
We’re Being Sued For Linking To Shopzilla - bubba1356
http://www.datadial.net/blog/index.php/2013/04/18/were-being-sued-for-linking-to-shopzilla/
======
grey-area
I suspect datadial know exactly what they're doing here - as revenge for this
alleged petty act by the lawyers they're now google-bombing the term shopzilla
(by deliberately including so many refs to shopzilla in this new blog post),
and hoping to teach them a lesson about who is in control of links. They're
already on the second page for a simple search for shopzilla, and I'd expect
them to move up closer to the top if this gets more publicity and links in
from other sites. Does it deserve it?

A very strange attempt by Shopzilla in the first place to control links to
them, so it would be interesting to hear their side of this story. I looked up
datadial - they're a London SEO shop, and their original blog post is typical
of SEO blogs - lots of links to random sites strung together into a blog post
to boost their blog's ranking for that topic - ecommerce in this case. I have
to wonder if this little storm in a teacup isn't more beneficial to them the
more absurd it sounds and the stormier it gets - even if it dies down later
the benefit will still be there for them.

It's strange to see the court of public opinion function on sites like reddit
and HN - the more controversial and snappier the original post, the more
traction it gets, and nuances and truth are lost in the rush to condemn based
on a very limited set of facts.

~~~
scrabble
I caught on to that about halfway through the article -- as I'd imagine most
readers did.

It seems a bit much to me. Someone from Shopzilla responded in the comments
with an apology and explanation of what had happened. Seemed good enough for
me, mistakes do happen and I'd be surprised if this was started by Shopzilla
with malicious intent.

~~~
darkarmani
> We flag up thousands of backlinks that are potentially spam

I don't know if this is good enough. Isn't he basically admitting that they
send out thousands of C&D orders for linking? He's just apologizing for
picking on someone with the means to fight back against this bullying.

~~~
notatoad
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty bullshit apology. He's admitting that this is
standard practice for them, and apologizing for getting caught.

------
jacquesm
That's a clever ploy to get some eyeballs out of a legal case that isn't worth
the paper it is printed on.

But if some company is hell bent on suing you for linking to them and you want
to get mileage out of it by going to the media with the story you're going to
have to weigh your options carefully. Just remove the link, problem goes away
no need for legal representation and you get on with your life.

Or you milk it for all it is worth, eventually go to court and you're
vindicated in your laymans interpretation of the law. Or you find that the
court - for whatever reason - sides with your opponent. Now you have a
problem, and don't say it can not happen, there is no such thing as a slam-
dunk lawsuit.

Pick your battles, carefully and make sure that you make the right choice.

In this particular case I think the plaintiff is dead wrong, they don't have a
leg to stand on but it could still cost you a lot of time, money and effort to
prove that and in the end it is _their_ loss not yours if they lose their
link.

For more information:

[http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-
be-...](http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-be-sued-for-
linking-to-others-121449)

~~~
tveita
They're not actually being sued, are they? That part seemed a bit dishonest to
me. It looks like so far they have only been served a particularly obnoxious
cease and desist letter.

~~~
chc
Indeed, that appears to be the case. It would be a hilarious irony if
Shopzilla turned around and _actually_ sued them for libel.

------
DanBC
The hyperbole and tone of the article is difficult to read through.

Have you thought about writing a simple letter to the solicitors saying
something like "Hello, you sent us a letter. Would you like to review our
webpage here to see if we actually are infringing on your client's trademark?
We seem to have been caught in some automatic system."

Be careful about 'no legal reason to take down an url' - there are a few. DMCA
requests, anti-deeplinking causes in ToS / AUP, etc etc. See the Shetland
Times vs Shetland News.

~~~
aroberge
DCMA request in the UK???

~~~
arb99
It only needs the host, registrar etc to be hosted in USA. In this particular
case their domain is registered at safenames which have a US location:
<http://www.safenames.net/AboutUs/Locations.aspx>

------
btipling
Shopzilla probably has bad links that are driving down its SEO and page rank
on Google and they are trying to get low quality sites to remove those bad
links. It is totally OK for them to want to have links removed to their site,
since some of them may be damaging their SEO and hence their earnings. Maybe
the method used is a little over the top, but there is probably nothing wrong
with their intentions.

If someone asks you to remove a link to their site in a post where you
criticized them, I would feel uncomfortable with it, but in this case you and
them are acting in good faith, just remove the link. That they used a lawyer
just means they really want you to remove the link.

Edit: Uh oh, looks like this innocuous reply is not compatible with uncritical
outraged HN readers looking to punish someone, anything for all the bad things
Shopzilla has done to them and the world. Let the downvotes commence I guess.

~~~
regularfry
It's OK for them to _want_ links removed. It's entirely beyond the pail to be
able to enforce removal at lawyer-point just because it's damaging their SEO.
Why should their SEO efforts be protected by law from random passers-by? The
law isn't there to protect their profits.

~~~
btipling
Shopzilla just wants the links removed. This method has probably worked for
them. They don't care if HN's never ending stream of daily outrage focuses on
them for a short time (before moving on to a new thing to be outraged about
tomorrow). They just want the links removed.

I'm not defending them. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.

~~~
wpietri
People "just wanting" something without regard for the consequences to others
are acting like sociopaths.

~~~
cinquemb
I'm sure the fear of being called a sociopath has scared many people from
doing what they want...

If a business just wants something, can it really be sociopathic in the same
way a person wants something?

~~~
wpietri
Businesses can't "want" anything.

But if we, for our analytical convenience, pretend they are people and
therefore can want things, then yes, they can be sociopathic.

~~~
cinquemb
I'm curious, from what you stated: what businesses would you consider to be
sociopathic?

~~~
wpietri
The most obvious category are things that have already been made illegal. Like
Ponzi schemes. Or waste management companies that engage in illegal dumping.
Or the Chinese food companies that were substituting melamine for edible
protein.

From there you get more subtle categories. Cigarette companies are legal, but
sinister. People making magnetic healing bracelets: Do they believe in what
they're selling? Some do, but I'm sure some just ship whatever sells. There
are many financial companies that I expect are effectively sociopathic, in
that as long as they make a profit, they don't care what happens around them.

An interesting parallel is the charm and manipulative ability that people
associate with sociopaths. In corporations, that's the advertising and PR
departments.

~~~
cinquemb
Hmm, so in some sense all corporations (that at least have advertising and PR)
can be considered sociopathic?

~~~
wpietri
I wouldn't say that. Everybody is at least a little charming and manipulative,
but that doesn't make everybody sociopaths. It's the lack of conscience and
the focus on self-gratification.

~~~
cinquemb
So what is a person (or corporation) when they can clearly distinguish between
right from wrong (has a conscience within their specific social context), but
focuses on self gratification (or profit)?

~~~
wpietri
I don't think being able to distinguish right and wrong is sufficient to say
that somebody has a conscience. They also have to care. In particular,
sociopaths are characterized by a lack of empathy and remorse, not by a lack
of understanding.

Anyhow, if you tend a little in that direction, you're an asshole. A lot, and
you're a sociopath. That's my view, anyhow.

~~~
cinquemb
Seeing this as your view, i think it is a fair assessment.

But there are some things that make me think a bit more:

[0]"They also have to care" [1]"sociopaths are characterized by a lack of
empathy and remorse"

To establish one's caring ability [0], does one have to explicitly state that
they care (to the public), or can that be a judgement coming from the massess
from "whatever" basis makes up the moral code of their society that had been
established by a relative minority group of people over time (which sometimes
constitutes the tyranny of the majority)?

And again with [1], is this a self characterization, or an external one?

From the examples above by you before, it seems like sociopaths are more than
likely in a position of power that was given by a group of people. If so, what
does that say about the group of people (or massess) that empower the
sociopaths?

------
lazyjones
This is so absurd that it is probably a scam. You should make sure that "Fox
Williams LLP" was actually the sender of this note and that they represent
Shopzilla (you should contact them).

------
csmattryder
First time I've seen a business not want to be given free advertising.

But instead of just giving them a call (it's not difficult, they're both UK
based) they're going to Streisand themselves some negative PR.

I'll wait for the statement from Shopzilla's top brass, just to see if it's
ran by 1000 monkeys on computers.

~~~
moepstar
Obligatory Wikipedia link for people not knowing the "Streisand effect":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>

------
moomin
I know a couple of the people at Shopzilla, and they're not idiots. However,
it should be borne in mind that Shopzilla belongs to EWScripps who aren't
idiots either, but do have the money to prosecute a case for a very long time
indeed if they are so inclined.

Anyway, I'd recommend the same thing: contact them and see if the law firm
does, in fact, represent them and isn't just 'Prenda Law'ing.

~~~
Peroni
EWScripps sold Shopzilla to Symphony Technology Group a couple of years ago.

~~~
moomin
Thanks for the correction.

------
AlexHamilton
It looks like they have already retracted, apologised and offered wine and
chocolate via the comments.

------
smoyer
I think the real crime in this story is L0.80 for a Twix!

~~~
dan1234
And yet people still think twice before spending £0.69 on an app…

------
meric
Amount of damages incurred from linking to ShopZilla in a post that praises
the same company: Less than -$0. I guess they should send them an invoice.

------
chmike
It is unfortunate, but the integration of a link inside a page may affect it's
page rank in google search results. This is enough, in my opinion, to justify
the concern of the link target owner and legitimate the request to get the
link removed. However, the harm, if any, needs to be established and proven
for a trial to be successful I guess.

~~~
hluska
So, company A writes something accurate about company B. Company A's site is
relatively new and the anchor text is something like 'click here'. Under your
'theory' company B would be entitled to go to court to force company A to
remove the link.

Two questions:

\- does that keep with the spirit of the web? \- what happened to the concept
of electronic freedom??

Needless to say, I think you're dead wrong.

------
ValentineC
This reminds me of a case where a (very large) law firm sued a news site for
linking to them:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/02/linked_out.single.html)

------
drucken
Why did Datadial then remove the link in the original article if believed they
are irrefutably right?

The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK...

~~~
DanBC
> _The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK..._

There was a case about 'deep linking' (and maybe framing?) from the early www.
One Scottish news paper was linking to another Scottish newspaper.

(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeplinking#Court_rulings>)

------
nkoren
Dear DataDial: Paragraphs. They're a thing. Please learn how to use them. Your
content is all but unreadable right now.

------
cybernoodles
We REALLY need some tech folks to get in office and work on some legislation.

~~~
beedogs
Too bad old age or disease is really the only realistic way to get most of
these technophobe, computer-illiterate fossils out of legislature.

------
lakey
Beyond mental.

------
paulhauggis
Some years back, I had a guy try to tell me that an ordered list of common
website links on his site was copyrighted (and that he would be suing me in
court because I had those same links on my site).

He even wanted a public apology. I, of course, ignored all of this and he went
away.

It's ridiculous what people will try to sue you about these days...

