1.Hmmm - I sit on the other side of the fence, although I work for a comms consultancy, and I just have no comprehension of why this is an issue for so many people - fancy a discussion ?

here are some fairly random thoughts I've cobbled together - I'm really interested in finding out what's the actual concern people have, because most of what's been put out there seems to relate to the fact that it's Google doing it, as opposed to anything inherently wrong with the concept.

Google and all the other search engines have "made money" off your content since they started selling advertising on their results page.

When you say "My site sits on my server" it sounds as if you think autolink is changing what's on your server. Autolink doesn't change content on your site: it changes the representation of that content in *my* browser *upon my request*- ie when I tell it to. If this is wrong, you better cook up some javascript to prevent me printing as well - cos that messes with your content even more.

What's your position on EditCss - which allows me to edit stylesheets on the fly ? If I write a Firefox extension that looks for zipcodes when I press a button and inserts a link to a map site - am I evil ?

What's your take on mashups eg the Grey Album, the Kleptones, etc ? Are you a supporter of DRM and DMCA ? What do you think of Cory Doctorow's position on this - he's an author who makes his living out of selling words, and yet his content is open sourced and available to be mashed up.

I would very much doubt if any copyright / Creative Commons license applies here. If Autolink took your content and republished it publicly on a website, then maybe. But it doesn't, so unless you're also planning on stopping me writing notes for myself in a book that's mine....

Anyway - enough to be getting on with - look forward to some debate on this !

anu

2.Hi, Anu...just curious, where are you writing from?

My only issue is one of audience perception. There are plenty of tech-savvy people who will understand that an AdLink isn't a link I created. But there are far more who will not comprehend the distinction. A link is a link, and they will perceive that I authored the link in the content.

My Creative Commons license clearly allows anybody to use my work for non-commercial purposes. The fact that it's online, though, does not negate inherent copyright; there is no distinct law for digital content. These are my words. As it appears on my site -- regardless of where the AdLinks are generated from -- only I should be able to determine what I link to and what I don't.

You certainly are free to make notes in a copy of one of my books. You certainly are not free to republish my book with altered content and claim it's my work.

3.Hi Shel,

I work for Mercer in the UK, where I'm the Technology Lead for the Communication Consulting practice.

Thanks for replying. I'm still a little confused though - unfortunately I think the arguments have now all been around the block a few times.

In your first paragraph, audience perception is your key issue, as people may not be able to distinguish between links you've inserted into the text and links . We'll ignore the different styling applied to Autolinks for now, but I have to click a button to get the link created *each and every" time I go to the page. This button doesn't get clicked automatically, and if I even refresh the page, the link disappears from my local, private copy of the html code, which may already have been changed by IE. Doesn't the double and repeated opt-in count for anything ? If your mom can't even launch a browser, how is she going to install Google Toolbar ?

I still don't see how your license is relevant here if the work is not being republished [unless fleeting fragments of pixels viewable typically by an audience of one now count as published material].

So it looks to me as if it really boils down to "It's my content, and I and only I should decide how it gets used", as you state in your second paragraph [I've taken a little liberty with the transcribing ;)].

But in a world of mashups, remixes, RSS aggregation, blogging, collaborative open source book creation, etc, doesn't that seem a little prehistoric ? A bit like grimly trying to keep control of the message for fear of reputation damage. Isn't it time to let go ?

What about "Disable Page Annoyances" - a Maxthon [an IE remix] plugin that reenables right-click where the content producer has specifically banned it, and additionally "...shows real urls in status bar and removes link tracking strings; can restore status bar messages/original links". Seems to be changing the intent and content of the content producer in a way that is almost certainly helpful to the content consumer. How can anyone stop this, why would anyone want to ?

Cheers

anu

4.Hi, Anu. Ah, Mercer. I was once a Mercer employee myself, working in the communications practice at the Los Angeles office in the late 1980's.

First off, I didn't want to give the impression that my mother can't launch a browser. She certainly can. But when an instruction arrived that asked her to do so in those words, she didn't know what it meant. When she called, I said, "You know the blue E you click to go on the Web? When you click that, you're launching your browser." She said, "Oh." And that's my point. Even though the links will appear differently, a lot of Web users won't be sophisticated enough to understand the difference.

By the way, Walter Mossberg, technology writer for the Wall Street Journal, came out against AdLinks today. (http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050310.html). He makes the point that reflects my concern:

"In my tests, for instance, it added links to the addresses of movie theaters I had called up in a Yahoo page, and the links took me to Google Maps, not to Yahoo's own map page. When I looked up a book on eCampus, a book-selling site, AutoLink turned the ISBN numbers on the page into links to Amazon, which competes with eCampus to sell the books. When I looked up a used car for sale on AutoTrader, AutoLink turned the VIN numbers into links to Carfax, not to a competing auto-history-report seller, AutoCheck, used by AutoTrader."

Now translate that to Mercer's site. What if a Google's AdLinks took the words "benefits consulting" on Mercer's page and linked it to Watson Wyatt's Web site because Google has an advertising relationship with Watson Wyatt? Somehow I think the notion of ownership of content would suddenly resonate at Mercer.

Again, even if readers have to opt in to see the links, I don't want links added to my content that I didn't put there. I own a copyright on my work. The fact that it's on the Web and it's POSSIBLE for someone to take control of it doesn't mean it's either ethical or legal. I produce online workshops (http://webinar.holtz.com). What if Google ads a link to content that contradicts what I'm teaching?

Mossberg proposes very reasonable alternatives. And Mossberg also has something to say about your statement that "changing the intent and content of the content producer in a way that is almost certainly helpful to the content consumer:"

"I take a back seat to nobody in favoring user convenience, but, as with most things in life, every principle must be balanced against others. In this case, that balancing principle is the right of Web publishers to control the content and appearance of their own sites. Users wouldn't benefit if the Web became a sea of uncertainty, where anybody could alter every Web page."

5.Shel,

Yup - lots of ex-Mercer people around ! I guess I should say that I'm not an official spokesperson for Mercer, and what I've posted here reflect my personal views only - not that of my company or colleagues.

I saw Walter Mossberg's piece, and thought it was essentially inaccurate. Mossberg seems to imply that these links appeared, as if by magic [bonus points to anyone who spots where that phrase came from !!], once he'd installed the toolbar, when in fact he must have clicked on the AutoLink button each and every time. And given his position on this matter, Mossberg is taking a back seat in user convenience to other people, maybe now that it's his content being threatened ;-)

Now - let's move to the Mercer site. I honestly don't care if someone has an extension on their PC that, under their control, links certain keywords automatically. We still own the content. Most people browsing on our site aren't going to suddenly switch providers just because they've clicked a button that links certain words to a competitor. I give you and anyone else permission to write a plugin that allows you to link every word on my blog to anywhere you want when you view it on your pc.

And, you know, so what if they then go and look at WW or Aon or TP and see what they have to offer. Why is that bad ? Am I supposed to drive a client or a prospect around with a bag over his or her head just so they don't see something I don't want them to ? Actually, I quite like the idea of a tool that allows me to click on keywords on a consulting firm's site to see what their competition are saying about the same thing - I want to compete by being better than the next guy, not because the client didn't know the next guy had something of interest to say on the subject.

And in the same vein. so what if Google links to content that contradicts your teaching ? If what you're teaching is sound, then you've no problems. If what you're teaching is rubbish, then Google is doing the world a favour.

You keep coming back to copyright and the concept of ownership. Let's look at someone who, even more that you and Mossberg, needs to *sell* words to eat - Cory Doctorow. Now there's a guy who's embraced this new paradigm and despite being the producer of content, he's fully realised that control has to reside in the hands of the user. And it all comes down to control. Producer vs consumer, creator vs owner.

Although I don't think we're any closer to changing each other's views, I'm enjoying this a lot - so thanks for taking the time to respond, and I'm glad we [and by we I really mean me !] are keeping it civil and constructive ! Are you over in the UK or Europe any time soon - love to sit down and have a coffee if you are !

6.Oh - I've just seen this...

Greasemonkey: http://69.90.152.144/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts

"Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension which lets you to add bits of DHTML ("user scripts") to any webpage to change it's behavior. In much the same way that user CSS lets you take control of a webpage's style, user scripts let you easily control any aspect of a webpage's design or interaction."

7.The Firefox extension doesn't bother me as much as AdLinks. How the content appears is one thing (although if this tool allows users to change trademarks and brands, that's another issue). In fact, a lot of sites are adding the ability to change the font size. Anything that helps the reader see the content in a way that's useful is fine with me.

It's changing substance that bothers me. If you don't mind that Mercer content changes, that's fine. But you seem to be suggesting that because the technology makes it possible, it's okay to do it. So far, the courts haven't upheld that notion.

I take your point about allowing Google to (possibly) link to Mercer's competitors...as long as that's agreeable to you. On the other hand, if I have a relationship with Amazon and Google creates links to Barnes & Noble from my site, they're undermining my right to build and support the relationships I want to.

Let's take a more extreme example. I'm the volunteer Webmaster for my synagogue's Web site. How do you suppose I'd feel if links were added to the Temple's site that led to anti-semitic, white supremacist tracts? It's not so much the Google approach that bothers me as the potential for abuse. I completely agree with Mossberg that this could lead to a Web where nobody knows for certain where content came from, since content creators wouldn't be able to control their own sites.

Further, if Google makes money from a link they produce on my commercial page, where's my cut? How is it fair that they appropriate my content for their own purposes without compensating me? In the world of podcasting, podcasters are up in arms over sites that are streaming podcast content with ads wrapped at the beginning and end of the podcasts. Same problem...using my content to make money without my permission and without letting me share in the fruits of my own labors.

I suppose we're agreeing to disagree!

8.Shel,

Not sure you've fully understood the implications of Greasemonkey ! But yes, it gives one the full control to change brands, trademarks, content, or pretty much anything on a page...

2 examples: Mark Pilgrims LIP will [as a pointed joke] will hide all text except for links on Robert Scoble's site.

Butler changes the Google search results page to allow one to try the same search on a number of search engines.

And you keep writing as if links were being changed on the actual server instead of the client.

That's the fundamental difference...if someone installed a tool that changed all links on, to use your example, a synagogue's web site to point to rascist sites, well I'm sorry to say that is the *user's* right. On the other hand, if someone hacked into your site and changed the content so that *everyone* who came to your site saw the links, then that is wrong. Client vs server - big difference.

I think I'll stop here, and let the likes of Scoble and others carry on the arguments - good chatting with you.