More on Doctorow, SFWA and Copyright

[Skar]

A rather amusing coincidence concerning Doctorow and his feelings vs his actions on copyright and the creative commons.
Leguin
The best part is the close synchronization between his posting of Leguin's piece and his complaints against SFWA's actions against Scribd. The second best part is the LACK of furor being raised over his infringement.

[taustin]

As time goes by, it becomes more and more clear that Cory Doctorow is something of a bozo. He has certain highly cherished political beliefs - and make no mistake, his position on copyrights is entirely, purely political - that he wishes to thrust on to others, whether they are interested or not. Perhaps he has a hard time imagining that intelligent people can simply disagree on important issues, I dunno.

However, this article, again, shows that it is very easy to fall in to the fallacy that, just because one side is wrong, the other side is right. Le Guin's description of the SFWA takedown fiasco as an "honest mistake" is, in my opinion, disingenous. Doing a global search for certain words, and not even bothering to read the files the are found before sending out the takedown notice is not an "honest" mistake. It is careless, sloppy work, at best. If they didn't have time to thoroughly read through every single file on their takedown list, they should not have included all of them on the list. And in the case of Doctorow's file, at least, it is clear they made no real attempt to read through it.

It is entirely possible for all parties to be wrong, in different ways, at the same time.

[Subspace]

There's no furor over the Doctorow's infringement because it wasn't a big deal to start with. He reprinted a letter to the editor, praised it, and gave credit. When dispute was raised, he immediately rectified it. You can shout delicious irony all you want - ooo, how the tables have turned! - but there just isn't a story here.

Well, other than the sad understanding Le "I love gravy" Guin doesn't seem to love literature, science fiction or civility as much as she loves delicious $200 checks. This has been argued to great extent elsewhere, but both parties made their mistakes and only one party attempted rectification without hysteria. I'll give you a hint which one it was: it's not Le "I love gravy" Guin.

Here, I'm going to try this and see if it's as hard as Le "I love gravy" Guin makes it out to be:


Dear Mister Doctorow,
Please remove my letter to the editor that I sent to Ansible and also posted on my own website.
Thanks,
U. K. Le "I love gravy" Guin


Lord of the Rings, that was hard! Jesus, I can see why she didn't bother to do that in the first place, that was terrible. It was like my fingers were being ripped from my hands by a thousand savage attorneys.

[Skar]

The ironic thing is not an "Oh how the tables have turned" kind of thing. It was that Doctorow's apology and rectification were just as sincere and swift as that on the part of SFWA, but no one sees a story in it. Hysteria when Doctorow gets his toes stepped on, followed by no hysteria when he steps on someone else's toes = irony.

[Nate_Trost]

Irony is also a site that rails against free speech restrictions and memory holes not just removing infringing material but scrubbing any reference to the author from the site. Granted, they are perfectly free to do so, but it's still...amusing.

If only Cory Doctorow would write a story about Cory Doctorow being sodomized on YouTube under a Creative Commons license. I would sooner read a non-ghost-written sci-fi collaboration by William Shatner and Richard Simmons than listen to his self-righteous ego-fed yapping. John Lennon is spinning in his grave because even if the world of "Imagine" came to life, it would still include Cory Doctorow.

(it's not so much that I really despise Cory Doctorow as much as I wish he'd get his own Chuck Norris style viral meme to counter the Cory Doctorow self-important rays...what would you rather do than be stuck in an airline seat next to Cory Doctorow?)

[scalzi]

what would you rather do than be stuck in an airline seat next to Cory Doctorow?

Having actually been seated next to Cory Doctorow for long periods of time, I can tell you that it's actually quite pleasant; he's a great conversationalist and a good person. I could easily handle being in an airline seat next to him.

Nor do I find him notably self-important -- or at least any more self-important than any other writer, including myself. He's prominent, and he's forceful and confident in his opinions. He's certainly self-assured; I don't know that that's the same as self-important. He's certainly not a bozo.

I was on vacation while this Cory/Ursula thing went down, so I'm still absorbing what went on; the gist of it as I understand it is that Le Guin felt Cory quoting her entire letter was a violation of her copyright, whereas Cory's position is that it was fair use. Given what I know about copyright, I tend toward Cory's side of the argument, and it seems clear that Cory still believes he has the legal right to post Le Guin's letter under fair use. But he choose to respect her wishes by taking it down.

Which is to say that if Cory was really all about Cory he'd have kept the thing up and started beating his chest about how evil Le Guin was being. Instead he respected the wishes of the creator of the work and took it down. And in fact this is consistent with what I know of Cory personally.

[Subspace]

Irony is also a site that rails against free speech restrictions and memory holes not just removing infringing material but scrubbing any reference to the author from the site.

As long as we're misusing the term "irony," isn't it ironic that both Doctorow and Le Gravy both want the same things? Both want control over their content. Their wants are not at odds. I don't know Doctorow personally, but I've had a single email exchange with him where he was more helpful than the situation required. This is sloppy, but Will Shetterly noted somewhere that I can't find now (dur) that Le Gravy didn't want anything of hers printed under a Creative Commons umbrella -- meaning, she wants nothing to do with Boing Boing, for example. She's made it clear that Creative Commons is frightening and strange to her, and I think we should all help her remove herself from the offending blight.

Scalzi gets to the core of this issue by noting that Doctorow has bowed out: if it were truly amusing, this turn of events, I assume Doctorow would have his rapier buried deep within Le Gravy's chest by now. From my standpoint, both duelists have left the field. What are we arguing about again? Oh right: not enough furor. Sorry. Skar, maybe the next author tussle will be bloody to your satisfaction.

If only Cory Doctorow would write a story about Cory Doctorow being sodomized on YouTube under a Creative Commons license. I would sooner read a non-ghost-written sci-fi collaboration by William Shatner and Richard Simmons than listen to his self-righteous ego-fed yapping. John Lennon is spinning in his grave because even if the world of "Imagine" came to life, it would still include Cory Doctorow.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

it's not so much that I really despise Cory Doctorow(...)

Oh, I see. No... wait.

...what would you rather do than be stuck in an airline seat next to Cory Doctorow?

What would I rather do? Um. Ride a golden unicorn? Wait, am I literally stuck in the airline seat? Because you're right, there are a lot more things I'd rather be doing.

[Skar]

Sorry. Skar, maybe the next author tussle will be bloody to your satisfaction.

I don't think there should have been furor or blood over the SFWA thing either. You keep not only reinforcing but living and breathing my point. SFWA's offense and response were almost exactly the same, in principle, as Doctorow's. Doctrow and LeGuin handled their issue like mature adults. In the reverse position Doctorow and his crowd flipped their lids and no apology from SFWA is good enough. You're still talking about how what SFWA did was somehow different. It's not. Only Doctorow's behavior was different. Both parties got it right in this second case and Doctorow's behavior in the second case was the same as SFWA's behavior in the first. Yet he's in the right, now, while they are still, somehow, in the wrong.

It's amusing that when Doctorow is the offending party an apology and swift rectification is good enough. But when he's the offended party all hell must break loose before he's satisfied, and, apparently, it hasn't broken loose enough for him yet.

I've never met Doctorow and I'm well aware that snippets of people's public behavior surrounding things they're passionate about cannot be taken as typical of their everyday character so I have no opinion on him as a person. Though I'd venture to guess that he's probably pretty cool, given John's recommendation. But cool or not, it's a bit of a double standard we're seeing here.

[david-de-beer]

Skar, sorry to disagree with you but you are trying to make a very one-sided argument here without full understanding of this debacle.

this thread is as good a place as any to start, but do backtrack and read through the various posts and comments. In this thread, pay attention to the comments of Nick Mamatas and Will Shetterley, specifically where they engage Andrew Burt:

http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/32381.html

you've clearly made up your mind, but nevertheless, you are wrong.
It is worth considering that Doctorow wasn't the only person involved in the Scribd affair; so was Andrew Burt and all this comes straight back to his repeated bungling and attempts to wangle his way out of responsibility for it.
It's Aburt, not Cory, that's the common thread here.

[Subspace]

I just had this conversation with my partner, Hal:

Hal: "Aren't you going to respond to that guy?"
Me: "Nah, we're at a standstill. I'm glad someone stepped in and pointed out that this is all being argued better elsewhere. We're just repeating everything."
Hal: "But that's what the internet is for."
Me: "What, repeating everything?"
Hal: "Yeah."

[Skar]

I realize that you folks have apparently been discussing this thing in other places. Try and focus on what's being said HERE, not what all those other folks are saying.

I am in no way trying to excuse the actions of SFWA over SCRIBD. Their behavior was sloppy, which they have admitted. I am also NOT trying to say that Doctorow should not have objected to SFWA's actions since he turned around and screwed up over copyright too. No turnabout, no tables have turned. Nothing like that at all.

The ONLY thing I'm pointing out is that a swift apology and rectification from SFWA was not enough to satisfy you folks, but you seem perfectly happy with a swift apology and rectification from Doctorow. It's a double standard and a bit revealing.

[david-de-beer]

dude, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Have fun.

[Skar]

uh-huh

[Subspace]

Right, the thing is: your logic is all over the place, you've switched basic arguments at least twice that I can read, and you're repeating yourself. I'm fine with you getting the last word in, but you're still on your own.

[Skar]

Feel free to point it out to me where I switched arguments or where my logic is all over the place. I repeated myself because no-one responded to what I actually said the first time.

[david-de-beer]

Try and focus on what's being said HERE, not what all those other folks are saying

.

point out in what way this conversation has in any way deviated from any other conversation re: this matter. You are implying that you have made some original and unique statement and argument that has not been presented and addressed elsewhere.
You have not.

Further, please do attempt to at least convery the impression that you are either informed or qualifed to be discussing the bozoness of Cory Doctorow, the hypocrisy of his supporters and SFWA supporters or, if that fails, at least informed enough about this particular matter and its history.

You are not. That is self-evident.
But hey, if bashing Doctorow is what you need to achieve orgasm, go ahead.

[Skar]

Wow.

You are implying that you have made some original and unique statement and argument that has not been presented and addressed elsewhere.
You have not.

That's not what I said/implied at all. I was in fact saying that I was NOT dealing with most of the issues being raised in that thread you linked to and was urging you not to inject issues raised outside this thread into this thread.

Further, please do attempt to at least convery the impression that you are either informed or qualifed to be discussing the bozoness of Cory Doctorow, the hypocrisy of his supporters and SFWA supporters or, if that fails, at least informed enough about this particular matter and its history.

I didn't call Doctorow a bozo, that was Taustin. I don't even think Doctorow is a bozo, as I said pretty clearly. You confusing me with other posters is not my fault, it's yours.

But hey, if bashing Doctorow is what you need to achieve orgasm, go ahead.

I'm not bashing Doctorow, again, your trouble with attribution is not my fault.

In another attempt to demonstrate what I am, in fact, saying. I repeat myself yet again.

Event1:
SFWA makes a copyright mistake. Doctorow strenuously objects to their actions. SFWA apologizes and rectifies the mistake swiftly. Doctorow is not satisfied, is still not satisfied and continues to flip his lid.

Event2:
Doctorow makes a copyright mistake. LeGuin objects to his action. Doctorow apologizes and rectifies the mistake swiftly. LeGuin is satisfied. Matter ends with no flipping of lids at all.

So, the response to the mistake, apologizing and rectifying the mistake swiftly, are identical in the two cases. Yet Doctorow's crowd accepts it from him but not from SFWA. Double standard, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it, it's there.

Your dragging this out by responding to things that I haven't actually said is a little disingenuous, which tends to support my point.

[scalzi]

Deep breaths, people.

[JustAnotherJohn]

lawl

[david-de-beer]

the thread I linked to is the very thread where Andrew Burt posted Le Guin's letter, the SFWA lj community thread which is open to read to everyone, not just SFWA members. Quite a discussion followed.
But, for whatever reason, you have decided that that thread is of absolutely no relevance to this thread, this thread dealing with the same events notwithstanding.

(it would of course help if you actually defined the rules we are to play this little game of yours by, otherwise we won't know when we're disobeying them).

but fine, let's focus on your factless claims:

re: Doctorow bashing:

It's a double standard and a bit revealing

.

you are implying the man and his "crowd" are hypocrites. You are right. That is not bashing. It is slander.

you said:

I don't even think Doctorow is a bozo, as I said pretty clearly

but you also said:

It's amusing that when Doctorow is the offending party an apology and swift rectification is good enough. But when he's the offended party all hell must break loose before he's satisfied, and, apparently, it hasn't broken loose enough for him yet.

yes, I can see what a charming character portrait you're sketching there. Very clear indeed.

SFWA makes a copyright mistake

the organization did not make a mistake. Andrew Burt did.
Ironically (and this reallly is irony), to date a lot of SFWA members have pleaded that people not confuse and hold the organization as a whole culpable for the well-intentioned but poorly executed actions of one man, or a small group. Yet this is exactly what you are doing.

The SFWA did not handle the issue; Michael Capobianco did. Very admirably.

back to your "point":

Burt has a history of bungling. This was something that came up during some of the discussions then and now. When measuring flipping lids, do take into account that it was Burt who handled the Scribd affair that got Doctorow involved in the first place.

The "mistake" made in this case that made people flip, was not the illegal takedown of Doctorow's work per se (as in, the fact that it happened), but the manner in which it was handled.
Burt got the works removed by claiming to have DMCA takedown notices. He did not. It was a false claim. Burt later tried to deny that he had ever implied in his dealings with Scribd that he had ever said any such thing. Whereupon somebody helpfully provided a letter from Andrew Burt wherein he states, to Scribd, that he is acting perfectly legally and will issue them with the takedown notices if they do not comply.
Basically, Burt lied, or spread false information, whichever you prefer. He lied in his capacity as a senior officer of the SFWA. As such, he cast the whole organization into a bad light.
As far as I know, he also acted in this matter on his own, without consulting or getting the approval of the SFWA. Again, this was something in his dealings with Scribd that he claimed he had, ie the full backing of the SFWA.
Clearly, as was demonstrated on threads I am not allowed to link to because they have no relevance to this discussion in your opinion, it came out that the organization did not approve of the way he handled the situation.
Far from Doctorow's "crowd" flipping, it was very much the members of the SFWA flipping about events they felt gave them bad publicity, and would further alienate potential new members from joining (they're right, as demonstrated by a poll and commentaries on other places.), as well as undermining legitimate attempts to takedown illegally posted works.

Let's spell this out:

1) The actions of the SFWA members, in which Doctorow's work was involved, was perceived to be negative and undermines legitimate attempts to handle copyright infringements by means of takedown notices;
2) There was illegal posting of works on Scribd, the estates of which are protected and handled by the SFWA. They were correct to attempt to handle it.
3) They handled it falsely and incorrectly.
4) the ramifications of this action by the SFWA members involved (it is ludicrous to insist it's the whole organization acting instead of one man) are potentially far more serious that the actions of Doctorow. Ripple in the pond effect.
5) The SFWA members involved are still attempting to lessen their share of the blame. This tends to rankle with people.

Doctorow makes a copyright mistake

.

Did he? this hasn't been proven yet. Claimed, yes, proven no. There's some indication in this debacle that Ursula Le Guin does not understand the concepts of Fair Use, and that she may not have been correctly informed here.
Nevertheless, Cory took it down and accepted the blame himself.
He could have made an issue out of it. He did not.

End of story. Everyone's satisfied and has moved on, except for you, Skar. I have no idea of what happened precisely on the SFWA boards, so this is the extent of my knowledge on the issue.
No doubt, you will illuminate me further.

Your dragging this out by responding to things that I haven't actually said is a little disingenuous, which tends to support my point.

yes, your point being that I'm a hypocrite. Cheers, mate. That's slander but no big deal. I'd be curious to see you prove that, but at the moment I'm more interested to see how you are going to analyze my most recent bout of being "disingenuous".

[sphere777]

I'd like to thank Sir Scalzi for providing another venue to discuss this issue. For some reason Boing Boing shut down discussion on the apology thread without an explanation; unfortunately I havent found any other well-known board that has a thread on this issue (other than the aburt topic mentioned above).

I would hope that we can use this problem to help move the two sides (say Pournelle vs Doctorow) closer together and further the cause of science fiction writers. Since I am a fan, I want the genre and the writers to thrive and forging a useful and profitable consensus on Internet technology would be a definite step forward.

[Skar]

You keep claiming that I'm bashing/slandering Doctorow. I am not. I don't even know the guy and I've never participated in any sort of discussion with him on the internet. His actions may have been less than consistent in this one case we're dealing with but that says nothing about the man, only his actions, in this one case. If his actions were different than I describe, that would be relevant to the discussion. Show me how they were.

Yes, your point being that I'm a hypocrite.

Yup. That's exactly my point.

The organization did not make a ... what you are doing.

Totally irrelevant. The term SFWA, as I used it, was simply a blanket term used to simplify the text. Call it SFWA, call it Burt, call it what you will. The basic facts stay the same.

Burt has a history of ... tends to rankle with people..

Again, totally irrelevant. The exact nature of the mistake does not change the fact that it was a mistake, as evidenced by the president of SFWA apologizing for it and rectifying it. If they had done it on purpose they would have stuck by it.

I concede that SFWA's actions had the potential to be much further reaching than Doctorow's. Irrelevant now, since any large ripple effect was totally derailed by the fact that SFWA apologized and rectified it. No one can point to it as justification for their own similar behavior now. It's a dead issue no matter who it "tends to rankle".

Did he? this hasn't been ... it. He did not.

Seems pretty obvious to me that copying another's work, in-toto, stripping out the copyright notice that accompanied it and then posting it on a public forum is a violation of copyright. Claiming that because it's short you can copy the whole thing is like saying very small rocks float.

End of story. Everyone's satisfied and has moved on, except for you, Skar.

That's the telling bit. You want everyone to move on from the Doctorow-LeGuin case because everybody involved in that one stopped flipping their lids over it once apologies and rectification had been made. (Or is it because Doctorow was the one at fault in this one?)

Yet apologies and rectification were made in the SFWA-Doctorow case and you insist that it's somehow okay NOT to have moved on from that one.

You totally failed to illuminate just how SFWA's mistake and apology were substantially different from Doctorow's mistake and apology yet you insist that there is a difference. Raking up all the gory "he said she said" details of an argument you were not, as you admit, privy to is just obfuscation.

Both parties made a mistake, apologized and rectified it. Only one party accepted the apology and moved on. The implications are obvious.

[Subspace]

The implications are obvious.

Clearly they are not obvious. Why don't you spend a significant chunk of personal time explaining it in detail to me? Don't leave anything out. Take your time.

[david-de-beer]

ah, yes, I forget - only what you say has relevance. Everybody else is just trying to obscure the issue.
Nevermind the fact that you have made no "point", you have made claims, guided by your fearsome reasoning capacity.
They are not the same thing, but this is something I do not expect you to understand.
Now, since you are too thick to figure this out on your own -- I have no vested interested in this matter. I am neither a Doctorow nor Le Guin. What I have been doing, though is follow such of the debate as I can. Something you have demonstrated no interest in doing.
You just like to assume. Much as you assume I have picked a side here, and have some kind of interest in taking Doctorow's side.

both parties have moved on, have they?

from Doctorow's apology:

"Since then, I've worked through mutual friends to convey this to Ms Le Guin. My understanding is that she is unsatisfied and remains upset with me. "

ah, but of course this is me linking to something, not you, therefore it is irrelevant.

The exact nature of the mistake has everything to do with people's willingness to accept attempts at rectification. The history of mistakes underlying the exact nature of the mistake will add to it. The ramifications of the mistake has most to do with people being willing to let it lie or not.
The exact nature of the mistake has everything to do with it.

up all the gory "he said she said" details of an argument

translated from the moron - you have no interest in understanding what happened and why, only to insist that you are right. Gotcha.

You totally failed to illuminate just how SFWA's mistake and apology were substantially different from Doctorow's mistake and apology

as determined by you, but we have already established that you are the halfwit bastard of a retarded donkey, so in my opinion, your value judgements holds zero weight.

Seems pretty obvious to me that copying another's work, in-toto, stripping out the copyright notice that accompanied it and then posting it on a public forum is a violation of copyright

.

The only thing that is obvious is that you do not understand what you're talking about. Copyright, very simply, is not that simple. In what way did Doctorow profit financially from quoting Le Guin?
Show me a single instance where anyone at all did not understand that the quoted material was, in fact, the property of Ursula Le Guin.

You keep claiming that I'm bashing/slandering Doctorow

you insinuated he's a hypocrite, who expects to be held to different standards than others. This is not slander?

You are correct that I have zero interest in this debate; I do however have very much an interest in you right now, so you and your abuse of intelligence is what I'll be focusing on.
Tell me Skar, do you have to work at being obtuse or are you just naturally gifted?

[Skar]

Lost are you? Think harder. It will come to you.

Officially letting it go now...

Edit: posted the above between Sub-space and david-duh-beer... continuing...
I love it when folks on this forum resort to personal insults because they can't come up with a reasoned response. Have at, folks. Rant.

Really letting it go now...

[david-de-beer]

oh my you are just the soul of wit aren't you, playing on my surname like that. Which I take it is an admission that stupid and dense is your natural birthright?

but please don't go, Skar, I'm finally starting to take an interest in you and your Ominous Mutterings and Significant Hintings of Dire Consequences and Wrongful Double-Doings.
Do remain and enlighten us some more, we bask in your intellectual glory.

I am still waiting, btw, for you to demonstrate what exactly you know about the sum total of events and opinions surrounding this issue. Are you a member of the SFWA? perhaps the SFWA discussion board in sentient form?
Ursula Le Guin or Jerry Pournelle?

and don't worry, mate, if you're on this forum I will find you. So you may as well stay and continue the spout of claims of no reason.

[Skar]

Gah, I can't let it go. I am weak and this is too much fun.

oh my you are just the soul of wit aren't you, playing on my surname like that. Which I take it is an admission that stupid and dense is your natural birthright?

Sorry, that was boorish and I apologize.

I am still waiting, btw, for you to demonstrate what exactly you know about the sum total of events and opinions surrounding this issue. Are you a member of the SFWA? perhaps the SFWA discussion board in sentient form?
Ursula Le Guin or Jerry Pournelle?

I claimed no special knowledge of the SFWA boards. If what happened is substantially different from what I outlined here:

Event1:
SFWA makes a copyright mistake. Doctorow strenuously objects to their actions. SFWA apologizes and rectifies the mistake swiftly. Doctorow is not satisfied, is still not satisfied and continues to flip his lid.

Event2:
Doctorow makes a copyright mistake. LeGuin objects to his action. Doctorow apologizes and rectifies the mistake swiftly. LeGuin is satisfied. Matter ends with no flipping of lids at all.

Please show/tell me how instead of resorting to personal insult. Of course, if that's really all you've got, I can understand your frustration.

and don't worry, mate, if you're on this forum I will find you. So you may as well stay and continue the spout of claims of no reason.

LOL Are you really threatening to follow me around this forum and shriek personal invective wherever I go? Color me astonished.

[scalzi]

So, which part of "deep breaths, everyone" did we not understand?

Don't make me turn this topic thread around.

[Skar]

Sorry, John.

[Subspace]

So, which part of "deep breaths, everyone" did we not understand?

Don't make me turn this topic thread around.

And take us back to October 14th?

[scalzi]

I don't like revealing my time-bending qualities, actually.

[taustin]

I think that everybod wants to let this die, and leave it behind them. Just as soon as they get the last word in.

"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

Not very politically correct, but about as true as anything ever said.