Who even wants this? Wouldn’t this just mean that no one links to anything ever? Or do big publishers plan on giving free licenses to favourable reviews only, or something incredibly stupid like that that would kill word of mouth marketing but sound good to someone with exactly no understanding of marketing?
A link isn’t the same as giving somebody a copy…It merely tells the user where to ask for a copy. Whether the file (html or otherwise) is provided is completely up to the server providing the copy. It makes NO sense for a payment to be provided by the person supplying the link when the people controlling the server that the link is located can provide the file, or not, or require payment before providing the file.
Yeah, this sounds a lot like the desire for Google to pay news sites for sending them traffic. The fact that the linked sites can use robots.txt to block Google Search and Google News from scanning their website and they don’t use that indicates that they just want to get paid for being provided with traffic.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.