Comments: 6
Iron Canuck 1 month ago
I had not heard this. When I get a chance, I will see what I can find out.
Bookloving writer 1 month ago
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Debbie's Spurts 1 month ago
I'm not a lawyer. But, am in IT for companies with lawyers and even court decisions: URL links are addresses.

I don't see how it's possible to ban links. URLs are public domain and have to be in order for the Internet to even work. That's had legal battles and firm decisions where I'd be shocked if that could be overturned.

URLs are literally like addresses and street names so have to be that sort of public use just like published book titles and author names. We can quote book title and author name plus anything on outside of book and on copyright page freely but the inside contents are protected by some rules. We can use and post links to any public (not password protected) URLs but there are rules for the content at that URL (rules both copyright ones and individual site policy rules where best to get permission for anything other than the URL link).

I'm thinking the issue is with bloggers who have text display over the URL link as if they were claiming ownership, who quote text improperly, lift graphics without proper permissions or lift enough (or even all of) someone else's blog post where it's no longer a simple, properly attributed quote or link.

There has been an upswing in stolen blog posts where bloggers have lifted entire thing and in book reviews being stolen (near as blogosphere has made sense of that one, reviews seem to be lifted to make piracy sites look more legitimate and to bump up a reviewer's statistics to get them more free books).

I still think booklikes needs to revisit their reblog feature to clarify things better -- and review posts here should not have a reblog option at all. It's a longstanding g glitch on booklikes now that a reblog by Blogger B (properly shows Blogger A originated) that gets reblogged by Blogger C will now show Blogger B as the creator, then when D reblogs C's reblog C shows as creator ... that's a major issue that I think has always violated copyright nevermind the newer more stringent EU ones. I think booklikes is taking major risks ignoring this longstanding, long reported bug.

In the meantime -- when reblogging on booklikes -- need to be sure you've clicked through to original post before reblogging with permission or you are potentially changing the "author" name.
Bookloving writer 1 month ago
Thanks. :) That’s very interesting.
Debbie's Spurts 1 month ago
Not necessarily on topic for your original question, but relevant to booklikes:

On the blog/post view of booklikes (versus dashboard view), it's hard to tell something is reblogged. On dashboard it's clearly a reblog (caveat -- that stupid longstanding bug where not always attributed to original poster) that may or may not have been done with permission.

I've taken to being more careful on booklikes. Until I noticed how the post view looked, I did some reblogs of signal boosts of things like a booklikes author announcing " I'm happy to announce my book was just published " or " I need help with ..." that made it sound like I myself just wrote a book or needed the help (in blog view even though clear on dashboard). With all good intention. I try to remember to write a brief note and put a link to original post instead of reblogging now it seems unlikely booklikes will be addressing the reblog issues.

Debbie's Spurts 1 month ago
Some sites request specific link protocols; site use policies will specify. It's still a URL in terms of copyright violation if you use the wrong link -- but, it's definitely proper netiquette, a courtesy to respect such policies and any requests to edit links used. Not doing so with some sites means you might get legal notices, have your IP address referrals blocked or other legal actions.

Many bloggers don't specify.

Some sites want you to link just to the home page.

Some a specific level without "deep" links -- for example, Project Gutenberg requests you link to the main book page "landing" (where a simple search takes you) which lists formats to download instead of one of the format links.

For example, to link to free ebook of "Campfire Girls' Lake Camp" on Gutenberg, you would use " https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58712 " but not " https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58712/58712-h/58712-h.htm " or "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58712.kindle.images?session_id=744d25ce1efbe3943fea409b9974b422bc4595b3 ". That's partly so the information page for catalog entry with bibliographic record and proper copyright credit is shown, so there are no broken url links if Gutenberg reorganizes file names, and partly because of some issues on the backend when more than one person uses same session id or has to contact support because linked to a format they couldn't use. Plus Gutenberg feels readers will have a better experience if can choose the format that works better for them. The exact policy is in their Terms of use at this paragraph -- https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Terms_of_Use#Deep_Linking .

Again, just using Gutenberg as an example. Not an organization that goes around suing bloggers who format a link wrongly. Unlike Amazon which is very strict with sites that subscribe to their data feed; noncompliance with one of their policies means your subscription is canceled plus they will threaten additional legal action over existing links and data used.