The outcome of a case about to be decided in the Scottish courts could result in the destruction of the World Wide Web.
Most people when they establish a presence on the Web do so because they wish other people to visit their site. If someone else has a link to their site they are delighted as it increases the number of visitors. Some have a counter to proudly display the number of visits. Some even go so far as to provide a guest book so that visitors can sign in and make comments, others are welcome to peruse the guest book.
I say most people as there is usually an exception to every rule. In this case there is at least one person, maybe the only person in the universe who doesn't appear to welcome visitors. He is Robert Wishart managing director of The Shetland Times. So incensed is he that a rival site (The Shetland News, Ed Jonathan Wills) has established a link to his site that he has taken out an injunction against the Shetland News to prevent them linking to his site (actually he has served an interim interdict, which is the Scottish equivalent to an injunction).
For the moment I'll leave to one side the perversity of the action and look at what is being done and some of its far reaching implications.
If a page contains a hot link it is no different to typing in a URL. The only difference is that with one click of a mouse the software effectively types out the URL.
Is it a matter of copyright? Normally a case of copyright is if a third party is copying and reproducing your work over which you claim copyright. A URL is unique, that is it can not be copied. If it could we would have more than page with the same URL, which can not exist.
The copyright can not be claimed over the URL in general, as this belongs to whoever devised the URL system (assuming that they claimed the copyright). As far as I'm aware this is in the public domain and in any case it does not seem to be what is causing Wishart problems.
Wishart appears not to like that someone is referring to his site and by doing so they are quoting the URL or by implication the title of the particular page. That is if someone wishes to quote his URL then they should seek his prior permission.
Now what does this mean. It means that the URL could not be quoted in any periodical, journal or book. But by implication this would apply to any reference or citation. It is normal practice when writing a book or paper to have a list of references. A courtesy if nothing else to show that you are building on the work of others who have gone before you. It is also a service to your readers to enable them to follow up some of your points in more detail. Authors are usually pleased to be cited, indeed academic reputations (often undeservedly so) are built upon the number of citations.
Were Wishart to have his injunction upheld every author of a paper would have to have their permission sought before their paper could be cited.
What it would mean for the Web is that it would unravel as in practice it would prove impractical to seek permission. Or in other words if Wishart were to win his case the Web would be as good as dead.
It could be that Wishart is a simple fellow and has no understanding of how the Web works. Maybe when he clicked on a page at the Shetland News and saw his own copy he in his ignorance thought that they had reproduced his work - in which case he would have grounds for a case.
For Wishart's benefit I will explain how the Web and hypertext links work.
When I, or anyone else, click on a hypertext link or type out a URL we are making a request for a copy of that page. A request goes out from our Web client to the Web server that holds the page - that is the server specified in the URL. Apart from providing us with a reference to the URL the third party takes no part in the transaction. This is no different than if I found the URL in a book or magazine. If I make a request for a page from the Shetland Times the transaction is between myself and the Shetland Times no matter where I found the URL. Exactly analogous to if I see a reference in a book or journal and then request a copy of that reference. I get a copy of the original paper, I do not find it in the book citing the reference, not that is unless the book is a collection of papers and the cited reference happens to be one of those contained therein.
All this does of course beg the question 'why is Wishart on the Web?' Clearly he has no concept of how the Web works. If he doesn't like people linking to his site the solution is very simple - unplug your server. Maybe some kind hacker will do us all a good service and put him out of his misery.
The plot though thickens. It appears (according to a report in New Scientist) that Wills used to work for Wishart and was unfairly dismissed and was able to claim compensation against Wishart. Is it therefore more a case of Wishart seeking vengeance?
Courts have at times been known to show common sense. This is a case that cries out for common sense and for Wishart to be told where to get off.
Personally I feel there is only one way for people like Wishart to be treated and that is to hold them up to public ridicule and contempt.
I would suggest that everyone e-mail Wishart r.wishart@shetland-times.co.uk with their thoughts on the matter. Add a link to The Shetland Times http://www.shetland-times.co.uk. Is he going to serve us all with an injunction? Though I must admit it goes against the grain to establish a link to a site that doesn't deserve visits. Once the dust has settled I recommend that these links be removed leaving the Shetland Times marooned and isolated.
Note Wishart gets very incensed if a link is established directly to one of his stories that bypasses his front page and misses the benefits of his advertising. Not of course that I would dream of encouraging anyone to do such a thing!
Wishart claims that he will have the support of other publishers on Internet! The onus is now on every publisher and user to make it very clear to Wishart that he does not have our support. From my own conversations with exhibitors at Online Information 96 (Olympia London 3-5 December 1996) I couldn't find a single exhibitor who had either support or sympathy for Wishart.
This case is as serious as the action that was taken against Phil Zimmermann for the release of Pretty Good Privacy. Jonathan Wills clearly deserves our help and support. An appeal has been set up.
More information can be found at The Shetland News
Rob Edwards, Scottish court case could unravel the Web, New Scientist, 16 November 1996
Lost in the global village, Editorial, New Scientist, 16 November 1996
Kurt Kleiner, Surfing Prohibited, New Scientist, 25 January 1997