We’re Being Sued For Linking To Shopzilla | Hacker News Reader

We’re Being Sued For Linking To Shopzilla

datadial.net

136 pointsbubba135655 comments

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.

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.

> 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.

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

Very strange indeed - people don't take legal action lightly. I don't understand why a simple email asking to remove the link wouldn't work. And if that fails you can always just use the Google Disavow: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...

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-...

> Just remove the link, problem goes away no need for legal representation and you get on with your life.

He mentions that they have removed the link. Datadial are able to play both sides of the game here I think; they've removed the link to placate the lawyers, but are also pointing the threat out publicly either for the media attention or because they feel they should (both are valid). Of course, I've no idea about the potential legalities involved in such naming-and-shaming...

Personally, I'd be contacting the general manager or Shopzilla and asking them if they're aware of what their lawyer or legal department is doing. I've had run-ins with lawyers before who want to 'make their mark' by fucking with people against their own client's interest. If Shopzilla did want this, fine, fuck 'em, remove the link and move on with life. If they didn't want this, they now are aware that they have a maverick lawyer on the loose.

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.

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

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.

DCMA request in the UK???

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

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.

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.

It's entirely beyond the pail [sic] to be able to enforce removal

It's beyond the pale (as in the paling fence surrounding a town, the pale of settlement, etc...).

Ah! I was wondering which way round it was supposed to be.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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)?

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.

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?

If you're not trying to defend them, your language could use a little work. Apologies if English isn't your first.

It would have been so smart for Shopzilla to ask nicely, I'm sure they would have obliged.

Using a lawyer to threaten monetary damages where none are merited makes you ineligible for "acting in good faith".

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).

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.

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

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.

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

Thanks for the correction.

The Cleveland Browns set the standard here, in 1974.

http://www.clevescene.com/64-and-counting/archives/2010/12/2...

> I know a couple of the people at Shopzilla, and they're not idiots.

And yet they are suing over a hyperlink? I'll judge them by their actions.

Well, they've apologised, explained what they were trying to do and sent wine and chocolates over.

I've got sympathy for them here: spam sites linking to you is a serious problem. One day the spam site has (undeserved) link juice. The next, Google's ban hammer comes down and you get unfairly penalised.

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

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

Maybe it was a twix duo. Can we have a followup post?

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

> 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)

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

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

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

Beyond mental.

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com