Author Puts Article Online, Insists That Due To Copyright, You Cannot Link To It

from the that'll-work dept

BeeAitch points us to yet another misunderstanding of copyright law, though this one is more amusing than anything else. It comes from an article from 2005 written by one Dr. T. Matthew Ciolek, from Australian National University, and it's apparently about "trade routes." Honestly, it doesn't matter what the article is about. What matters is that at the very top, it says:
Note: due to copyright restrictions this page may not be linked from other online pages.
Then, at the very bottom, it says:
Copyright (c) 2005 by Encyclopedia of Globalization. Grolier Academic. All rights reserved. This page may not be linked from other online pages.
And, in neither case is that accurate. You absolutely can link to it as I have just now (and above) and (what the hell) will do again (just for fun). Sorry Dr. T. Matthew Ciolek, that's just not how copyright works. You are free to block anyone who comes via referrals from other sites (or block referrals from this site specifically). You're also free not to post your content online, or to bar others from republishing it (recognizing certain legal exemptions). But, nothing in copyright law says that you can order people not to link to your work.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 7:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, it should be noted that you neglect the purpose of copy protection laws. The purpose isn't so that one person can "be allowed to control Mike's ability to write or disseminate his article?" it's (or it at least should be to provide social benefit, in case you are referring to the laws in another country) to promote the progress of the science and the useful arts. For the law to let someone ban links seems antithesis to this endeavor and it seems to restrict free speech in a relatively direct manner.

    The purpose of IP law is (should be) to expand the public domain and to expand freely available works. So if someone wants to release works only under the conditions that derivative works also be freely released the law should support this. After all, it sorta expands the public domain, or at least the spirit of the public domain. If someone else doesn't like it, he doesn't have to use those works and can find someone else's work to use. No one is rightfully entitled to restrict others from freely copying and so the request to restrict such restrictions should be legally supported.

    It should also be noted that there is a difference between free speech and software. Using, and linking to, someone's work as part of fair use exists to ensure free speech and to ensure that our free speech isn't hindered so that we can better express our positions and concerns, criticisms, or support for the positions of others. The importance of free speech, something that doesn't apply with software so much, should take precedence over licensing when compared to something like software.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.