Can someone really legally ask for something like this in his website conditions of use:
"It is forbidden to place links to this website from other sites without the prior written consent of [website]"
I think it's against every sense, but I don't now if it has legal value?
Yes. In the USA you can claim anything that you can enforce, but I don't see how it can be enforced--or even why the site owner included something that idiotic in their conditions of use. Someone should tell him or her that links and traffic are a good thing. I suspect less than 1% of web users even read conditions of use statements.
What type of site is this?
Did you link to someone and now they are complaining about it?
It's pro government newspaper, in Macedonia, that does not want to be publicity criticized/linked.
They have disclaimers like that on all their posts!
It's just new thing, so I was interested is that legal thing to ask... somewhere?
If the site can be found in Google search or sites like Facebook and Twitter, it already has a link.
Originally Posted by ribe
That is logically not enforcable. Maybe their terms are not written correctly? Atleast, it's not making much sense to write something like that, at all.
Reverse psychology people.
Don't link....so you will link.
But yes, I have this on many sites over the years.
Some do not want certain sites from linking back to them.
Hey, do you really want backlinks to your family friendly photo site from porn sites?
I came across another one the day before yesterday when searching for leads.
Here's another example Kenda Capital - Next Generation Energy Technologies
I have seen this several times over the years. Back in the 1990s, which is about a million years ago in Internet years, the issue was hotlinking to images. I suspect that is the intent in the conditions of use. Hotlinking is when you link to the image on another site and display the image on your own site using that link. Technically, this is both a copyright violation and bandwidth theft. However, it may be unenforceable as a copyright violation because you are not physically stealing the image; you are only providing a link to the image.
I don't think the term can be enforced in any criminal court. In other words, it would not be against any law. The site owner would have to try to sue in civil court. The real issue is still one of whether or not it can be enforced. In the USA we call this a "straw dog", because it looks like a threat, but is not a real threat.
I've had a couple of people contact me to remove links from listings on a directory that I had purchases on DP. They were kind of forceful in the emails. So, I told them that there is a $10 link removal fee to cover the cost of labor. Of course, I never heard from them again. It's easy to make threats. But, they won't even come of $10 to resolve the problem. There's no way that they are serious.
Bogart, I never would of posted this comment :( :D I can see it now someone will start a bad neighborhood porn link sites on purpose now, with tons of spam just to get people to pay $10 to have their link removed. lol :D
Originally Posted by bogart