Fast Company has amended its atrocious linking policy, but the one they've put in its place is only slightly better.
Fast Company permits links to the Fastcompany.com Web site. However, Fast Company reserves the right to withdraw permission for any link and requests that you not link for any impermissible purpose or in a manner that suggests that Fast Company promotes or endorses your Web site.
Fastcompany.com does not allow framing of its Web site content.
The Web exists because there is no permission needed to create a link (and that includes a framing link). This is enshrined in the RFCs that defined the Web. It has been the guiding principle of the Web since the first page went online.
That permission-free world made the economy that Fast Company services possible. It is dangerous and irresponsible for Fast Company's lawyers to tell the lie to Fast Company's readers that there is a legitimate basis for asserting the right to control who may link to your website (you don't need a policy to tell people that links that create the fraudulent impression of an endorsement are illegal — fraud is illegal even if you're not on notice about it).
This is a step in the right direction, but only a small one. The faxed-permission-form was ridiculous, but the real evil in it wasn't the ridiculousness, it was this damaging lie about permission being required for links.
I really hope that Fast Company acts like the heroes I know they can be here, changing their linking policy to something like:
The Web exists because no one has the right to grant or withhold permission for links. Fast Company exists because of the Web. Accordingly, we neither grant nor deny permission to link to our site, and urge you to do the same.
I would buy twenty FC subscriptions for twenty friends if they would do this. I'd settle for removing the linking policy entirely (but I wouldn't buy the subs).
(Thanks, Fred!)
