+1
Answered

it is illegal to put in an iframe the content of another website?

Juan Acosta 3 years ago updated by RiteTag Support Team 3 years ago 2

Answer

Answer
Answered

Hi Juan,


Good question, and it's one that I hear in one form or another now and then.


No, if you read the wikipedia page carefully, you will see that the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, "the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation." If framing a page, specific to individual shares of the page were subject to litigation, StumbleUpon would have been put out of business in 2001.


Our interpretation: our CTAs (the iframes you refer to) to not interfere with the proprietors' means of making money. Further, please note that our Rite.ly product affects no website in any way. Rite.ly affects URLs that wrap URLs, so that those who share a blog post, etc., can get something for themselves.


So, law is one thing, while ethics, non-spamminess or, just plain doing the right thing is another. As for this, just as the Coach feature of RiteForge discourages the use of more than one hashtag, we look at it this way:
people share blogs big and small in URLs in their Tweets/posts. Those posts promise what you'll get when you click on the URL. As those sites violate your trust by popping, redirecting, prefacing with pitch after ad after video after... And so when you share Forbes, etc., they do what for you...? With rite.ly, you do nothing to interfere with the page, site, or other people's shares of the sage words of wisdom that they impart (after subjecting you to wave upon onslaught of their self-promotion); you only ensure that those clicking through from your shares of a page also get your offer.

Care to discuss this? I'm @osakasaul

Best,


Saul Fleischman

RiteKit CEO

Answer
Answered

Hi Juan,


Good question, and it's one that I hear in one form or another now and then.


No, if you read the wikipedia page carefully, you will see that the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, "the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation." If framing a page, specific to individual shares of the page were subject to litigation, StumbleUpon would have been put out of business in 2001.


Our interpretation: our CTAs (the iframes you refer to) to not interfere with the proprietors' means of making money. Further, please note that our Rite.ly product affects no website in any way. Rite.ly affects URLs that wrap URLs, so that those who share a blog post, etc., can get something for themselves.


So, law is one thing, while ethics, non-spamminess or, just plain doing the right thing is another. As for this, just as the Coach feature of RiteForge discourages the use of more than one hashtag, we look at it this way:
people share blogs big and small in URLs in their Tweets/posts. Those posts promise what you'll get when you click on the URL. As those sites violate your trust by popping, redirecting, prefacing with pitch after ad after video after... And so when you share Forbes, etc., they do what for you...? With rite.ly, you do nothing to interfere with the page, site, or other people's shares of the sage words of wisdom that they impart (after subjecting you to wave upon onslaught of their self-promotion); you only ensure that those clicking through from your shares of a page also get your offer.

Care to discuss this? I'm @osakasaul

Best,


Saul Fleischman

RiteKit CEO