(no subject)

[bubosquared]

I"m going to be the voice of dissent here and say that no, dammit, posting something on the web does not mean everyone can just take it and distribute it the way they want to. And the fact that it's fanfic has nothing to do with it.

They are my word, they are my works, they are mine to decide about. If I ever found one of my stories on an archive I did not give archiving permission to, I will be right pissed off. I think a distributing license is not that bad an idea, considering the many opinions on what an archiving permission entails, and the many people who still think they have a right to archive anything they want, regardless of the author's consent.

(This is a general rant. I know nothing about the whole MA situation, so i'm keeping quiet about that. This is just about archving permissions in general)

(Edit: I know it seems ridiculous to even forbid emailing a copy to one's friend, but I've seen more than a few cases where where that went horribly wrong. It's not all about ego.)

Comments

Re:

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

But the thing is, if you take away the label of 'distributing license', all she's really doing is detailing her wishes re: her stories. (Which apparently is neccesary, from stories I've heard.)

[larean.livejournal.com]

I'm not really so put off by the title "Distributing License," as I am by the splash page which holds it and the wording of it. I would think it pretentious if an original-fiction writer put the same sort of thing up.

The nature of the Internet is personal, and while I agree she has the right to make these requests, I think she needs to find another way to make them. Treating her readers like consumers reduces their "relationship" to I-it, with both sides seeing the other sides as "it," and the willingness to carry out wishes diminishes. (Think mp3s. Or even fanfiction itself, and the disdain writers often feel for the creators of their fandoms.) If she wants to be taken seriously, she actually needs to not take herself so seriously, and address her readers in a slightly less formal manner.

[sunshinegirl.livejournal.com]

I agree with that, Sam. I find it extremely pretentious.

Not to mention the comparsion that immediately leaped to mind -- contact a publisher about publishing your book, s/he agrees to, and the first thing you do is say that copies of the book cannot be sold in used bookstores, once people are tired of them. You'd be laughed out of the office. You have no control over the book once it is "out there." Much less do writers on the internet have control over their work. I mean, goodness, I went through the cache on my home computer and found copies of slash stories that I'd read two years ago and are no longer on the internet! If I'd printed those out, either to give to a friend or read for myself, would I have been breaking the distribution license? And how in the worlds are archivists going to keep track of who has what kind of distribution license? The system isn't broke. Laura shouldn't be trying to fix it. If she doesn't want her stories in archives, and the CDs that could result from those archives, she should just say "archive: no," and have done.

Amy
holding her head while shaking it

Re:

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

I agree that the format is offputting, yes. But I also think that detailed "agreements/disclaimers" like this are necessary, especially for those of us who want to know what's happening with our words.