so this is kind of a rant...

[ratcreature]

Argh. I just refrained from posting a lengthy, ranting comment, since I don't think the original post was intended to spark meta discussion or anything, and I already tried to make my point there, but it really rubs me the wrong way when mere "linking" and actual "archiving" are conflated like that in the whole fannish etiquette context of asking for permission to do so, authorial control etc. So I figured I might as well post my rant to my own LJ to get it off my chest rather than to comment excessively.

It's just that I've by now seen this from several people, who get somehow ruffled about links in fandom and wanting to control them, and I don't get that at all. I think extending this proprietary feeling to mere links rather than to actual copies and distribution of stories and the like is a bad idea for fandom as a whole, and feel the need to argue whenever this comes up. Because if it became accepted etiquette standard in fandom (to have to ask for linking rights or be thought of as rude) it would make a lot of useful things like recs and thematic lists far more difficult, whereas is wouldn't really improve the control of authors in any real way, after all it's not like other people were in control of the story by linking to it, and trying to limit or choose the audience by controlling links rather than controlling actual access is just strange, IMO. Linking and archiving is just not the same.

I mean, I get that there can be issues just with directing traffic, both for attention and traffic concerns like it shows in the discussions about reccing vids and related fannish etiquette. But it's not like the linking from other fandom sites that I mean has the issues that can arise when a high profile site directs traffic to you that the server just can't handle because someone randomly thinks something on your site is amusing or something (like say the Slashdot effect and the like), that may crash a website and depending on the hosting plan add unexpected costs too.

I completely understand that authors want to remain in control of the distribution of their stories, the places where actual copies are archived and such, so that if they felt like pulling a story, or changing it, or password protecting it or whatever, they can make the change or implement the password and it is done without having to contact a bunch of other people or to track down extra copies. I feel the same way about my fanart. But you can do that whether or not anybody links to you. The control over the actual story's presence on the net (as much as it exists with digital things that are unless special measures are taken after all copied as soon as anyone just looks at them) is yours no matter who links (also provided the site successfully kept archiving bots storing copies for search engines and automated internet archives like archive.org out through meta headers).

Controlling mere references to stories such as links, basically others just mentioning that you published something, is like demanding control over more than just your own story, it asks others to treat published things as if it wasn't published speech but private speech, which is counterintuitive and hampering for a ton of useful things enabling other fans to find things in fandom, especially as fandom infrastructure and technology already offer all the tools to make distribution more private to varying degrees (lists, f-lock, password protection etc) for random internet traffic but still somewhat accessible to the audience in fandom, if a fan is only comfortable with that.

But wanting to have all the control of locking content but all the advantages of publishing it, and none of the drawbacks of either, kind of seems to me like wanting to keep the cake and eat it too. It's just impossible.

Comments

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Well, yes...to say nothing of the fact that the entire internet is basically a glamorous series of links.

[ratcreature]

Yeah. I really don't understand this view that links to their content are theirs to control. Or where that is coming from. I mean, I have seen my artwork linked in strange places, like sites which link to my fanart without comprehending that it is fanart, sites making fun of my stuff (or slash in general), a ton of contexts I don't really care for (usually with the added annoyance of it being hotlinked which I can't prevent with my webspace, which is another issue, but I don't object the linking as such), and thanks to google image search I had the disconcerting experience to see my art used in automated image collage memes, but I mean, I published and decided in favor of easy accessibilty (to indexing and searching for example) so I don't get to choose anymore who says what or point in my direction.

[penknife.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine expecting people to ask permission before linking to my stories -- I mean, not when we're talking about someone linking on LJ or another fan site. I can see asking before linking somewhere that's going to draw a lot of nonfannish traffic, or before mentioning a story in a print article, but just normal linking? I assume that posting stories in fannish spaces means that people may link to them (and I hope to be that lucky!), and that authors will keep them locked or password-protected if they're uncomfortable with that.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, apparently the reasoning is that somehow certain link contexts, like say a rec site also linking chan, would taint by association or something. But seriously, just because I like to rec both gen and fluffy as well as potentially disturbing AUs on my rec page, I don't impact the authors control over their story in any way. I'm just baffled.

[cereta.livejournal.com]

The notion that you can or should want to control who links to you just kind of breaks my brain a little. Hi, let me introduce you to something called the World Wide Web.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, and yet you see it crop up and some people not and agree as if it made sense. I mean the idea that linking is not the same as archiving or distribution seems very clear to me, but apparently not, when some people thing that a rec site is like an archive.

[cofax7]

::blinks::

@@->forever

I have in the past refused permission to archive on some crap sites. I consider that it is outside my authority to say anything about people who link to me. And only an idiot would think that I approve of the underage Sam/John necrophilia kink exhibited by the reccer in the next rec down...

Bah.

[ratcreature]

Yeah exactly. I mean my rec site only reflects my tastes after all, and it's really very different from archiving stories. Also, what a complete logistical nightmare it would be for reccers, thematic lists, or any kind of fannish resource site if this "linking only with permission" idea caught as fannish etiquette.

[jacquez.livejournal.com]

I had this argument once, back in DS, and ended up telling someone who wanted to control all links to her stuff that she was fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the web, which, well, she was.

It's become more and more common to see, though, and I basically ignore it unless an author has a story that is ONLY archived at a non-blog/lj personal website where the front page has a specific request to link to the front page, rather than individual stories. If they've archived that story ANYWHERE else, I'll link there instead, because wtf.

[ratcreature]

Yeah. I just hate that this bizarre idea seem to gain ground.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

It's not just limited to fandom either. I've run across this bizarre idea that the owner of a webpage should be able to control links to their page in a variety of "netiquette" discussions going back quite a ways. I haven't seen it crop up in years and I had always thought of it as a problem of the really early Internet, before people really understood the way the Web works (i.e. as a big series of links). I mean, it'd be like trying to stay off Google; if your page is linked ANYWHERE, it'll get spidered. If you're that proprietary about your stuff, WHY, for the love of cheese, are you on the *Internet*?!

[ratcreature]

What I find especially baffling is that fandom already offers ways to distribute in more limited ways than the open internet, like under f-lock that will still reach some parts of your potential audience, but obviously that has drawbacks in that the audience is still smaller. But I mean, it's just impossible to have total control and the largest potential audience at the same time, yet I've seen this idea more often recently than when I started getting into online fadom in the late 90s.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

I totally get the need for control, but frankly, once it's out there, there's no way you *can* control...and this is coming from me, who actually tries to argue for degrees of public spaces :-)

talking of public...i can metafandom you, right??? :D

[ratcreature]

Heh, you know you can, I would have locked it if I wanted to prevent linking.

I mean, I get the degrees thing, like for example the few times I felt theneed to rant about some list discussion I locked those posts becauseobviously the list wan't fully public. But there are technological means, and they come at a price. And are the responsibility of the poster. To want all the control *and* the easy access for the widest audience, that is just contradictory, and demanding that it ought to be that way, to try to make the web work differently or something like that, puts a ton of extra effort on other fans, like reccers, newsletter editors etc.

[jadecanary.livejournal.com]

Your journal is on the watcher list for comicstore_news, and as I'm update duty tonight I happened to catch this post. If I had to ask for permission to link to fic, never mind the various meta and discussion and whatnot, CSN would be updated about once a week. So, uh, yeah. I agree with what you're saying completely.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, this kind of extra filtering and distribution control through rechecking with the author for every link would put a huge amount of extra work and hassle on all kinds of fannish ressource compilers, when it should be just the author's decision to publish or to lock and then deal with both good and bad consequences of different exposure levels.

[brownbetty]

Fits under "unclear on concept of 'internet'" It's the internet. People can link to you.

I mean, okay. Sometimes I want to say something that I know my inmediate flist will interpret one way, and I know if I do it will get picked up by a wider audience who would interpret it another way. So then I post it under f-lock.

[brownbetty]

Also, do you follow fangirls_attack? They had someone have a hissy fit over being linked to a few months ago. It was kind of moronic. If I remember correctly, he didn't like the compilers and didn't want to "do him any favours."

[dragovianknight.livejournal.com]

I absolutely don't understand the desire to control links. And when anyone does ask, "May I link to this?" or "Can I send a link to my friend?" my reaction is, "Duh, that's why I put it on the web." Links are what the web IS!

[ratcreature]

I don't get it either. I mean, I understand that in some circumstances it makes sense in fandom to ask before linking as a social courtesy, beyond the "you put it on the web, deal with all traffic" thing, like say in the case of vids and such I respect it if a vidder asks not to link even the LJ post directing to the vid, though as default I assume it's okay to rec vids in fannish venues that are about the same or less popular unless the vidders asks not to. (I mean, for example if a fan with an LJ that's read by 3000 people links to a vidder's LJ post whose LJ is normally read by 150 people, I can see the sense in asking even for making intra-fandom links.) Similarly I can see asking before linking somewhere that would direct lots of non-fannish traffic. But the idea that my rec site should only link if it meets with the authorial approval, that's just bizarre. It's not like an author could ever prevent others to group their works with other things that they don't approve of.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Here from metafandom, and totaly *word.*

I talked above about how I think that some of this upset and equating of archiving with linking is due to people not being aware enough of how the internet works.

But I'm thinking that this issue is also linked to the idea of a "journal" as private (even though you're publishing publicly!)--and maybe the print literate culture. One cannot really control the distribution of words -- but something about a print object which has a material being seems to give the fantasy of controlling (libraries! bookstores! and copyright etc.). So the fact that the internet is just a new medium for distributing text and graphics--well, old attitudes carry over, and we've only had this new medium a couple of decades (less so for general use).

A related issue--I cannot understand communities that forbid linking to a story in your own journal and *demand* a post either.

[ratcreature]

Well, I can understand the latter. Because even if the journal vanishes or gets locked the community post will still be available with the story, so if a community decides that once a story is published on it, it should be published for good and not waffling back and worth and invalidating the community memories and such, I can respect that. It's certainly more practical for the readers.

[amireal.livejournal.com]

I agree, but with a caveat, it depends on WHERE and WHAT you are linking. We've had this debate at a point in the past, there are appropriate places for certain things, a dangerous places for the same things.

[msilverstar]

How about some examples? Because we have NO CONTROL over who links to us, that's the very nature of the Web. So I'm baffled by this statement.

Do you mean links out to other sites? We make editorial choices there like everything else, and there are some techie issues (like they can trace your links as referers in the log).

[zvi-likes-tv.livejournal.com]

Goodness, in the United States, at least, that's not just common sense, it's caselaw.

I only understand Martha's point, inasmuch as the person asked if they could link to her. I mean, if someone asks you, you get to say no. But I don't believe the recommender had any obligation to ask.

[khriskin]

In from metafandom...

I've always been of the belief that once you put writing out on the web, it's free game for others to link to, mock, rec, comment on, or whatever strikes their fancy. The whole point of the internet it to share things, and true, it isn't always a positive experience, but c'est la vie. At the heart of it, isn't that what writers who post on the web want? Feedback, be it good or bad, is a wonderful carrot for Muses, or at least for my muses. ^_~ *grin*

Although I do wish folks would let me know when they link to my stuff, but only for curiosities sake. It's sort of fun to watch the flow of readers and where they came from. ^_^

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Although I do wish folks would let me know when they link to my stuff, but only for curiosities sake. It's sort of fun to watch the flow of readers and where they came from. ^_^

I'll certainly grant that. [nodnod] I got a spike of hits on one of my stories a while back and went crazy trying to find the rec, 'cause it must've been recced, right? But nothing, nothing fro LJSeek to Google could find it. [laugh/headdesk] But as you said, it's just for the sake of curiosity and a bit of egoboo. There's nothing in the rules about it and that's how it should be.

Angie

[raveninthewind.livejournal.com]

Word.

The only exception, as you mentioned, might be for vid recs.

I'd be quite happy to delete a rec if someone strongly objected and asked politely, but that's more out of courtesy to another fan rather than due to granting that I should have asked permission in the first place.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

[Here from metafandom. [wave]]

Umm, what? [blinkblink] I'm sorry but sometimes Fandom just goes seriously insane and this is clearly one of those times. Permission to link? If you don't want people linking to your story, that's one of the things Flocking is for. If you post something such that it's publically accessible then it's publically accessible, period.

Good grief.

Angie

Visiting from metafandom

[scatteredlogic.livejournal.com]

I'm co-mod for the hgss_digest, and we post links to Granger/Snape stories when they're updated; if we were required to ask permission to link to stories, we'd probably not bother with the digest at all.

While I absolutely support an author's right to control which archives host their stories, I don't understand wanting to control links to stories. Considering that once a story is posted, it can usually be found via search engines like Google or Yahoo, I'd say that's pretty much an impossibility anyway.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

The only case where I would wonder out it are locked websites. I know one fanfiction author with a large personal site and you have to subscribe to her mailing list to get the password to the site.

She has a bunch of safeguards (for example against rightclicking), but technically could could find a way to just link to the separate stories and thereby circumvent the password thing. But this strikes me as a case where it's so obviously against the author's intention that I probably wouldn't do it.

With the non fanfiction equivalent for example being sites where you have to sign up or potentially pay for exclusive content.

[ratcreature]

Yeah well, circumventing passwords like that is just tacky. I mean, I find it weird if sites do strange things like implementing passwords via javascript, like I once visited a site after getting the password from such a mailing list only it didn't even ask for a password, because as default I have javascript disabled until I allow it for a specific site, so that password was just pointless, but I wouldn't link to those stories either no matter how inexpertly the password was implemented. I would have no problem however linking to the public yahoogroup without asking so that others interested knew where to join.

[helens78]

I don't get it, either. I'm just nodding at all the people pointing out that hyperlinks are what the Web is, and trying to figure out how people are going to manage to control linking. I think these are the same sorts of people who want to figure out how to ban wankyjanedoe from accessing their journals without using a friends-lock and cutting off anon and non-journal-having people -- people who are under the impression that security can be passive and not active.

I can't imagine asking for permission to link something, and if something's publicly accessible -- I didn't have to jump through any hoops, request any passwords, sign up for anything, etc., to access it myself -- I can't see any reason why anyone should need permission. I don't even see asking permission as polite, really -- I think it's an unnecessary layer of red tape on a beautiful, mostly red-tape free environment. Red tape is not something I want to promote!

[espresso-addict.livejournal.com]

[Via metafandom] I run a recs site and generally I agree 100%. I don't know what I'd do if I were asked by a fan to remove a link. In most cases I would probably comply for politeness' sake, but if I felt the request was unreasonable (eg a gen author disliking being linked on a page with slash stories) I suspect I'd hold out for the right to link.

I do, however, think there are a few exceptions where a reccer might be wise not to link even to a story posted publically; in particular I wouldn't link to a draft copy posted to a public beta list or to a personal livejournal where the headers clearly indicated the story was still in the process of being edited, or to any story in a private livejournal where the author requested no linking.

[kayljay.livejournal.com]

There is one simple cure for this: if you don't want to be linked put that in a warning. 'Nough said.

Here from metafandom

[ratcreature]

But if someone publishes a story, unlocked, why should I not be allowed to talk about it in public, which on the web usually includes a link, just because they want to control who can link without bothering to actually do the work to protect access (like protected sites)? I don't see why author's should be privileged like that over the fans who compile rec sites an resources. I mean, taking that take on fannish etiquette further, you couldn't even bookmark such a story to your del.icio.us account, because after all those links are not just published in one place they are even intentionally distributed by RSS feed to other del.icio.us users.

[lothy.livejournal.com]

I saw your post linked to from metafandom

As someone who writes thematic lists of fics, as well as recs occasionally, I can honestly say that if I had to ask permission for each fic, I wouldn't bother. The lists & recs wouldn't get written. Neither, I suspect, would any lists by other people get written. Which would be very sad for fandom as a whole.

When you publish a story openly on the web, without f-locking or password-protecting it, you are publishing it, just like novels are published in print. Preventing links to your fic is like J K Rowling telling her readers not to recommend her books to their friends without her permission. I.e. just plain silly.

[jassanja.livejournal.com]

reminds me a bit of the Germans
There you have to make a disclaimer on your page that you don't have any control to sites you link to.
Back in 1997 someone linked to something funny, and got sued from some random visitor after the conted behind the link changed to porn/illigal stuff

People are stupid

[ratcreature]

Yeah, that ruling was bizarre, though disclaimers don't really help any. There was a recent ruling that an online newsite who linked to a site offering ways to circumvent DVD encryption was sued for helping to break copyright and forced to remove the link, regardless that it was in a context of a news article and clearly not their content. The opinion was that by linking the high profile tech news site made it easier for people to circumvent DVD encryption, because they made it easier to find that DVD site.

And I remember someone being sentenced for linking to right wing extremist sites in the context of a satirical site of a net activist who wanted to mock some politicians who was in favor of filtering the internet or something. The site pretended to offer a service for people to read to them suppressed sites and in a box was some randomly selected links that claimed to be the most requested for the service to all kinds of controversial sites like gay and anti-gay campaigns, christian fudamentalists, Al-jazeera news, various extremist groups etc, anyway it wasn't a right wing site but satire and he was still sentenced for facillitating distribution of right wing propaganda or something. Though the net activist contested the ruling and the second higher court found him not guilty, and the next higher court when the prosecution contested that decision confirmed that ruling. But I mean the poor guy now had to go through three court levels now just for a link.

[msilverstar]

And just to add the legal status: all court cases so far have ruled in favor of deep linking -- linking to an individual item, not just the top level. A good summary from linksandlaw.com.

[tassosss.livejournal.com]

I think you bring up a good point here and as a recent perpetrator who had given it some thought I wrote a reply at my journal (http://tassosss.livejournal.com/16925.html) since it got way longer than I anticipated. My case is a little different from the one you linked to above, since mine is more an issue of timing than association with Nefarious Things, but I wanted to share it anyway.

[ratcreature]

No I get that kind of request for in-progress stuff, to let newsletters and rec pages know that the author intends to post a final, clean version, and I mean, I haven't recced that WIP in my LJ because of that request. What bothers me are blanket requests some people make that they prefer others to always ask before linking to any of their things so they presumably can check whether the place they're linked from meets their approval or whatever (like in my example where someone dislikes being on rec pages where there's also chan recced). I find that unreasonable and detrimental to the fannish community which profits from newsletters and rec pages and such, and I think that if someone wants that level of control they need to take responsibility for that themselves and control access directly, and accept the downsides of a probably much smaller audience.