If I were representing an accused linker, I'd be inclined to argue (among other things) that in view of longstanding, worldwide custom and usage: 1. Anyone wh

If I were representing an accused linker, I'd be inclined to argue (among other things) that in view of longstanding, worldwide custom and usage: 1. Anyone who puts up a Web page is implicitly authorizing, nay inviting, all comers to access the page via normal protocols; 2. As a matter of law, the only way the implicit authorization can be negated is to deny access to the page, for example, by putting the page behind a password wall -- simply putting up a terms-and-conditions notice, that you don't even see before getting to the page, isn't enough (that's pretty much what the courts have held, at least in the US); 3. Therefore, any notice on the Web page that said "thou shalt not link to this page [or site]" would be of no legal significance. A site that said "you can't link to me, even though I'm out here in the public square, so to speak," would be like a company that decided to hold a confidential business meeting at an outdoor restaurant table, put up a sign on the table saying "thou shalt not listen in," and then sued people who eavesdropped from the next table over.