![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Foot reattached, but to where?
Dec. 8th, 2007 11:47 amSFWA has replaced Andrew Burt with Russell Davis as the head of its Copyright Committee. This is a good move for them. Currently, Andrew Burt is a rather divisive figure, and making him the head of the Copyright Committee sends the wrong message. (I would argue that reinstating him as the head in, say, 6 months would also send the wrong message. Let's hope we don't go there.)
What worries me is a lie that keeps being propagated. We seem to accept it as some sort of consensus truth. It gets reinforced even by people who have no intent to do so. I mean, we're at the point where Russell Davis thinks he has to say "electronic infringement is theft." Is this even a point up for debate? Does anyone on any side of the Scribd debacle disagree with this? Russell Davis and Michael Capobianco have been very even handed in their comments. However, other commentators have not been nearly so fair.
SFWA infringed on the rights of bunch of authors by accident, then Andrew Burt tried his level best to pretend that the rights grab was no big deal. (I find this ironic, BTW.) However, it was by accident, not malicious. Similarly, those who complained about SFWA's unintentional rights grab, including Cory Doctorow, were asserting their rights as authors to control distribution of their own works. They were asserting their power of copyright over SFWA's infraction. To characterize this as anything but a use, and affirmation, of copyright is a lie.
I don't see much characterization of SFWA's actions as anything besides a terrible mistake which blew up in their faces. However, I do see the mischaracterization of authors who simply wanted their work on Scribd as something other than people who wanted to enforce their right to distribute works as they wish. So Andrew Burt no longer chairs the committee, although as VP, he's a member of all committees. We have every confidence that they will implement the recommendations of the exploratory committee. However, this lie is out there, and it needs to be challenged whenever anyone utters it.
To repeat, the people who were angry about SFWA's inappropriate take down notices to Scribd were angry because SFWA (unintentionally) violated their copyright, then the responsible person proceeded to treat it as if violating authors' rights was no big deal. People were angry because it looked like a blatant denial of authors' copyright. How anyone can spin it into anything else is beyond me...
What worries me is a lie that keeps being propagated. We seem to accept it as some sort of consensus truth. It gets reinforced even by people who have no intent to do so. I mean, we're at the point where Russell Davis thinks he has to say "electronic infringement is theft." Is this even a point up for debate? Does anyone on any side of the Scribd debacle disagree with this? Russell Davis and Michael Capobianco have been very even handed in their comments. However, other commentators have not been nearly so fair.
SFWA infringed on the rights of bunch of authors by accident, then Andrew Burt tried his level best to pretend that the rights grab was no big deal. (I find this ironic, BTW.) However, it was by accident, not malicious. Similarly, those who complained about SFWA's unintentional rights grab, including Cory Doctorow, were asserting their rights as authors to control distribution of their own works. They were asserting their power of copyright over SFWA's infraction. To characterize this as anything but a use, and affirmation, of copyright is a lie.
I don't see much characterization of SFWA's actions as anything besides a terrible mistake which blew up in their faces. However, I do see the mischaracterization of authors who simply wanted their work on Scribd as something other than people who wanted to enforce their right to distribute works as they wish. So Andrew Burt no longer chairs the committee, although as VP, he's a member of all committees. We have every confidence that they will implement the recommendations of the exploratory committee. However, this lie is out there, and it needs to be challenged whenever anyone utters it.
To repeat, the people who were angry about SFWA's inappropriate take down notices to Scribd were angry because SFWA (unintentionally) violated their copyright, then the responsible person proceeded to treat it as if violating authors' rights was no big deal. People were angry because it looked like a blatant denial of authors' copyright. How anyone can spin it into anything else is beyond me...
