Self-Link Ahoy!

January 9, 2005 2:43 PM

The 2011 post leads to a paid-subscription only article and indirectly through the comments ends up being a self-link. I'm sure it's accidental, but it shouldn't be there.
posted by Captaintripps to Etiquette/Policy at 2:43 PM (22 comments total)

The post in question.
posted by forforf at 7:36 PM on January 9, 2005

Decided to play with the adults, huh Tripps?
posted by nathan_teske at 7:41 PM on January 9, 2005

Decided to play with the adults, huh Tripps?

What the fuck does that mean?
posted by interrobang at 7:42 PM on January 9, 2005

I know tripps from elsewheres.
posted by nathan_teske at 7:47 PM on January 9, 2005

Ah.
posted by interrobang at 7:52 PM on January 9, 2005

Technically it's not really a self-link. timsteil apologized for posting a link that no one could access and mentioned that he had the article on his own site. rocket_skates then linked to the article on timsteil's site. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it makes a difference, I think.

Matt may not like the original post and choose to kill it for that reason, but I think it cleared the "no self-links" rule.
posted by pmurray63 at 7:52 PM on January 9, 2005

I think it's okay, not really elegant, but it's a pretty interesting article and more and more often we're seeing people mistakenly linking to subscription sites. The workaround is okay and I think came about as a result of a genuine mistake. If people can stay on topic, it might even be an okay thread.
posted by jessamyn at 7:56 PM on January 9, 2005

Self post? What, to refer to his profile, then click to his site? That's stretching it, as is this callout, which to me seems to be splitting hairs.

Thats said, what pmurray63 said.
posted by bluedaniel at 7:58 PM on January 9, 2005

Yes, please don't misconstrue me. I only thought it was tangentially a self-link. It merely seems unsuited to the front page with the associated subscription link.
posted by Captaintripps at 7:59 PM on January 9, 2005

I get what you're saying, but that would then mean anyone with a site within their profile who makes an fpp is making a self link.
posted by bluedaniel at 8:01 PM on January 9, 2005

nathan: Whence we come, it's hard to hit an adult with a sub-machine gun.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:12 PM on January 9, 2005

Speaking of profiles. 'Checked the Captain's, not only is he local, he has damn good taste in music!

see? profiles are good, and good for ya. mother told me so.
posted by bluedaniel at 8:16 PM on January 9, 2005

It merely seems unsuited to the front page with the associated subscription link.

Had they not stumbled into the workaround for it, I would agree with you.
posted by pmurray63 at 8:19 PM on January 9, 2005

For what it's worth, I made a similar mistake within the last couple of weeks, not a self-link, but rather linked to a NYTimes article that - although I could read it - seemed to require subscription access. I'd not been logged in when posting it, yet it crapped out in the final fpp.

That post was deleted appropriately.
posted by bluedaniel at 8:23 PM on January 9, 2005

trharlan: I considered bringing that up, but the guidelines do not mention it. While I agree with the copyright issue, I wasn't sure if it was grounds for deletion in this forum.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:00 PM on January 9, 2005

As a desperate measure to make up for mistakenly posting a subscription-only article, the self-link factor is very low. But the post itself is highly deletable. As tharlan points out, reproducing the article on one's own site has bigger issues than self-linking.
posted by scarabic at 10:32 PM on January 9, 2005

The real bummer is that the Atlantic used to have a gold mine of wonderful back issue articles online, even additional content like interviews with authors, all for free. A few months back they pulled back the welcome rug and made it all subscription only.
posted by LarryC at 11:07 PM on January 9, 2005

trharlan beat me to it. I think the Atlantic has a subscription for a service. And random readers republishing that paid-content on their websites is probably not something they approve of.

I vote for thread deletion on those grounds alone.
posted by BradNelson at 12:31 AM on January 10, 2005

Nice that we debate whether this is technically a self-link while completely ignoring the issue of copyright infringement.

OK, let's debate it, then.

This fails one fair use test by virtue of being a complete reproduction. But it passes other fair use tests by virtue of being clearly intended for non-commercial, educational or intellectual use; it passes another by doing no harm to Atlantic's subscription sales, either by web or in print. (In fact, I'll probably go out and find a copy of the print mag to read the full footnotes.)

Nevertheless, this is probably a violation of the letter of interpreted US copyright law. I don't think it's a violation in spirit, but I think the Atlantic's lawyers would, and I think timsteil stands a chance of getting a DMCA note on it if they're made aware of this grievous offense. I, for one, don't intend to tell them.
posted by lodurr at 10:21 AM on January 10, 2005

(BTW, in case y'all hadn't noticed: This isn't a democracy. "Voting" for thread deletion is basically wanking. Just a fact, not a complaint.)
posted by lodurr at 10:22 AM on January 10, 2005

it passes another by doing no harm to Atlantic's subscription sales, either by web or in print.

that depends heavily on how common or allowable it becomes to reproduce something. While putting this one article up won't make people cancel or not bother getting subscriptions, if it was allowed to become common process to reproduce subscription only articles on your website, you would indeed be encouraging people not to bother paying for what they can get free through you. One example won't break their back, but the general allowance of the practice would.
posted by mdn at 10:56 AM on January 10, 2005

On the self-link topic, common MeFi law says that one shouldn't self-link in a post, but if it's relevant, self-links are good in the comments.
posted by taumeson at 6:28 AM on January 11, 2005