I think (unfortunately) we might want amazon author pages separate from freeform URLs (because they are such a massive book information collector)
CatQuest
uh.. why?
all things equal we can link to them like everything else imho
Mr_Monkey
I supposes in the same way and for the same reasons we have a separate amazon identifier
Or goodreads author identifiers
CatQuest
nah that's legacy from mb
oh I mean, have an auto selected url. but thats he same
Mr_Monkey
I don't follow
CatQuest
I mean discogs and bandcmap and etc have these selected urls. on mb, so on bb we can hav hat for amazon and goodreads and bookdepository and wikidata etc ec
Mr_Monkey
Well, I guess that's my point: we already do have them for specific websites, and I think it makes sense to treat amazon author pages the same
Whereas some other random url would be a different type of identifier ("other URL")
CatQuest
eh
I'd except we'd have like "official website" and "page in database" etc types actually
and I kinda agree that I see this infomration in rfitions a lot. but i'd also argue that this would be tied to the work instead, because michael cricton wrote jurasic park, he's got copyright of it, but he hasn't writen every single edition personlaly. he doesnt have copyright of each edition personally
reosarevok
MB does it on releases and with dates
Because copyright is usually hard to know except inasmuch as it is printed on a release / book
Maybe they no longer own it because they sold it in the meantime
Or they died, so the copyright is now their kids'
CatQuest
hm
so should author copyright work be moved to author copyright edition?
reosarevok
I'm not 100% sure. It might be that the decision is to keep it on works *but* have many of them, one per year indicated on an edition
I am not familiar enough with how author copyrights are shown on books
CatQuest
basically it works like releases on mb. (but there is a difference between how this data is shown on bb. both "wrote work" and "copyright " is shown in a lsit rightnow (yes i made a ticket like this)