What does you lawyer suggest?

I don't know if this is truly illegal or not, however I DO think that it is something that shouldn't be illegal, links being what they are I can't imagine that it is something that could (should) be protected by law.. I would love to hear any possible reasons why it could be illegal.

would love to hear any possible reasons why it could be illegal.

May/may not be illegal, but I think if someone wants a link removed you should abide by their wishes. Why? What if I had the following my-number-one-spam-domain-that-is-full-of-trash.com and I put a link to your site as visit our site sponsor YourSite.com.

Very simply a company or other site may not wish to be affiliated in any way, shape, or form with you/your site. Again, ask your lawyer, but I believe there could be legal recourse as they could claim you are affiliating your site with theirs by linking to them.

Links are a part of user created content. That is your content and no-one can force you to change it. It is certainly not illegal.

Real world example.....If I write a book and site your book as a reference can you force me to remove that reference from my book? No... even if you don't want your book associated with mine it is still my book and the content contained within is mine.

[edited by: Demaestro at 7:50 pm (utc) on Dec. 8, 2006]

Again, ask your lawyer as it is pure speculation and would depend the context of the link and other factors on the site/page. I think the "right thing" to do is abide by the other site owners wishes.

[edited] Actually, do a search for several terms/phrases on the subject and you will see that such suits have been filed/won.

[edited by: The_Contractor at 8:03 pm (utc) on Dec. 8, 2006]

labeling a link such as that with "site sponsor" is one thing linking appropriately is quite another.. one would be a lie (and fraudulent) and the other would be true.

Same way printing a guy did something when he didn't is different than when he did do it.

Cases have gone both ways on this.

The majority of cases go in the favor of the site with the link.

In the cases that go against of the site with the link, there is almost always some other compelling financial or some criminal law reason.

Framing sites is another matter, as would be using links in a fraudulent manner.

Did they give you a reason that they wnt you to drop the links?

Don't forget the context of the original poster. He is saying he is using the links as a reference on a specific subject. There can't be anything wrong with that.

The OP doesn't say, but maybe it's a matter of deep links. Some sites prefer all links go to their home page. That doesn't sound like it was an option suggested by the target site in this case, but it might be worth asking about.

I'm not implying a relationship with the site in question in any way. I just made a point in that report and said I found proof that I'm right on their website.

To be honest I think narrow-sighted people like them don't understand that the Internet can't be controlled as easy as that, just because they want to.

This may not be nice of me but I've decided to cloak the page for them with the links removed (I know their IP). That should shut them up.

Noticed a couple of insurance websites here in the UK state you are not allowed to link to their sites. Although they also run affiliate schemes!

If you cloak the site for them and then someone from, say, their law firm checks up on you, you'll just make it worse.

Why not remove the link itself but give a text reference? "For more information, go to the example.com web site and search for 'blah blah blah'"

This is so silly..... You have already done more then I would have.

There is no law that says you need permissions to use someone else's publication as a reference.

They published something and you are referencing it. Sounds like there are some power hungry people at this other place who want to control everything. Problem is they can't. If they publish something to the public.... IE place it on a publicly accessible website, then it is going to be referenced. Even more so when the article is on an industry's association website.

I would tell them if they don't want you linking their site then they should put the pages in question behind a password protected area that way they can control who views them. If they want it to remain available to the public they are going to have to deal with the public referencing it.

They can't give out industry information that you use but then say to you....

"If anyone asks you where you heard this don't refer them to this article. "

That goes against everything that publishing articles is about. Fact is, people reference published material. When they do so it is common practice to refer to the their readers to any sources they use as a reference.

In fact not referencing your sources is bad practice.

You have done nothing wrong, you say you aren't implying a relationship between you and this site you are simply stating where you got your information and there is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is theres not yours, I would end all communications with them.

[edited by: Demaestro at 6:41 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2006]

I don't know if I would go to the lengths of cutting off all communications with them.. I might continue communications with them for entertainment purposes..

Link to the Google cache,
Link to the archive.org cache
Link to any other cache

Every ISP of every person that viewed that page had a version at one point and that if they really objected, they could chqange the filename or block referres from your site.

OK - I'm being facecious - but it's late here and that sounds daft.

(I'm no lawyer by the way - so ignore me on this one)

[edited by: Receptional at 8:55 pm (utc) on Dec. 11, 2006]