Nods. I think it would be difficult to use this to 'archive' a story or fan work. This would be very much like screencap of a single web page to illustrate a point - you only get what is on the page. The process is similar to the Geocities screencaps - that project grabbed just the front page.
But after reading the objections that were raised, then I started to wonder - what makes WebCite different from the WayBack Machine or Reocities or the Google pages that we link to?
So I think that even once we address the question of what these services cache or cap (entire story? Just a page? entire website?), there remains another unspoken issue: whether we can even link to cached/archives/screencaps.
I think one argument could go like this: it is OK for us to include an archive link but only if someone else (non-fannish) created it. Fans cannot create a cache or screencap a page because ....we're fans and our fannish morals say that capping or reproducing any portion of a website or a blog entry without permission is wrong - for any reason (ex. not permitted for commentary or to illustrate a point). But if someone else does it *for* us, we're off the moral hook?
The other argument might be: you cannot link to any cached copy, irrespective of who creates it. Fans should never link to archives or link to screencaps (without permission). There is no fair use exception in fandom when it comes to fannish works.
I suspect there are variations on these arguments, but it does seem to come down to: assuming it is (1) OK to document fannish history and assuming (2) you are only linking to one page, then the debate turns into (3) when can fans cache a page and, if they cannot cache it themselves, (4) when can they link to someone else's cached copy?
Fandom has a unique (and somewhat inconsistent) approach to fair use. One that is not accepted universally. The fact that services like Google are fighting for the ability to index material just proves how much 'diversity' (aka disagreement) there is on the topic of 'fair use.'
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Assuming we're only caching a single page....
But after reading the objections that were raised, then I started to wonder - what makes WebCite different from the WayBack Machine or Reocities or the Google pages that we link to?
So I think that even once we address the question of what these services cache or cap (entire story? Just a page? entire website?), there remains another unspoken issue: whether we can even link to cached/archives/screencaps.
I think one argument could go like this: it is OK for us to include an archive link but only if someone else (non-fannish) created it. Fans cannot create a cache or screencap a page because ....we're fans and our fannish morals say that capping or reproducing any portion of a website or a blog entry without permission is wrong - for any reason (ex. not permitted for commentary or to illustrate a point). But if someone else does it *for* us, we're off the moral hook?
The other argument might be: you cannot link to any cached copy, irrespective of who creates it. Fans should never link to archives or link to screencaps (without permission). There is no fair use exception in fandom when it comes to fannish works.
I suspect there are variations on these arguments, but it does seem to come down to: assuming it is (1) OK to document fannish history and assuming (2) you are only linking to one page, then the debate turns into (3) when can fans cache a page and, if they cannot cache it themselves, (4) when can they link to someone else's cached copy?
Fandom has a unique (and somewhat inconsistent) approach to fair use. One that is not accepted universally. The fact that services like Google are fighting for the ability to index material just proves how much 'diversity' (aka disagreement) there is on the topic of 'fair use.'