Anthony writes:

...

So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's an offline copy isn't?

Online when there's an offline copy clearly isn't okay.

Clearly because you have a legal right that distinguishes between online copies and offline copies? Please explain. (Once again, I'm asking about legal rights because you claim to be basing your objections on your rights.)

...

What is the legal distinction you're drawing here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your legal rights.)

Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.

How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"? A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that recognize moral rights.

But the distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click away, in the other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing in a url, and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that.

So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis for objecting to that form of attribution?

Additionally, printed copies will almost surely last longer than the url remains accessible. With online copies, the url can be updated if it moves, or the page can be copied to the local server if the remote one goes down.

Thank you for articulating an advantage to using URLs. The advantage of course applies both to online and offline copies.

...

But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the article is offline is *not* "direct"? What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this distinction?

Common sense?

So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"? Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument?

--Mike