revisiting linking rights

I have discovered a little contradiction within myself. On the one hand, I am a zealous believer in the right to link. Links have been and remain the lifeblood of the web. The anti-linking policies which seemed fashionable a few years ago were invariably flouted and led to the wide-spread ridicule of the things which they were meant to be “protecting.”

That’s only one aspect of the right to link. In 2005, the issue of the linker’s liability for linking to copyright infringing material hosted by third parties has received some judicial attention in Australia. But I would argue that even the Universal Music Australia v. Cooper case doesn’t yet endanger the right to create a bare link to infringing materials, provided there’s no question of “authorizing” copyright infringement.

A bare link does not provide any endorsement, agreement or authorization of the material being linked to. A bare link to a web site is just a statement of a fact - that at a certain place on the web this information exists. While there is any strength left in the ideas and expression of ideas dichotomy, US National Public Radio (a past offender) can't prevent a blogger from linking to them, no more than it can copyright any other fact, such as 2+2=4. For NPR to prevent anybody linking to them is like claiming copyright in their own physical address.

To use a different analogy, anti-linking policies make as much sense as an author claiming that merely being cited in a journal article infringes on her/his copyright.

It might be different if there’s more than a bare link happening. For example, if I linked directly to a certain image on the illegal-art website and wrote, “Check out this hilarious parody of the Starbucks logo!” That might get me into trouble, so I’m not going to do that.

I believe in the right to link and that if somebody chooses to make their website or blog available to the world, anybody has the right to link to it. On the other hand, in my own personal conduct I had decided that I would prefer being courteous over exercising this right. For example, with the list of Australian librarian blogs on my sidebar, I have often requested permission before adding blogs to this list.

Courtesy is very good and nice, but I have now decided that it is too much of a good thing if it gets in the way of adding new blogs to this list. It has even caused me to temporarily lose some of the blogs which I intended to add. I know, losing a blog is a very embarrassing and silly thing to do.

From now on, I’ll just add the blogs as I find them. If anybody has a problem with being added, they are welcome to email me about it and we can talk about it.

Comments

[Fiona Bradley]

I wonder if this is tangentially related to a conversation I had with another blogger recently. The blogger is semi-anonymous - there's links to information where they are named, but there is no identifying information on the blog itself, no personal name or 'about me page'. A second blogger happens to know who the first blogger is, and names them when linking (as is often common practice) eg 'joe bloggs' at 'that blog' says...... Thus, a search for their name provides the connection.

If one really, really doesn't want to be on the public Internet, get a private LiveJournal, or host blogging software on your own (non-networked) computer.

[walt]

Good post, and no disagreement here. My little blog was listed on a blog where I didn't want to be listed. (Not yours, to be sure: I'm proud to be included here!) My reaction was to recognize that you're public if you publish...and that has both good and bad consequences. (I have no idea whether I'm still on the blog's list; I avoid it...)

[morgan]

Please excuse this rough comment – I’m in my morning rush but know that if I leave it, these particular thoughts won’t get posted.

I did change my list of Australian blogs to remove the names and locations of the bloggers. Not that anybody asked me to, but I thought that it would make my life easier. Plus, that was a potential issue. For me it’s a given that I can link to anyone’s blog. But on the other hand, do people, particular those who don’t use their names on their blogs deserve any protection from having their identity revealed by another blogger? Such as in the situation which Fiona mentions. I am learning that the Australian library world is smaller than the American one, and it’s a lot easier know a blogger’s identity. Again, I think that any blogger would have the legal right link to and mention the identity of another blogger (provided it’s done in a non-defamatory way), but as to whether this should be done or not – that’s where for me, being nice and courteous is still relevant. The bottom line is that if you blog without your name, acknowledge that it’s quite possible that your identity will eventually/inevitably be revealed (no matter how careful you are), and when this happens, there’s very little that you will be able to do about it. If that is an unbearable possibility, as Fiona mentions, keep a LiveJournal, or have a password-protected blog.

[Mark]

Illegal Art rocks, doesn't it? You *should* link to it. Anyhow, this Tuesday is the webloggers meetup at Kelly's I think, so you're welcome to join us for a drink & some pool. Seeya :)