Context matters hugely. Here is their full Linking section, which does not include anything from the title:
"
Periodically, links may be established from this Web Site to one or more external web sites or resources operated by third parties (the "Third Party Sites"). These links are provided for your convenience only. In addition, certain Third Party Sites also may provide links to this Web Site. None of such links should be deemed to imply that Victoria's Secret endorses the Third Party Sites or any content therein.
We do not control and are not responsible or liable for any Third Party Sites or any content, advertising, products, or other materials on or available through such Third Party Sites. Access to any Third Party Sites is at your own risk and we will have no liability arising out of or related to such web sites and/or their content or for any damages or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with any purchase, use of or reliance on any such content, goods, or services available on or through any such Third Party Site.
"
It seems fine to me. The text in the title actually is the following special section:
"
Special Notice
We have a no-tolerance policy regarding the use of our trademarks or names (e.g., of Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, or Pink Nation) in metatags and/or hidden text. Specifically, the use of our trademarks or names in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks or names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes of gaining higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition. Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express written permission. Associating or juxtaposing our Web site or its Materials (e.g., through framing or inline linking) with advertisements and/or other information not originating from our Web site is expressly prohibited.
"
This seems quite reasonable to me. Apparently, spammers must be getting their pages higher for searches of Victoria's Secret than the site itself is at.
I think the policy is perfectly reasonable in context, and I think anyone reading this knows exactly what VS is talking about.
" Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express written permission. "
That still doesn't seem reasonable to me. Simply making this link: http://www.victoriassecret.com/site-terms-and-notices/ is linking to a web page on that site and I didn't, in fact, get their express written permission. Does that 'prohibition' seem reasonable?
Suppose someone (highly qualified, not from the startup world however) can tweak your marketing message for a couple of weeks (i.e. work on your startup for 80-150 hours intensively) and as a direct consquence get you an audience of millions, because your message is now awesome. This person doensn't care about startups.
Say you are pre-money. How should you pay for this person's time?
You would think, if this person can really work for two weeks and give you a company that is worth seeding at a high valuation (due to traction), which also becomes a good signal and thereafter with the company's fantastic traction, money, and engaged audience, it has fantastic growth prospects - but without these two weeks will simply languish as another "project" - then a two percent stake with no cliff whatsoever is a no-brainer.
And, if you're a consultant, with few exceptions, taking an equity stake rather than cash is not a good idea. Happened a lot in the dot com bubble. Not pretty. Sure, if you're looking for work and a genuinely intriguing opportunity that only takes a couple weeks comes along, why not? But bad idea as a business model.
Honestly, who boards a plane "for fun" in this day and age? We know it's a hassle. Where is your letter of interest from an investor? What other reason could you possibly have for travelling when you are a "founder", meaning you are unemployed? This just does not add up.
The chances that one "founder" is really travelling instead of creating a company are miniscule compared to the risk that this is a cover story and this layabout intends to blow the plane up.
I hope you will agree that the only reasonable course of action is for you to be jailed until you can come up with the truth. Honestly, dia80, why would you even fly?
Are you being serious? You genuinely believe that people should be jailed for not giving a good enough reason to be flying? Goddamnit, we should just decide to shut it down as a society if this is the type of logic we find acceptable at this point.
"
Periodically, links may be established from this Web Site to one or more external web sites or resources operated by third parties (the "Third Party Sites"). These links are provided for your convenience only. In addition, certain Third Party Sites also may provide links to this Web Site. None of such links should be deemed to imply that Victoria's Secret endorses the Third Party Sites or any content therein.
We do not control and are not responsible or liable for any Third Party Sites or any content, advertising, products, or other materials on or available through such Third Party Sites. Access to any Third Party Sites is at your own risk and we will have no liability arising out of or related to such web sites and/or their content or for any damages or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with any purchase, use of or reliance on any such content, goods, or services available on or through any such Third Party Site.
"
It seems fine to me. The text in the title actually is the following special section:
"
Special Notice
We have a no-tolerance policy regarding the use of our trademarks or names (e.g., of Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, or Pink Nation) in metatags and/or hidden text. Specifically, the use of our trademarks or names in metatag keywords is trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks or names in page text, metatags, and/or hidden text for purposes of gaining higher rankings from search engines is unfair competition. Linking to any web page on this Web site is prohibited absent our express written permission. Associating or juxtaposing our Web site or its Materials (e.g., through framing or inline linking) with advertisements and/or other information not originating from our Web site is expressly prohibited.
"
This seems quite reasonable to me. Apparently, spammers must be getting their pages higher for searches of Victoria's Secret than the site itself is at.
I think the policy is perfectly reasonable in context, and I think anyone reading this knows exactly what VS is talking about.