Dean Craft wrote:
> ...[snipped] ... Presenting something as if it is one's own work, 
> when in fact it is not, is unethical.  ...[snipped] ... 
> 
> I also take issue with your position that WDF, "...by demanding credit and
> controlled access you certainly aren't advocating open and free sharing."
> WDF has not advocated controlled access...what he has requested, and the
> violator has refused, is that (if memory serves me correctly) WDF's work be
> accessed through WDF's home or index page.  That he wants credit for his
> work is right and proper.  ...[snipped] ...
> 
> It is my hope that you will rethink your position and restate it to the
> list.


I haven't spent a lot of time studying the material being discussed.  I took a
very quick look at the two sites http://www.daddezio.com/cemetery/ and
http://ns1.rfci.net/wdfloyd/ under discussion.  From my quick review it appeared
to me that the daddezio.com site was not claiming credit for the work done by
Mr. Floyd.  Rather they are promoting the work and directing people to it.  

I think it would be wrong for them to claim or imply that the material for which
they provide links is their own work product.  If they do that, then I think a
complaint is justified.  But, I think there is nothing wrong with posting links
directing researchers to sites, and pages within sites, where useful material
can be found.  Many web sites post links lists compiled into coherent and useful
formats.  Such link compilations are a useful resource and do not detract from
the merit or value of the materials to which they provide links.

An analogy would be to publish a list of street addresses where a researcher
could find or purchase a particular book or other work.  Posting the street
address for a physical site is analogous to posting a link to a web page. 
Merely posting the address or link is not the same as claiming that the material
available there is the work product of the person posting the address or link. 
It merely helps the researcher find out where the site is and how to get to it.

In my opinion making a demand that others not link to a web page is attempting
to control access.  The term "controlled access" simply means that someone has
control regarding how or where others may access the material.  Some sites do
utilize fully controlled access for some of their materials.  They do so by use
of login passwords, cookies, etc.  If Mr. Floyd wants to control access to his
materials, then I think that he should employ such control techniques on his
site.  Otherwise, I think it is perfectly legal and moral for anyone to link to
his pages.  Free linking is the essential nature of the web.

In My Humble Opinion,

Steve Coker

==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====