The  last  few  days  have  seen  some  definitive  trends  coming forward in the area  of Linking in Cyberspace. Two recent judgments have come in from two  different  parts   of the world which indicate only the tip of the iceberg. 

From  the  time  of  the  origin of  the  web, linking has been a common and prevalent practice.  The  World  Wide  Web,  as  some  people  say,  is  all  about  the  business of linking.  It  has  also  been  argued  that  if  you  can  not link  sites with each other, you have missed the bus and the whole meaning of the Web.

Linking  is   also  convenient  as  it  enables  a  netizen  to  quickly find out the relevant information  by  going  straight  to  the  link  provided  on  the  websites.   This not only enables  saving  of  time  and  energy  but  also  tremendous research, apart from being extremely  convenient  for  the  surfer.  No wonder,  linking   is  a  very popular practice.

However  another  aspect  of  the  said picture,  as argued by the die-hard proponents of the  Copyright    School  is,  that  an  owner  of  a  website,  having  copyrighted  material therein,  has and should have the complete, absolute and unqualified right to decide as to  how   a  surfer or  a  visitor  to  the  web  site  would  view  and  perceive   the  same. Therefore,  it  has  been  argued  that  linking  cannot effectively curtail the intellectual property rights  of  the  owner  of  the  copyrighted  material  on the website and that all linking violates the copyright of the website owner so long as the same is done without prior consent and approval of the website owner or  without  his  express  licence. Seen from that angle,  linking has been argued to be illegal unless  specifically permitted  by or consented to by the website owner.

The  debate  about  linking  has  been  going  on  for  a  long  time and till date nothing conclusive has emerged.

However, recently a couple of judgments have thrown more light on this precarious and yet  largely nebulous and undefined legal arena of linking.

On March 27, 2000,  in a recent judgment, the US District Judge Harry Hupp in the case entitled    “Ticketmaster Corp.,  et al.  v.    Tickets.Com,  Inc.”     has  held  that   online companies and legal entities can legally offer links, to rival websites.   This practice  of  “hyperlinking” is invariably used by small Internet start-ups to provide  links to   pages deep inside the website of a rival to provide more information to the surfer. This  often leads to more and more users being attracted to the web site.

In this said case, the court has detailed the complicated facts of the case.    As stated in the  judgment,  the  plaintiffs  namely   Ticketmaster  Corporation   and    Ticketmaster Online- CitySearch,   Inc. (hereafter collectively,   in the singular Ticketmaster)  have  a website  which operates  to  allow  customers  to  purchase  tickets to various   events   (concerts, ball games, etc.)   through  an  internet  connection with its customers.  Once a  person visits the  Ticketmaster home  page, he finds that  there are  instructions and a  directory  to  subsequent    pages    (one per event).   The  event  pages  provide   basic information   (short    description of  the  event,  date,  time,  place,  and price)   and  a description of how  to order tickets  by  either internet  response,  telephone,  mail,   or  in    person.   Each  of   these  subsequent  pages  is  identifiable   with   an   electronic address. As  in  many  other  sites, the home page of Ticketmaster further contains (if a customer scrolls to the bottom)  "terms and  conditions"    which   prescribe,     among other things, copying for commercial use.   However,   the   customer  need  not    view the   terms   and   conditions to proceed straight to the event page which interests him.  Ticketmaster  has   exclusive agreements  with  the events it carries  on  its  web  pages  so   that     tickets  are     not    generally   available   to  those  events except    through Ticketmaster (or reserved for sale by the event itself, or available from premium   ticket brokers who generally charge higher than face value).

The defendant in the said case namely  Tickets also  operates a website   (Tickets.Com) which performs a somewhat different ticketing service.   While  Tickets  does  sell some tickets to certain events on its own, it also provides   information  as  to where and how tickets which it does not sell may be purchased. A short factual description as to  event, time, date, place and price is listed. Where Tickets does not itself sell the  tickets,  there is a provision for a place on which  the customers can click for a  reference to    another ticket broker, or to another on-line ticket seller. The judgement further  demonstrates as to how the distinguishing feature of this case --  hyperlinks or deep linking  -- comes in. Where the exclusive ticket broker is Ticketmaster, and the customer clicks on "Buy this ticket from another on-line ticketing company", the customer is instantly transferred  to the interior web page of Ticketmaster (by passing the home page) for the particular event in question, where the customer may  buy  the  tickets   (from Ticketmaster, not Tickets) on-line.  This   is  generally  followed  by  an  explanation   given  by Tickets as follows: "These tickets are sold by another  ticketing  company.  Although we  can't  sell them to you, the link above will take you directly to the other company's website where you can purchase them." The interior web page contains the Ticketmaster's logo and a reasonable customer comes to know that he is dealing with Ticketmaster, not Tickets.

The plaintiffs in the said case  alleged that the  said   practice  of hyperlinking or deep linking as adopted by Tickets is illegal apart from being violative of the  rights  of  the plaintiffs. The court was called upon to decide the issue that the so-called "hyperlinking"  should be banned. 

However,  Judge  Harry  Hupp  categorically  stated that deep linking by itself does not necessarily involve unfair competition.  The  relevant  portion  of  the said judgement declares as under :-

“Hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it   may do for other claims)  since  no  copying  is  involved.  The  customer  is  automatically transferred   to the  particular  genuine  web  page  of  the  original author. There  is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.

The plaintiffs further argued that the terms and conditions set forth on their home page were like the terms of "shrink-wrap license" cases, where the packing on  the outside  of  the  CD  stated  that opening the package constitutes adherence to the license  agreement (restricting,   republication)   contained  there  in   and    as  such  the   said   terms    and conditions  including  that  the   information is  for personal use only, may not be  used  for commercial   purposes,   and   no deep linking to the site is permitted, were enforceable.

The court further went ahead to distinguish between the terms and conditions set forth on the home  page of the   Ticketmaster site and the  "shrink-wrap license"  cases.  The court went on to hold that  “the  "shrink-wrap license agreement"  is  open and obvious and in fact hard to miss.  Many websites  make  you  click on "agree" to the terms and conditions   before  going on,  but   Ticketmaster   does not.  Further,  the   terms   and conditions  are  set forth  so  that  the  customer needs to scroll down the home page to find and read them. Many  customers  instead  are likely to proceed to the event page of interest rather than reading the "small print."  It cannot be  said  that  merely putting the terms and  conditions in this  fashion  necessarily  creates a contract with anyone using the website.” 

The judgement further held that so long as the consumers understand whose  site they are on and that the company has not duplicated another websites page, “hyperlinking” cannot be held to be illegal.

The  effect  of the said judgement  is that all persons can  continue with the  practice  of   “Hyperlinking” and  “Deep Linking”  as  the  same  has   been  held  to be legal.   This judgement has been welcomed by enthusiastic reactions from all quarters.  While   many  feel    that   for    the  time  being  some  of  the  ambiguity  relating    to  the  issue  of  “Hyperlinking”   is substantially  removed,   others feel that the said   judgement is not likely to sustain itself on the principle of law in appeal. At present it is too early to give a  definitive  answer to  the  same   as  the  matter is still subjudice and possibly,  time would be having the best answer for the same.

Meanwhile, on March 30, 2000, another   judgement was passed in Japan.  The  Osaka District Judge in a judgement has held  that under certain stipulated sets of conditions, links used to connect one web page to another could be considered as an infringement of the law. The sense of the said   judgement underlines the principle of law that once a person creates a web page and  links it  to  another  page  and  if  that  other  page  is in violation of the law,  then  the  person  who   creates the link can be charged with aiding and abetting the crime.  This is regardless of the fact as to whether or not the person creating the links to the said page is aware of the illegality of the page linked to. This decision once again reiterates the proposition of law that ignorance of law is no excuse in the eyes of law.

In the said case, one person namely Kiuchi in Yokohama was selling from his own web page, a self developed image processing software called FL Mask. The said software enables removing of the photomask, commonly employed in Japan to cover the most explicit parts of pornographic images. On his own web page, Kiuchi  had also set up links to other sites displaying pornographic material. The net effect of this operation was that any person could use FL Mask to see explicit pornographic materials on the sites which was duly linked to the said web page of Kiuchi. Interestingly, an executive of one of the companies running pornographic sites which were duly linked on the web page of  Kiuchi, had already been found guilty under the Japanese Penal Code.

The  main  issue  before  the  court  was whether Kiuchi could also  be  found  guilty  of abetting and aiding crimes covered under the Japanese Penal Code. The court held that Kiuchi was selling his software FL Mask which made it more easier for  people  to   view pornographic pictures and that he had increased the number of ways by which obscene and pornographic sites  could  be accessed.  As such,  the court  found  him  guilty   of abetting the crimes stated  in the  Japanese  Penal Code.  Clearly,   the  distribution   of pornographic material in Japan is illegal and the court found Kiuchi guilty  of   abetting and aiding the said  crime. The court further held that under the specific  provision    of the constitution of  Japan and in the context of Japan, it was essential for restrictions to be applied for the sake of public welfare.

The important principle of law which has emerged from the Osaka Judgement is the fact that  the act of a person in providing a link to a website that itself violates the law of the land, constitutes  the  act  of  aiding and abetting a crime.  It is pertinent to note that the Osaka Judgement categorically stated that the  factum  of  punishing  offenders  by  the judiciary  did  not  amount  to  an infringment of the people’s freedom to  put and post information on the web. 

The aforesaid two judgements,  coming  just  within days of each other, are  important land mark judgements which throw substantial  light  on  the  various  legal   aspects  relating to linking. Still, it may be said that the Cyberlaw relating to linking is still  in the process of being developed and these are indeed early days. We also need to take  into consideration  that  the  judiciaries of  different  national jurisdictions are likely to  take diverse opinions keeping in mind the diverse socio-cultural aspects of their  countries.

As time will pass,  the  law  relating  to  linking  will  crystallize  itself  by   subsequent developments and judicial pronouncements. As of now, with Cyberlaw  itself  being  in the process of its early development,  web companies and legal entities on the Internet  need to take all appropriate precautions while adopting the practice of linking.

                     © copyright Pavan Duggal 2000 - 2001