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
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.
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
remains accessible. With online copies, the url can be updated if
or the page can be copied to the local server if the remote one goes
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
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?