aburt ([info]aburt) wrote in [info]sfwa,
@ 2007-10-20 16:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:business of writing, ipst day

Ursula K. Le Guin: SFWA, Piracy, and Serious Literature — An Open Letter
Reposting this from Ursula Le Guin's web site at  http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-OpenLetter.html (for which she gave permission to copy at will, as noted at the bottom):

I'd like to correct some misapprehensions about Cory Doctorow's unauthorized posting of my short comic piece "On Serious Literature" on his boingboing.net site.

I originally sent the piece to David Langford for Ansible, because that's where I first saw the quote from Ruth Franklin that the piece riffs on. I also put it on my web site. (It's still there.) Jon Carroll of the San Francisco Chronicle then reprinted it entire in the Chronicle, without asking permission. My agent Vaughne Hansen and I immediately demanded an apology from Carroll, and immediately got one. Harper's asked to publish it, offering me $200.00, which I accepted (I love gravy.)

I then discovered that Doctorow had put it on his web site, without asking permission and without observing copyright, misrepresenting its purpose, and falsely claiming that it was under license by "Creative Commons" so that anyone could copy it.

My agent and I had just decided to ask the e-piracy committe of SFWA, which I had come to count on in similar situations, to intervene on my behalf — when we found that the committee had suddenly been dissolved, following complaints about unauthorized interference, issuing from Cory Doctorow.

The irony of this situation is fairly visible. While Doctorow was making a huge fuss over an honest mistake, which when discovered was immediately redressed, he was publishing another writer's work without asking permission and in clear violation of copyright.

With my consent, Andrew Burt exposed Doctorow's piracy in a letter printed on Jerry Pournelle's web site. Doctorow scoffed, blustered, made no apology to me for misidentifying my work and using it without permission, and behaved as if his action was legitimate, although the Fair Use exception explicitly does not cover reprinting an entire article or poem no matter how short. But he took part of the piece off his site.

At the request of Michael Capobianco, President of SFWA, acting on my behalf, Doctorow has now finally removed the entire piece.

He has not apologised either to me for using my piece without permission, or to the people he misled with his pretense of a "Creative Commons License" into thinking they could reprint a copyrighted piece without violating the law. Nor has he offered to help them remove these many additional copies.

But, thanks to SFWA, he has taken the piece down. My agent is writing to request him to redress some of the other matters. I hope then to be done for good with Mr Doctorow. What I remain upset about is the confusion and destruction he seems to have effected within SFWA.

An overworked committee mistakenly identified a few works, among many, as infringing copyright; the mistakes were promptly admitted and redressed, with apologies; and President Capobianco invited any other parties who thought themselves wronged to contact him. Where is the cause in all this for dissolving a committee which has worked with extraordinary effectiveness to redress real wrongs?

In my view, the best thing that could come out of my brush with the Doctorow Doctrine would be this: the honorable reinstatement of the SFWA e-piracy committee, with an expression of appreciation from SFWA officers and members of the honest and effective work they have done for us for so long.

This letter is not copyrighted and may be excerpted or copied entire.

— Ursula K. Le Guin
October 12 2007




(Post a new comment)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 07:25 pm UTC (link)
Doctorow was clearly in the wrong there.

However, LeGuin is wrong to claim "An overworked committee mistakenly identified a few works, among many, as infringing copyright."

There is no definition or common usage of the word "few" that equals eighty.

Let's leave aside for the moment her oversimplified-to-the-point of inaccurate claim about the e-piracy committee's disolution.

LeGuin's conclusion is faulty. As the victim in one circumstance was a perpertrator in another, then...there were no actual victims? "Irony" isn't an excuse for the sort of reckless nonsense that informed the issuance of the scribd letters.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]aburt
2007-10-13 07:56 pm UTC (link)
There have been (from my vantage point, anyway) a number of misconceptions about the scribd case. I've put together a sort of FAQ on my site at http://aburt.com/scribd.ht .

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 08:22 pm UTC (link)
Would you add the following bulletpoint to that "FAQ":


* Though I have repeatedly claimed that I made only one error or, at most, three errors, over the course of 10,000 takedown attempts SFWA member Nick Mamatas vetted the list after it was made public and found eighty false positives in the takedown letter to scribd.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-13 08:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-13 08:37 pm UTC

[info]willshetterly
2007-10-13 10:22 pm UTC (link)
Was he clearly in the wrong? I haven't heard his side of the story yet.

Which, of course, may consist of "I was completely in the wrong. I am very sorry."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 10:31 pm UTC (link)
I'd say so. The archival material is right here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070705015620/http:/boingboing.net/

That's what I meant by in the wrong. Whether Doctorow is wrong to be fussy instead of sorry (if he is) whether LeGuin is legally owed some extra redress (maybe statutory damages; maybe nothing, perhaps depending on when Harper's requested reprint rights; maybe some sort of webcam depantsing)if she is, who knows.

The nuthugs will surely be having a field day though, so it'll be an amusement at least. Bring on the dancing kangaroos!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-13 10:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-13 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-13 11:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-13 11:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-13 11:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]janni, 2007-10-13 11:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 12:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 03:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 08:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]maryrobinette, 2007-10-15 01:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-15 03:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]maryrobinette, 2007-10-15 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-15 03:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cadmus, 2007-10-15 07:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-15 01:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-15 11:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-15 01:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-15 07:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-15 10:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]james_nicoll, 2007-10-14 04:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 05:04 am UTC
corrected P.S. - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 12:31 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]janni, 2007-10-14 12:51 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 01:06 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:06 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 04:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 04:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 08:12 pm UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]mckitterick, 2007-10-14 05:30 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 05:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 04:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 04:42 pm UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]janni, 2007-10-14 12:56 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:49 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:29 pm UTC
Another damned lie - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 04:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 04:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 08:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:18 pm UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 04:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 03:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 07:54 pm UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - (Anonymous), 2007-10-14 04:22 pm UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 04:38 pm UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]cadmus, 2007-10-15 07:10 am UTC
Re: corrected P.S. - [info]michaelcapo, 2007-10-15 01:55 pm UTC

[info]ktempest
2007-10-14 04:40 am UTC (link)
Yes, what Nick said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jonquil
2007-10-13 07:56 pm UTC (link)
That's appalling behavior on Doctorow's part. I'm glad SFWA was able to help.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 08:27 pm UTC (link)
Indeed it was. Capo is turning out to be a very good president after all!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]aburt
2007-10-13 08:36 pm UTC (link)
I agree; I'm glad I urged him to run. It would have been a real coup if he could have gotten Doctorow to honor Ursula's other requests, but, who knows...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]moondancerdrake
2007-10-13 08:18 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for sharing that, I learned a lot on what to watch out for on both sides. :)

(Reply to this)


[info]jhetley
2007-10-13 09:09 pm UTC (link)
Rude behavior. Also theft, since we're talking about paying work and a commercial web site here.

(Reply to this)


[info]bill_leisner
2007-10-13 10:11 pm UTC (link)
What a lovely little circle jerk. Le Guin writes to Burt. Burt writes to Pournelle. Pournelle posts Burt's letter. Le Guin cites Pournelle's posting of Burt's letter on his site in her own letter. Burt distributes Le Guin's letter citing Pournelle's posting of Burt's letter about Le Guin's original note to Burt, both here and to the members of Critters.org, in what absolutely smacks of a personal vendetta against the guy who had a big enough megaphone to expose Burt's lazy, slapdash and not-quite-legal handling of the Scribd matter.

Thank God the e-piracy committee was disbanded, if this was the childish mindset running it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 10:20 pm UTC (link)
Heh, you should see the nuthuggers on the private SFWA newsgroups!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]willshetterly
2007-10-13 10:26 pm UTC (link)
Nick, you just made a nice day nicer. I let my membership lapse. I can't see them now.

Actually, given SFWA semi-efficiency (which I usually approve of), I probably still have access. But it makes me much happier to think I can't see that, so I won't try the gate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]aburt
2007-10-13 10:28 pm UTC (link)
Whereas it's ok for some some guy in Korea (or some other unknown third party other than scribd, but it was a guy in Korea who had posted Doctorow's book so he would have received the notice about it from scribd) to notify Doctorow, Doctorow to post on his blog an inflammatory post about "abuse," without ever contacting anyone in SFWA to ask what was up, was it a mistake, never notify SFWA the blog posting was even there, and some other unknown chain of individuals eventually resulting in notice to SFWA and to me, the person with the knowledge needed to answer questions. A posting Doctorow made at midnight going into a holiday weekend, igniting the blogosphere while those could supply factual answers were quite literally sleeping.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 11:42 pm UTC (link)
Ah, well your comment here rather proves the point that you are publicizing this dust-up as a form of retribution and not simply as a matter of concern for LeGuin's copyrights.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-10-14 04:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 04:59 am UTC

[info]willshetterly
2007-10-13 10:19 pm UTC (link)
I'm thinking people should reserve judgment about this until we hear the other side. Has Cory posted anything about what happened?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]aburt
2007-10-13 10:49 pm UTC (link)
He has written his side in email, containing what I would consider exaggerations, trivializations, inaccuracies, and announcement of overblown, petulant actions. It will be interesting to see what, if any, public response he gives and how it compares. I would publish his emails, this one and some really interesting ones from a few years back where he states copyright was of zero value -- but he ironically refused me permission to make those earlier ones public. Now he writes that he's killfiled me, so I can't ask permission to publish the recent one. (Permission being needed to reproduce someone else's work in full or large part, whether email or bestseller. Unlike his site, his emails don't carry Creative Commons licenses on them. Strangely contradicting his statement that copyright had no value.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-10-13 11:49 pm UTC (link)
So,just reprint the tastiest sentences.


Permission being needed to reproduce someone else's work in full or large part, whether email or bestseller. Unlike his site, his emails don't carry Creative Commons licenses on them. Strangely contradicting his statement that copyright had no value.

Not really. There are reasons, other than copyright, to want to keep private correspondence private.

At any rate, your obsession is clear. Did you dig a turnip out of the ground, take a big ol' bite from it and declare to the heavens that no matter what you had to do, Cory Doctorow wasn't gonna ever play you for a chump again?


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:53 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 04:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 03:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 04:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 05:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]k_mankiller, 2007-10-14 05:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 07:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eclexys, 2007-10-16 05:02 pm UTC

[info]katallen
2007-10-14 02:10 am UTC (link)
I'm rather resenting that Mr Burt is bringing this to my attention.

That someone I respect is making a rather illogical defence of the e-piracy committee makes me sad.

Were I to run around my neighbourhood vandalising people's cars, I'd still be a vandal even if the owner of one of those cars was subsequently (or previously) convicted of drunk driving. (I'm reminded of a five year old explaining why *they* shouldn't still have to go to bed early - for feeding a sandwich to the DVD player - because their sister has shaved the dog).

That Mr Burt believes this incident in any way retrospectively justifies his incompetence in the Scribd affair... or that seeking such justification is a goal worth pursuing...
demonstrates why he should never have been given the authority and autonomy of action he apparently was.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]rachel_swirsky
2007-10-14 02:28 am UTC (link)
Not to mention that there *is* a new e-piracy committee, full of people who are competent, and who are actually bothering to find out what SFWAns (as a whole) want.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 03:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 03:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:59 pm UTC
And just to make sure that every single claim is refuted - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 04:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 07:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 07:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 07:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-10-14 05:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 03:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 02:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 07:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 08:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-10-14 04:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]katallen, 2007-10-14 03:41 am UTC

[info]ann_leckie
2007-10-14 02:53 am UTC (link)
That Mr Burt believes this incident in any way retrospectively justifies his incompetence in the Scribd affair... or that seeking such justification is a goal worth pursuing...
demonstrates why he should never have been given the authority and autonomy of action he apparently was.


Amen and hallelujah! Preach it, Sister!

Also, frankly, I'd be interested in hearing Doctorow's actual account. You'll excuse me if I don't trust Burt's judgment about the "exaggerations, trivializations, inaccuracies, and announcement of overblown, petulant actions." I'd be more inclined to trust if I hadn't seen so much of what Nick so aptly describes in his comment above.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 03:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 03:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 03:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 03:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-10-14 04:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 03:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 04:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 04:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 08:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katallen, 2007-10-14 04:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 05:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 03:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-10-14 04:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 07:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katallen, 2007-10-14 05:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-10-14 04:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-10-14 12:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katallen, 2007-10-14 04:28 am UTC

[info]yahtzee63
2007-10-14 04:07 pm UTC (link)
If I ever ask myself why I didn't re-up with SFWA, I'm going to come back to this bitter grudgewank and remind myself.

OTOH, it's not likely I'd ask myself that question.

(Reply to this)


[info]maryrobinette
2007-10-15 03:33 am UTC (link)
Well, let's see.

First you said:
I think boingboing could replace their sentence about the CC license with a sentence linking to a page on their site explaining about the CC license, how it works, what it covers, what not to do.


Which they do, although they link to the official CC license rather than a page on their site.

Then you said:
I meant that at the bottom of every page, instead of saying "this work is CC licensed" and linking to the CC license itself, the footer should say something more like "boingboing is proud to use CC licenses, click here to read what you can and can't copy", linked to a boingboing page that goes into details on what is fair game on the site (99%) and what isn't (the 1% like photos they use they really don't have permission for -- those are not released into CC-ness, nor should boingbiong suggest they are).</blockquote>
So, I interpreted that "details on what is fair game on the site (99%) and what isn't" to mean, that they should tag things individually, like an index.

Because if you really did mean that they should:

link to www.boingboing.net/policy.html instead, and post a statement explaining. I think it'd be pretty easy to craft that policy and a good way to educate people on both how copyright law works and how CC licenses work.


a) That is more obfuscating than linking directly to the liscence in the first place -- which is pretty darn clear.
b) Educating people about copyright law and copyright licenses is not their job.

(Reply to this)

Idle tangential question, but
[info]cheshyre
2007-10-16 04:19 pm UTC (link)
did anyone else notice this entry was posted several days in the future?

I show this page having been written
@ 2007-10-20 16:27:00
Science Fiction, indeed!

(Reply to this)


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