michaelcapo ([info]michaelcapo) wrote in [info]sfwa,
@ 2007-09-03 12:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
SFWA ePiracy Committee Activities Suspended
The SFWA Board has just passed the following motion:

Motion: That, effective immediately, all of the activities of the
current ePiracy Committee be suspended and the Committee itself be disbanded
until such time as the Board has had the opportunity to review the legal
ramifications of sending out any additional DMCA notices, as well as to explore
other methods by which SFWA may be able to assist authors in defending their
individual rights, while ensuring that any such activity will not unduly expose SFWA to negative legal ramifications.

Further, that the Board shall issue a call for a temporary, exploratory committee
of between five and nine individuals to investigate the views of the membership
on issues of copyright, authors rights, what role the membership would like
to see SFWA take on these matters and what level is risk (legal, public relations
or otherwise) is acceptable to the membership in regards to that role, and
what - if any - public policy statement SFWA might issue on these subjects on
behalf of its membership.

Finally, that the Board, in conjunction with the findings of the above
committee and its own deliberations, will work to develop a new, permanent
committee with a clear matrix of operations and goals, whose purposes shall include, but not necessarily be limited to protecting the copyrights of our member
authors who desire such protection in a way that complies with the applicable
laws, and to help educate both our membership and the public at large in regards
to copyright law.



(Post a new comment)


[info]willshetterly
2007-09-03 04:50 pm UTC (link)
Hurrah!

I would only ask SFWA to consider one other possibility: Perhaps copyright concerns should be addressed by an independent organization that wishes to police copyright. The issue is not unique to f&sf, and some writers of f&sf think it is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, detrimental to their interests. I firmly count myself in their camp.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sethb
2007-09-04 12:14 am UTC (link)
That's one of the choices they'll poll the members about: "investigate the views of the membership on issues of copyright . . ." The membership might (probably will) say "We don't have sufficient agreement for you to do anything that takes money or effort."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]aburt
2007-09-03 05:16 pm UTC (link)
For those who may be curious, I was a wholehearted Aye on this motion. It seems that SFWAns' feelings about the risk tolerance for fighting piracy have shifted, and we need to assess what those now are before we proceed.

(Reply to this)

I was wrong.
[info]johnecook
2007-09-03 07:53 pm UTC (link)
Michael, I spoke too soon, and I apologize:
http://phywriter.com/archives/2007/09/03/sfwa-takes-corrective-action/

This looks like a strong, positive move. Well done!

Johne Cook
Overlord, Ray Gun Revival magazine
http://raygunrevival.com

(Reply to this)


[info]janni
2007-09-03 10:07 pm UTC (link)
A committee, say, that investigates for writers that contact them would, IMHO, be a useful resource. I don't think SFWA should abandon being involved in copyright issues entirely; just that they should only act on behalf of authors who want action taken.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-09-03 11:02 pm UTC (link)
That is how it works, except that for the sake of expediency the e-piracy committee has been sending out what they call "informal DMCA letters" which thus may or may not actually carry the weight of a DMCA takedown letter, nor comply with the wishes of authors specifically.

Thus, the fantastic pants-down display of this long weekend.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kayshapero
2007-09-04 01:38 am UTC (link)
Maybe report apparent violations to the copyright holder, and let them send the letter?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]shanejayell
2007-09-04 01:57 am UTC (link)
That would be a good plan, as it empowers the writer to make the final call.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elenuial
2007-09-04 03:03 am UTC (link)
On the other hand, that means the copyright holder has to hire a lawyer. Unless you're a writer who's famous/made enough money to incorporate, that's probably not happening over some e-piracy thing.

Acting on behalf of writers who request it for their digital rights is a good thing the SFWA can do. But it's when people overstep their bounds or try to cut corners that mistakes like this happen.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kayshapero
2007-09-04 05:43 am UTC (link)
Ah, but if the writer wants something done and doesn't want to write/have his/her lawyer write their own letter, they can then turn around and empower SFWA to have it's lawyer do the writing.

At this point the trail's clear - the author owns copyright, the author does NOT authorize the infringing publication, and someone who knows how the law works is involved. This generally OUGHT to be enough.

Incidentally, it's not all that expensive to have one lawyer write one letter. The difficulty comes in if you have to go to court. :(

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]bb_kristopher
2007-09-04 12:31 pm UTC (link)
You could always just provide the author with a boilerplate takedown notice where they just have to fill in the website, name of their work, and their own name. Easy enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chvickers
2007-09-06 01:45 am UTC (link)
And somebody's actually read the offending item to make sure it's actually the author's property, and doesn't simply mention the author's name (or that of someone who shares a surname with the author) as an aside.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kayshapero
2007-09-06 06:19 am UTC (link)
Which brings us back to the point of starting the whole thing by reporting the possible violation to the author, who can then go and LOOK.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]fallenpegasus
2007-09-04 06:27 pm UTC (link)
Why would the writer have to hire a lawyer?

I know of at least two people who have sent valid DMCA takedown notices on their own behalf. There is nothing in the law that requires a lawyer or an agent or any of that stuff to send a notice.

The things that a valid takedown notice have to have have been posted as a bulleted list many times in many places in the threads surrounding the event. Go great the EFF letter to the SWFA, it's basically a politely but forcefully written "the idiots guide to this is how you write a takedown notice, for dummies".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elenuial
2007-09-04 06:37 pm UTC (link)
Sure, but to successfully navigate the law usually requires specialized knowledge in how to do so. I know I don't have that knowledge, and since we're a very litigious society, interacting with the law without that knowledge can be dangerous.

A similar thing happens to writers and their finances: how many horror stories exist of writers who have no idea how to manage their money? That's in part a motivation for the EMF, right?

While it's advantageous for writers to be DIY lawyers, investors, and accountants while doing some writing on the side, it's certainly not practical for most writers.

So even if the SFWA provides clear and easy guidelines for how to do this sort of thing, that's certainly better than no legal help at all. I'm simply trying to point out that the organization offering legal help of some sort is definitely a good thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]amberite
2007-09-04 02:20 am UTC (link)
The sound of firm applause emanates from the peanut gallery seats.

(Reply to this)


[info]rugor
2007-09-04 11:38 am UTC (link)
I like this: It's long past time an industry organization sat down and came up with a rational policy on this. I also like that since SFWA has members from both camps, they're more likely to find a middle ground than a group like the RIAA. Find out what the real effect seems to be, then see what's in the best interest of the membership.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kayshapero
2007-09-05 06:30 am UTC (link)
No kidding. Speaking AS a musician, you do not want to emulate the RIAA...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…