Olympic Level Ridiculousness: You Can't Link To The Olympics Website If You Say Something Mean About Them
from the watch-me dept
For years, we've highlighted the overaggressive nature of the Olympics in over-protecting their intellectual property -- even to the level of getting host countries to pass special IP laws that only apply to the Olympics. But this sense of ultimate entitlement seems to pervade everything that the Olympics does. It was recently noted that the terms of use for the London 2012 website include a restriction on how you can link to the site:Links to the Site. You may create your own link to the Site, provided that your link is in a text-only format. You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association between an organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012, and agree that no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner. The use of our logo or any other Olympic or London 2012 Mark(s) as a link to the Site is not permitted. View our guidelines on Use of the Games’ Marks.There are other insane statements in the terms, including that you automatically agree to be "legally bound" by the terms simply by using the site. That's not how a contract works, guys.
Either way, this claim that you can't link to their site in a "derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner" has inspired the creativity of the internet, it appears. Specifically, lots of folks have taken to Twitter to share their own derogatory or otherwise objectionable statements along with links to the website. Asher Wolf and Meredith Patterson have done a really nice job curating some of the insults that are currently raining down on the Olympics for their linking policy. We've included a couple of screenshots (below the fold).
I recognize that there are some other sites who have used this kind of language in the past, and that some overcharging lawyer was probably just trying to set up a "cover their ass" policy for the Olympics, but it's amazing that any competent individual lets those kinds of things out into the world these days without realizing that it's clearly going to create the exact opposite incentives.
And, hell, just for fun, check out this link to an obnoxious organization that loves censorship and doesn't respect free speech. And I say that in a derogatory and objectionable manner.
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: censorship, london 2012, olympics, terms of use, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm sorry, but can you explain how you can use a site without being bound by the terms of use of that site? Please explain, oh great understander of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. creating a hyperlink to a site from one's own site and using a site are not legally synonymous
2. unreasonable or unlawful terms of use are not enforceable by law
3. even if we grant that hyperlinking to a site activates the site's terms of use, there is some legal gray area as to whether the terms of use could be binding, whether loading a page in a browser constitutes meaningful consent, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if reading a sentence would magically form a legally binding agreement, I'm not so sure it's actually legal to form a contract that takes away people's rights to free speech in most countries. I know that in Sweden, it's actually impossible to sign away your rights, so in my country all of the legal bullshit on the olympic website is worth precisely dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly!
Courts employ all kinds of weird reasoning.
Unreasonable and oppressive terms of service are not necessarily meant to be enforced: They are instead a special signal to the mob of rabble. The terms purport to prohibit the lower classes from criticizing their elite governors. The governors are not stupid. They recognize fighting words intended to inflame passions. They know they run the risk that the rabble will pelt them with eggs. Indeed, they delight in that risk: It is delicious sport when they grab a few of the bolder ruffians, and crack heads to show who's really boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is my understanding that a contract has to involve an exchange of value or be signed under seal. In the case of agreeing to terms of use, there has to be an active sign-up process; you're not bound to the terms by merely "visiting" the site. So the semantics of "using" a site might be at issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
I will expect you PROMPTLY at 5am to begin weeding my garden. That is all for now, slave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are trying to equate linking to their site with 'using' their site.
It's like saying taking a picture of a bus is somehow riding on the bus. A short bus at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Merely browsing the site doesn't come even close to that standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But there is no way you can claim that I've consented just by reading. That's utter shiny-object nonsense. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*spends $100 of imaginary money at your imaginary store*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's the matter, Pirate Mike? Can't defend yourself? I'll add this to my incredibly long list of debates you ran away from. Why so scared, Mikey? If I'm so stupid, why won't you EVER debate me about anything. For over two years now you've run from every single debate. To me, that only proves that you're in bad faith. Kudos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You act like you are in the middle of a crowded room screaming into a megaphone how everyone but you is stupid, and when everyone else is ignoring you, you claim to have won imaginary "debates". Sorry, this is not how debates work. You can't just claim victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simple: the site allows you to use it without having ever seen or agreed to those terms - often without them having even been made prominent in any way. And, since the terms are hosted on the site itself, it's impossible to even see them without first making use of the site. That's not an enforceable agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have. Got a law degree, passed the bar, practiced law for a living, the whole nine.
Beadon's right, and you and the 2012 Olympics are full of shit.
Where did you get *your* law degree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And since you are not among those of us who get that, you are now also hereby required, by virtue of this TOS addendum, to go to law school and only after graduating with at least a 3.95 grade point, will you be allowed to return here.
Yet even then you are no longer permitted, under the terms of this TOS, to ever insult, belittle or otherwise goad Mike the way you have in your comment heretofore responded to by this TOS addendum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To clarify, when I stated "well you can't use a site without being bound by its terms" that was an explicit and otherwise directly implied concept applying only to you, the 2 year troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Secondly, the UK (via the EU) has all sorts of consumer-protection laws which, among other things, can negate unreasonable terms in contracts - particularly where the contract is one-sided.
Plus you have the broader issues of incorporation of the terms; if they're buried away on some "terms" page, are they actually incorporated into the agreement?
So legally, under English law (where this site is based) there's a good chance the term isn't binding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2/10
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The olypics is run by shithead cuntmissiles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Light bulb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Light bulb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Light bulb!
Thanks Loboogle!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Light bulb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Light bulb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Light bulb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Light bulb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dang furiners! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And because I never clicked the link to the Olmypic site you can't say I ever agreed to your stupid terms, nor can you say I posted the link to it since other people on this page have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Olympic games in Ancient Greece were supposed to be a period where everyone would put quarrels and rivalry aside and get along a little and compete in an honest and fair manner.
Wars were even supposed to be put on hold for the games!
But today, the olympic federation has turned it into making money. There's little sportsmanship, like you say everyone just wants to win, whether they are athletes or spectators. You hardly hear people say "That country who beat us performed very well! They're really good!"
It's all about winning and making money.
And then of course, there's the abuses of the olympic federation when it comes to enforcing their intellectual property. Shutting down old restaurants with the name "Olympic", stifling free speech, forbidding people from posting pictures of the game online, encouraging governments to all kinds of excesses...
But in the end, the problem is not really with the olympic federation, it's the people: people need to start taking responsibility and boycott the games. People shouldn't watch the games, they should tell their government they don't want their country to host the games, and athletes should refuse to go to the olympics.
It's way too easy to criticize the olympic federation and then watch the games on TV anyway.
But we live in a world where people don't care about anything that doesn't concern them closely. Principles? Nobody has that anymore. So you guys enjoy your rights being violated, because frankly you deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Great. Love your athletes. Respect them. Treasure them. But people need to stop blinding themselves to the fact that corporations abuse that position way more than most probably realize.
Case in point - the whole U.S. uniforms made in China debacle that reared it's not-surprising ugly head this week. The initial reaction from USOC staff was the complaints about a desire to help Americans gain employment in current economic conditions that resulted in complaints against the USOC and RL, were bullshit ranting.
Except the complaints and outcry grew too big too fast, and now the USOC and RL have had to back-track, apologize, and vow to change their ways.
They got scared. Well the USOC didn't. RL did. Financially. And the USOC in turn had no choice but to agree that it was important to change their ways. Else other big name designers bail out on lending their name and crappy preppy designs to the USOC's effort.
Corporate greed needs to be dealt with directly - where it matters. Economically. Big corporations like at the Olympics don't want that - they think they can get away with murder because people will end up lowering their voices out of fear of offending the individual front-line troops.
Oh wow - look at that - same concept as war-mongering greedy corporate shill politicians depend on. Yes - that's right - they'll gladly send thousands of soldiers into harms way, with the real understanding that many will die, countless more will be wounded and scarred emotionally and psychologically for life.
And they count on citizens rolling over under the guise of patriotism. Because "if you're not supporting your troops, you're UnAmerican. Or UnBritish or UnCanadian. Or whatever nationality you are.
Well that's all bullshit. Because it just resonates to the fact that we live in sheep-to-slaughter societies around the globe now.
And the only answer that will work to ever change that system, be it with the Olympics or national imperialism, is to take off the politically delicate sensitivity gloves and get real, raw and ridiculously loud about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The so-called modern olympics turned that around. The money went to the organizers, to the associations, to any body but the athlete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that an event I cannot name happening in a town on the river Thames and in the year MMXII has beaten them by several lengths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"We do not agree to your terms of use, so we will no longer be providing links to your website."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A website is a service. The materials, features and functionality are not offered unrestricted. Indeed, even techdirt.com has a privacy policy that works as an agreement for use of some information as indicated there. (http://www.techdirt.com/privacy.php)
Is that not an agreement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And even if it was, what if someone sent you a tinyurl link and you didn't know what was on the other side of the link? You can't be bound by the terms of a website that you inadvertently visit or else you could be bound by the terms of websites that people embed into other websites without your actual knowledge or agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can conjure up whatever TOS they want and nobody's legally bound to them. You are not bound to a contractual agreement simply for visiting a website, just as you cannot be forced to purchase or lease a vehicle just for stopping by a car dealer. Visiting a website does not constitute 'providing a service,' sorry to burst your bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are not restricting your actions or telling you how you can or can not behave.
If they added a clause at the end that said by using this site you are legally bound to give Mike Masnick your first born child to be sacrificed to the gods of piracy would you be looking for a person sized box?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without going into the legal elements of the intention to create legal relations (contract) believe it that there have been a huge history of hundreds of years specifically stating what is and what is not a contract
These so called unilateral stipulations and terms do not even an offer make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Anusflakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
olympics is a waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/privacy.php
Not too different than claim in the article: "There are other insane statements in the terms, including that you automatically agree to be "legally bound" by the terms simply by using the site. "
Now I agree it's quite a stretch to say that linking to the site would cause someone to be bound by the terms, but "using the site" isn't uncommon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using
The Olympic site, on the other hand, says that if you use our website, then the user agrees to do/not to do certain other things.
Different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: using
In the case of the Olympics, I don't think visiting the site would work as an acceptance of the contract. And, in the case of the Olympics, they NEED acceptance of the contract for them to limit the way you link.
In the case of Techdirt, Techdirt does not NEED acceptance (i.e., permission or a contract) in any event. There is more of an argument in Techdirt's case that use of the website is an acceptance, basically because the user can't stop Techdirt from using the information as outlined. And if use doesn't amount to acceptance, then it at least provides notice to the user of what Techdirt will do with information it collects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That pretty much sums it up. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"in a text-only format"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "in a text-only format"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "in a text-only format"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "in a text-only format"???
... but that's kind of like requiring swimming to be done in water or thinking to be done by a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I couldn't think of anything objectionable to say, so here's something Objection-related instead:
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney- Investigation ~ Cornered theme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typically it's left at "you're not allowed to link to us" without referring to make-believe legalese in a site's TOS. It's more often just an email saying - "Remove the link, we didn't say you could do that."
Heck, I got such an email a couple years back - from a company I'd done actual work for, and where I listed their site in my client portfolio. Ha! I laughed in that lawyer's email face.
I don't care what any site's TOS says. If I want to link to their asshat commercially overzealous fascist enterprise's web site, I will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was recently skimming through a book on (English) IP law, and it was suggesting that linking to a site could count as an infringement of copyright (in the site) and that the only way a set of bookmarks would be legal is if you could fit them in the fair dealing for private study exception. And this is the 2010 edition (based on a really dodgy 90s case involving Scottish newspapers).
If that is what lawyers are being taught, it is no wonder they think they can impose conditions when they "license" out the right to link to their sites. Of course, everyone else thinks that linking is just linking; providing a sign-post sort of thing. Only one side can be right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
funniest thread ever
And it has swearing.
Lots of swearing about those stupid fuckwads at www.london2012.com
cuntwagons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good counter:
Set up a site where they can go to complain and file to take down offending sites, and have at the bottom a disclaimer saying that visiting the site makes them legally bound to hand over all profits gained from the Olympics over to publicly chosen charities, while dressed in clown suits(stereotypical clown suits mind, not the one's they're already wearing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
They've already decided that Poland gets a few golds because they signed various trade agreements with the UK.
China paid �5million to the IOC to win various martial arts sections...
Basically every medal is already decided ahead of time...like Eurovision where countries ignore the songs and just vote for the country they have trade agreements pending...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well
Maybe we should make the insane goits who thought this up look like the Turkish entry in the Eurovision Song Contest. As if they hadn't made themselves enough of a laughingstock already. Rimmer could do a better job running the IOC than those addle-pated gits with less brains than a mollusk. They're trumped up, farty little smegheads who, if their skin were any thinner, you could see right through it! A group of overzealous powermongers with a Napoleon complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haha
ya that aobut says all you need to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just so you know
and as such you do not have to accept any terms thus
http://www.uha1.com/terms.txt
and a link to olympics is on the site...
suck ass and your limo drivers left nut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@73 really
lol
yea ok sure heres some melted canadian money.....sorry the heat wave n all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"check out this link..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken at Popehat has picked up on this
Guess I should submit this due to the McDonalds Monopoly on "Chips" being backed down from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ken at Popehat has picked up on this
You'd think if the empoyees are complaining, they'd make the connection that the masses won't like it any better. Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]