Can We Count The Ways In Which Lowe's 'License Agreement' For Linking To Its Site Is Insane?
from the rev-up-those-numbers dept
First, let me say that I occasionally do shop at Lowe's, but not that often. There is one literally across the street from my office, so it's easy to stop by after work -- but my office is a good 25-minute drive away, so if I just need stuff on weekends, there are about six Home Depots that are much, much closer. Lowe's also feels oddly sterile, whereas Home Depot has the feel of a place where people are actually getting stuff done. That said, I'm sort of in awe at the monumental insanity of Lowe's having a special license agreement you're supposed to fill out to link to its site (as pointed out by Ars Technica's Nate Anderson):
- Okay, let's start with the obvious one: you don't need, have never needed and will never need a license to link to another website. Sorry. It's just ridiculous to even contemplate such a thing -- especially in this day and age.
- Yes, okay, so we've heard a few stories of sites doing similar things in the past... but they were either wacko sites run by nutty people, or they happened a decade or more ago, before people understood the web. Well, or a government-connected bureaucracy. That this would be a giant retailer in 2012 requiring such a license to link? That's just insane.
- Note that they have not one, but three separate licenses to link. The other two are much more about if you're using logos or other trademarks, which is only slightly more understandable (though there are plenty of situations under which you wouldn't need a license to use their logo or marks either...). But this highlights the key insanity. If it had just been one license that talked about logo/mark usage, they may have been able to claim that's really all they meant. But here, they've specifically carved out the situation under which no logo/mark is being used. In other words, they've deliberately carved out the situation in which no license would ever be needed.... and then offered up a license for that. That's insane.
- The only way to send the signed license in is to fax it. Yes. The only way. For a license about internet links. Is to fax it. Fax. That's insane.
- Lowe's insists that it can terminate this license for any reason. Except... um... such a license is not valid and anyone can link to them. So, terminate away.
- When Anderson contacted Lowe's PR about this, rather than taking down the bogus license or just running and hiding in shame for being digitally clueless, the company stood by the license:
"Managing link agreements is part of protecting our brand," is the polite reply I received. "The process we have in place to handle links to lowes.com is a business decision."
Let's be clear about this: nothing in that statement makes one iota of sense. It's pure insanity. Managing link agreements does nothing to protect your brand, because it's licensing something that doesn't require a license because you have no control over it. At all. In fact, it's the opposite of protecting your brand, because it makes your brand, and your entire company, look clueless. Also, it may have been a "business decision," but it's one that makes no sense, carries no legal weight, and makes the company seem entirely ridiculous.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: license agreement, linking
Companies: lowe's
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Business decision
Pointy haired Boss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF they don't want people linking to them without permission...
What are they going to do, complain that you didn't jump through hoops to link to them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 - Is a link to their website a form of use of mark or other? If your html is an integral document and includes "lowes.com" in it, are you using their mark?
2 - If you benefit in some manner from having a link (say Google ranking you higher as an authority), does that link draw benefit from an association with Lowes that may not in fact exist?
3 - While Lowes could use certain tool to block traffic from those links to their sites, it would do nothing to change the previous two issues.
If lowes.com is a registered trademark, it COULD be questionable. It's not likely to work out, but they are on the very thin edge of things with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, in other words, Mike is right.
Use of the name "Lowes" to refer to "Lowes"--such you an I are doing--is legal, as is linking using "Lowes". I don't have to call "Lowes" "The big hardware retailer that isn't Home Depot". Nor is permission required to link to a site, no more than I need permission to say "cross reference page A2 of Today's Chronicle".
I think the only question is what idiot at Lowes decided this was a good idea? This is from the failed internet playbooks of the 90's
http://www.salon.com/1999/08/12/deep_links/
Lowe's legal department is a decade behind the times. That or they've hired Steve Gibson :-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY.
Doesn't matter. Trademark gives you the ability to control false association, not complete usage. By definition a hyperlink to their website points to their website, so there no improper usage.
No. Simply including the link in no way implies that they endorse your site, which is the only thing that trademark is concerned with.
No, it couldn't. These are not "associate with us" licenses, these are for *linking*, which does not need a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is Google licensed to link to them? If not maybe they should pull all those links before they get into trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To the point of this article, however, these license agreements are stupid, and I am sure that Lowes Marketing hates Lowes legal team more than ever right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but even that would not allow them to prevent someone from mentioning the trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is why people need to read and discuss these things, and relate them to other shenanigans concerning the Internet because big business (and, it seems, Hollywood) always has lobbyists ready to test the next step in making us pay for the Internet and controlling what we search for, read, and post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link plz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody at Lowes came up with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody at Lowes came up with this?
Which, I guess, doesn't exactly invalidate your argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody at Lowes came up with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did you count the links?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How did you count the links?
(ie. just enter "link:site.com" into the search bar.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allow me to rectify that;
http://www.lowes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice how they assume your lowest-level subdomain is called "www".
The Link shall be so configured that the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the Lowe�s website (http://www.lowes.com) will be displayed continuously in a user�s browser once that user�s link is completed and throughout the entire duration of that user�s link.
Um, what? I've never seen the word "link" used that way before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.lowes.com/cd_Contact+Us_347544179_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was recently made aware of your company's license agreement for allowing other websites to link to yours. While I consider this an exciting new direction for your company policy, the details have left me wondering a few things.
I've noticed a disturbing trend among corporations to neglect to treat their physical locations with the same care that they treat their online locations, and feel that your current policy could be further reinforced by requiring that only registered tour guides and approved navigational apps be permitted to direct people to your many convenient locations. Are there currently any plans to implement such a model?
Are there any ways to acquire a linking license besides faxing a form to your company? I do not believe there are any fax machines in my area, and a more accessible option would be appreciated.
Are links in private correspondences as well as public websites prohibited, and if so should I forward all offending emails to you or are you already monitoring those yourselves?
For that matter, is forwarding an email in which the original sender links to lowes.com considered to be infringement on my part? I'd like to do my part to combat the menace of word-of-mouth advertising, but not if doing so would make me part of the problem.
I look forward to your responses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry. i just couldn't help myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did someone say Google Bomb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is good for business (Home Depot's business)
Maybe Lowe's Marketing should have a talk with Lowe's Legal Department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old-School Legal Templates ...
Probably someone at Lowe's legal (apparently without an email address or Internet knowledge) thought this was a good way to set the stage for potential copyright claims for links (although case law has since killed any chance of that), or potential trademark claims (although ways to actually infringe TM via links are severely limited).
Mostly, it's just insane. (Oh, and good for your SEO too, if by "good" you mean hobbling your page rank by limiting the number of unique inbound links.) Yeah. Insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA expanding
Of course, when asked how the revenue was going to increase, the Lowe's CEO, Robert Niblock laughed off any suggestions. "We are confident in the financial successes of Hollywood in this endeavor," he stated. "The linking license will make us a far better company than we have been in the past." The past, that Lowe's discusses is their decision to pull their funding from All American Muslim in a decision that caused quite a controversy when it came to light that the charges were from a biased third party. When our reporters pointed out the inconsistency, Robert Niblick's face paled and he merely muttered "No comment" in regards to the story.
Chris Dodd however piped up for his newest business associate. "We remain confident that our strategy of enforcing these licenses on the populace will be very very lucrative for both parties. We already have a number of Democrats that can push the legislation to increase the penalties for foreign sites that choose to ignore the license agreement. You see, we've changed. We can show compassion as we defend these trademarks."
It is obvious that the MPAA's expansion will be a new source of revenue in the coming months. Lowe's seems quite excited. But will their licenses be linked more on Google?
Only time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got it
So, if they only want links to them with this license, does that mean that all of the search engines now need to remove the links to Lowes as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess they mean through one of the TUBES huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And why not visit http://www.lowes.com/ ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, we should expect the number of sites Google is reporting as linking to http://lowes.com to drastically increase over the next few days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ooops...i tripped and spilled a link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please be aware that Loews is a hotel (chain?), that has nothing to do with the hardware store.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you sir, May I have another?
Thanks for helping make my shopping decisions easy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE Lowes
they call themselves "lowes" too, but as a Moron in a hurry (or any sitting politician)I can't get lumber here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreement Meant To Stifle Criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as Mark Twain [maybe] said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who is Lowe's
Who would care to link to Lowes anyway...the CEO ?
The CEO better wake up first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Jake on Feb 7th, 2012 @ 6:18pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or in the case of the article on copying photographies, make their own copy of the photos and post them.
Well I understand that they don't have the technical means to do some of these things, or that they don't want to risk the lawsuits, so I'm not saying they should or must do it. But I certainly would enjoy it if they did =D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IS THIS FOR REAL!?! OR ARE THE PEOPLE THERE JUST STUPID!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the wording
So, wait. If you agree to this, you can never again contest the validity of anything on their website, ever, even if you cancel the agreement and even if they change their website?
I think this isn't about the link. I think it's about getting other companies to agree to stupid terms that they can hold them to forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowes was doing this in 2004
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they currently only have approx (using Google) 822 links to their site?
Does anyone else think that this whole "agreement" might be a sneaky way of actually advertising their sites by getting people to link to them using like a reverse striesand effect? Has some genius decided to anonymously tip of places like ARS to write an article so we would all link back to them out of a sense of "right"?
Genius... Pure genius! /sarc
Then again I prefer the Lowes in Australia. Cheap clothes and you can link to them or not.. your choice with no "contract"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/hyperlink ::sub::Legal_Issues
Hyperlinks are fun!
Be careful if you are in the Netherlands or Taiwan though.
Quote:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm embarrassed... I work at Lowe's corporate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are they?
So not only do I still not know who they are, but if they offer any merchandise I wanted to buy, they have lost that sale (not that I probably would - I noted the comparison with Office Depot, and I do know who they are. I also know that to buy something from them and ship it internationally would be borderline insanity...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowes stock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lowes stock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hey, is there a Lowe's around here?"
"Yes. But legally, I can't tell you how to get there without signing a license agreement with Lowe's."
"Uh... OK. How about a Home Depot?"
"Sure! Turn right on Main Street, go 3 blocks, and it's on the left."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cannot believe that they must have paid MONEY to lawyers to make this agreement.
Total Lowesers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bookmarks
If i want to bookmark that site, i need to fax them?
as bookmarks are nothing else then links, or at least exportable as links.
heck the favicon would even count as using the logo.
seems a bit of silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]