![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Color me dismayed...
Dec. 1st, 2007 11:01 amYou get to send Andrew Burt, the Critter Captain, a note when you quit. I took the opportunity to tell him that his item about Cory in the October 10th Critter newsletter was petty, and that his current path undermines his goal of bolstering authors' rights. To my surprise, he wrote back. I honestly didn't think I was worth the effort. Unfortunately, it's the same hash he has always uses, served with an implied accusation of being closed minded on the side, garnished with a little passive aggression about me quitting Critters. My only reaction to the last is "Well, duh..." When is a protest resignation anything besides a futile gesture? In any case, I don't think of my action as a protest. After October 10th, my heart wasn't in it any more. It was either quit, or wait to be auto-deleted.
Dr. Burt seems to think that the people who disliked his actions are solely people who haven't taken the time to read, and understand, his side of the story. I wrote back to tell him he was wrong about that. I think I've read most of what he's written about what happened. I understand why he feels what he did were the right things. This does not oblige me to agree with him. I don't.
Yesterday, I had asked at the SFWA community why we should expect the copyright committee to behave any differently than the e-piracy committee. They are composed of the same people. No one directly involved in the errant DCMA takedown notices to Scribd has made any forthright statement that makes me think they wouldn't do it again. (The responses to my question are amusing though, if anyone is interested.)
Andrew Burt proved me right by doing it again. He raised Scribd as an issue for the copyright committee almost immediately after I asked my question. At least in this specific circumstance, I think I have a good read on Andrew Burt's side of the story.
I find this all sad. I think he genuinely wants to make the world a better place for authors. It's unfortunate that, on the whole, his methods and his actions haven't had that effect. What a waste...
Dr. Burt seems to think that the people who disliked his actions are solely people who haven't taken the time to read, and understand, his side of the story. I wrote back to tell him he was wrong about that. I think I've read most of what he's written about what happened. I understand why he feels what he did were the right things. This does not oblige me to agree with him. I don't.
Yesterday, I had asked at the SFWA community why we should expect the copyright committee to behave any differently than the e-piracy committee. They are composed of the same people. No one directly involved in the errant DCMA takedown notices to Scribd has made any forthright statement that makes me think they wouldn't do it again. (The responses to my question are amusing though, if anyone is interested.)
Andrew Burt proved me right by doing it again. He raised Scribd as an issue for the copyright committee almost immediately after I asked my question. At least in this specific circumstance, I think I have a good read on Andrew Burt's side of the story.
I find this all sad. I think he genuinely wants to make the world a better place for authors. It's unfortunate that, on the whole, his methods and his actions haven't had that effect. What a waste...
