You are forbidden to link to my website (1.Viewing)

I recently visited a website and for curiosity was reading their TOS and it contained all the usual stuff, trademarks, image rights etc etc.

What struck me funny was that there was a whole paragraph saying that nobody is allowed to link to the website without express written permission from the site. It was quite dramatic and said especially no linking from a public website. What made no sense to me was the fact that this was a financial institution and they should want people to link to them, that would increase business right?

So I would like to discuss the legal status of that statement, here it is edited to remove names.


BOOKMARKING AND LINKING TO OUR WEB SITE

You understand that you may create a bookmark in your web browser to the home page. You may not create any link to either the home page or any other of the web site pages without the written approval, including, without limitation, a link on a publicly accessible web site. No person may link to this Site from any web site not owned or sponsored by us without first notifying the us of the intention to create such link and obtaining our written permission. No web site linking to this Site may frame or border this Site with the content of the linking site visible in the same window without our express written permission.

Click to expand...

I find it a bit perplexing because it is like saying you cannot write a public business phone number or address on a public forum. So basically if I linked to their site in this forum I would be liable according to their tos.



Could apple say nobody is allowed to link to a product on our site and discuss it on another site? Could a financial institution which has a public website and is actively soliciting clients make such a rule legit?

If the internet becomes a place where one cannot link to other sites then it would fundamentally break what the world wide web is all about. Its a bunch of connected websites linking to each other.


Am I wrong here?

I'm guessing some lawyer stole that or reused a template from another source. But you're right, it doesn't make sense for a bank - unless they don't want people aggregating their shitty mortgage/loan rates - and I suppose that's a possibility too.

But it makes sense possibly if you're a news organization - as that's what the fight is about with facebook and google. They steal content under the guise that its ok to do because they are citing the source with a link back. But no one uses the link back and facebook & google makes it look like they have content when they're really just re-using someone else's content without paying a dime for it. A local business here did precisely that for years, just stole news stories from actual news outlets without having real reporters and built up a very successful business. That local business sold for around $25M recently.

rlm said:

...A local business here did precisely that for years, just stole news stories from actual news outlets without having real reports and built up a very successful business. That local business sold for around $25M recently.

Click to expand...

Ouch, I just woke up from a nightmare and it turns out it really happened.