the moment, there is no legal precedent that would prevent you from engaging in these activities (or in having someone else engage in them to the detriment of your site). But both practices are quite likely to be considered copyright violations (in my opinion) -- and, in the end, the technology (and HTML) involved is pretty much the same as hyperlinking. The real risk is that a judge or judges will, in a "bad case" (such as one involving framing or inline images from other sites) make "bad law" that restricts hyperlinking rights. As publishers, we can't police what other sites do; we can only do the right thing ourselves. And I believe the right thing is to: vigorously link, vigorously defend the right to link, and *not* engage in linking practices that are most likely to be questioned in the courts.
We live in a world where, unfortunately, legislators and judges have come to equate "intellectual property" with physical property. (For more on this, I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas" and Siva Vaidhyanathan's "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity.") Given a choice of interpreting copyright law to the benefit of copyright holders or to the benefit of the average citizen who deserves wide availability of information, it seems clear to me that right now Congress and the judiciary are inclined to favor the copyright holders. If you doubt this, I have just one word for you: Napster.
And I think Dave Bullard is also right (about Romenesko and other Weblogs). I, for one, plan from this point forward to link to full versions of stories (not low graphics versions). I see no harm in doing this, and it's certainly safer legally.
As for Scot Hacker, while I agree that hyperlinks are essential to the "lubrication" of the Web, we might as well face the fact that they do raise new issues related to copyright law -- issues that have not been finally adjudicated in the courts. In my opinion, publishers should be especially sensitive to the evolution of the law in this area, because in the end most benefit from hyperlinks more than they are hurt by them. (Hyperlinks are how Web content gets "passed along" -- and pass-along readership is a critical portion of the audience for most traditional publishers.) If you think that all hyperlinks are OK, what do you think of framing someone else's page -- to an unsophisticated user, making it appear as your own content? How about putting someone else's image on your page using We live in a world where, unfortunately, legislators and judges have come to equate "intellectual property" with physical property. (For more on this, I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas" and Siva Vaidhyanathan's "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity.") Given a choice of interpreting copyright law to the benefit of copyright holders or to the benefit of the average citizen who deserves wide availability of information, it seems clear to me that right now Congress and the judiciary are inclined to favor the copyright holders. If you doubt this, I have just one word for you: Napster.
