michaelcapo ([info]michaelcapo) wrote in [info]sfwa,
@ 2007-11-30 00:23:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Copyright Committee reaction
It appears that another firestorm is gathering in the blogosphere. Everyone is making assumptions based on the fact that the membership and chair of the ePiracy Committee were reinstated. All I can say is, they're wrong.

I hope everyone has read the text of the motion at http://sfwa.org/news/2007/copyrightcommittee.htm . This is not just a return to business as usual. The motion mandates that there will be a procedure for collecting infringement data, checking the data, and documenting all DMCA notices. The motion mandates that every legal notice that SFWA sends out, including DMCA notices, will be reviewed by more than one person; and I, as President, will have the final say on whether they are sent or not. I said that SFWA would not send out any other mistaken DMCA notices, and I'll say it again. The procedure we establish, including double-checking the data, will be followed to the letter, but, more than that, I, personally, will only allow notices to be issued if I am satisfied that due diligence has been carried out.

If that's not good enough, I'm truly sorry. It's the best I can do. I promise that I will do my utmost to make sure that we don't screw up again.

On another front, I wanted to tell you all that we've convinced Sean Fodera to take the lead in handling the copyright education program that the Exploratory Committee called for. I think he'll do a good job, but SFWA is desperately short of volunteers, and he'll need all the help he can get.

Michael

(Post a new comment)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2007-11-30 05:38 am UTC (link)
Everyone is making assumptions based on the fact that the membership and chair of the ePiracy Committee were reinstated. All I can say is, they're wrong.

Eh? Who is wrong, and about what?

It's easy to refute invisible claims. You seem to be implying that "everyone" is claiming a "return to business as usual" — except that since you don't actually get specific, we have no idea what "business as usual" may mean.

If business as usual means, for example, SFWA has once again managed to perform the public relations equivalent of stepping on a rake, well then you are wrong.

But since — in classic SFWA mode – you simply refute a whole lot of...nothing, there isn't much to say.

Other than that you are wrong.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]willshetterly
2007-11-30 05:56 am UTC (link)
See Charlie Stross's SFWA attempts to commit public suicide.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-11-30 06:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-11-30 06:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-11-30 06:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-11-30 06:20 am UTC

[info]willshetterly
2007-11-30 05:59 am UTC (link)
Also, Elizabeth Bear's SFWA: It's like a housing association for the specfic community.....

And I'm sure the fun is just beginning.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-11-30 06:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-11-30 03:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]http://tekstadventure.nl/branko/, 2007-11-30 06:08 pm UTC

[info]dd_b
2007-11-30 05:54 am UTC (link)
So, did the intended back-channel message (as mentioned in http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/11/sfwa_attempts_to_commit_public.html ) from the copyright exploratory committee saying "that at all costs, Andrew Burt must be kept the hell away from the copyright committee", not get through, or was it ignored? It seems completely and totally obvious, you *shouldn't* have needed to be warned about it, but apparently they did try.

I can't imagine a worse outcome than this. Being unable to find volunteers for the copyright committee would have been infinitely better. As it is, it starts off with negative credibility, and at the slightest sign of a glitch will drop precipitately.


(Reply to this)


[info]jonquil
2007-11-30 07:29 am UTC (link)
One specific thing that SFWA did wrong is that they made an announcement in flat HTML, did not mention the announcement on their official blog, and then called outrage at "a firestorm gathering in the blogosphere".

The way that you avoid firestorms in the blogosphere is to put your message out there first, and to make that message persuasive. ("per the recommendations of the Exploratory Committee, the former Electronic Piracy Committee be revived in toto under the new name "Copyright Committee" with the same members and chair as when it was disbanded" is not exactly a compelling message.) When you ignore the existence of the blogosphere, you shouldn't be surprised that your message isn't presented the way you'd prefer it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]barbarienne
2007-11-30 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Moved, (1) that per the recommendations of the Exploratory Committee, the former Electronic Piracy Committee be revived in toto under the new name "Copyright Committee" with the same members and chair as when it was disbanded;

-->Speaking entirely as a disinterested third party who's only here for the popcorn, I'm curious to understand how anything in the Exploratory Committee's recommendations can be interpreted as a recommendation that the old committee "be revived in toto...with the same members and chair as when it was disbanded."

There is NOT A WORD in their recommendations that says that. That statement is not "per [their] recommendations."

Tellingly, the recommendation that SFWA form a new committee, and the guidelines for formation of such, is explicitly ignored in the passed motion.

Whether the motion is good or bad is irrelevant to me. The first point of the motion, however, is a FAT LIE.

Liars raise my "Danger, Will Robinson" aversion-circuits more than anything the old E-Piracy committee could ever do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rachel_swirsky
2007-11-30 07:48 am UTC (link)
"It's the best I can do. I promise that I will do my utmost to make sure that we don't screw up again."

You appointed Andrew Burt head of the committee he had previously fucked up.

This WAS a screw up. You have failed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]david_de_beer
2007-11-30 02:19 pm UTC (link)
seconded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2007-11-30 04:43 pm UTC

[info]haikujaguar
2007-11-30 08:45 am UTC (link)
While the actual actions of the new committee might be all that is promised, it doesn't change the unfortunate fact that the PR aspect of the situation was ignored. And the original problem was far more of a PR issue than it was a practical one. :,

(Reply to this)


[info]swan_tower
2007-11-30 09:19 am UTC (link)
This, like many recent SFWA responses to various public messes, boils down to something that looks far too much like "trust us, we'll do better in the future."

Why should we?

You earn that trust by doing better. By not reinstating the exact same people who made the mistakes in the first place. I would have been more impressed if the response had been, "we have new policies, but no new volunteers who have stepped up, so until we get such people the committee will be on hiatus."

Now, it may be the membership would not have liked that move. I'm not on the inside, so I don't know. But what I do know is that the move you have made persuades me, once again, that I do not want to spend my money on a SFWA membership.

(Reply to this)


[info]scalzi
2007-11-30 01:12 pm UTC (link)
I believe what Michael is trying to say here is that he expects the new process itself will keep the same mistakes from happening again, regardless of who is on the committee. I think this could be true, and I recommend people do take a look at the workings of the new process.

As regard to this, the question of the wisdom of reinstating the ePiracy committee in toto, including its chair, is in many ways an entirely separate and relevant discussion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]green_knight
2007-11-30 01:42 pm UTC (link)
From the outside, making a mistake that results in the committee being resolved and then reinstating the same people under a new name looks like 'we care about giving these people benefits more than we care about taking responsibility' which is a Very Bad Thing Indeed. The PR aspect is _disastrous_.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-11-30 01:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scarypudding, 2007-11-30 01:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-11-30 04:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]green_knight, 2007-11-30 09:34 pm UTC
what about that little loan? - (Anonymous), 2007-12-01 04:42 pm UTC
Re: what about that little loan? - [info]pecunium, 2007-12-02 03:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]david_de_beer, 2007-11-30 02:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eiriene, 2007-11-30 03:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-11-30 04:00 pm UTC

[info]kate_nepveu
2007-11-30 02:27 pm UTC (link)
we've convinced Sean Fodera to take the lead in handling the copyright education program

Sean Fodera is on record as making a number of incorrect statements about the scope of fair use, including that it only applies to non-commercial works and does not apply to derivative works.

http://scalzi.com/whatever/004392.html

(Reply to this)


[info]aburt
2007-11-30 02:37 pm UTC (link)
I agree with Capo and would also ask that people watch and see before jumping to conclusions. For those curious as to my perspective on this, I've posted it at http://aburt.com/sfwa-cc.ht .

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]tnh
2007-11-30 03:36 pm UTC (link)
Yeah yeah yeah, Andrew Burt.

If you gave a damn about SFWA, you'd have recused yourself from voting -- or better yet, declined to be on the committee. This whole affair has been a PR disaster for SFWA, and your doings have been 90% of that.

To hell with you and your perspective. You're here out of vanity, nothing more.

(Reply to this)(Parent

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Additional antiwin for disingenuousness: - (Anonymous), 2007-11-30 05:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-11-30 03:55 pm UTC

[info]prusik
2007-11-30 03:03 pm UTC (link)
No one involved in the previous PR disaster has admitted fault for what they did. Why should anyone believe that same set of people will not behave in the same way again? After all, based on their previous words, the problem is the blogosphere, not their actions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aburt
2007-11-30 03:49 pm UTC (link)
That's the message certain parties have put forth, anyway. I did admit my error and apologize. Many times now. That's not comfortable for those with their opposing agenda, but so it goes. It's much the same as the kind of thing Republicans do to Democrats (and vice versa).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]inklesspen, 2007-11-30 04:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-11-30 04:15 pm UTC
That's not enough - [info]orangemike, 2007-11-30 04:55 pm UTC
History is a two-edged sword - [info]johnecook, 2007-11-30 05:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tnh, 2007-11-30 07:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cadmus, 2007-11-30 08:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]david_de_beer, 2007-11-30 09:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-12-01 02:02 am UTC
The argument ad hominem isn't always an error - [info]tnh, 2007-12-01 04:44 am UTC
Re: The argument ad hominem isn't always an error - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-12-01 05:02 am UTC
Re: The argument ad hominem isn't always an error - [info]tnh, 2007-12-01 01:27 pm UTC
Re: The argument ad hominem isn't always an error - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-12-01 05:31 pm UTC

[info]ccfinlay
2007-11-30 03:43 pm UTC (link)
When I see SFWA do stuff this stupid, I just want the organization to die.

The fact that anyone involved can't see why it's stupid is laying bait for Darwin.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]snurri
2007-11-30 07:47 pm UTC (link)
Amen, Charlie.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2007-12-01 01:23 am UTC

[info]ktempest
2007-11-30 03:58 pm UTC (link)
I think the only assumption people are making is that allowing Andrew Burt to be in charge will automatically explode all credibility for this committee, regardless of what said body or yourself intends to do. You're attempting to assuage people's firestormyness by proclaiming that the Buck Stops With You, and yet you've not given me (and others) a reason to find this a particularly reassuring fact. Like I said, Burt is still involved. maybe the buck you stop should be HIM.

This snarky, passive-aggressive post doesn't help with the whole trusting you to make sure it doesn't go FUBAR thing.

You say this is the best you can do. That's pretty sad, then.

(Reply to this)


[info]brni
2007-11-30 04:03 pm UTC (link)

Not that I have a vested interest or anything, but...

and I, as President, will have the final say on whether they are sent or not.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the copyright holder to have the final say?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]pigeonhed
2007-11-30 04:42 pm UTC (link)
I'm no expert, nor does it directly affect me but i can foresee a situation where the copyright holder has given express permission for publication but SFWA (due to ignorance, incompetence or genuine mistake) issues a DMCA. Against the copyright holders wishes. Would this potentially open a legal can of worms that SFWA is not prepared for?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]kate_nepveu, 2007-11-30 07:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rutemple, 2007-11-30 07:23 pm UTC
More knowledge and power than you think - [info]tnh, 2007-11-30 07:44 pm UTC
Re: More knowledge and power than you think - [info]rutemple, 2007-11-30 07:55 pm UTC
Re: More knowledge and power than you think - [info]tnh, 2007-11-30 08:35 pm UTC

[info]richardthe23rd
2007-11-30 04:47 pm UTC (link)
So, to make a long story short, we're promised that, in order to avoid any more cock-ups, whoever is president of SFWA will baby-sit the head of the copyright committee? This is supposed to reassure us.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]tnh
2007-12-01 01:22 am UTC (link)
We're promised that Michael Capobianco will babysit Andrew Burt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]richardthe23rd, 2007-12-01 06:37 am UTC

[info]yagathai
2007-11-30 05:32 pm UTC (link)
I wonder -- are you getting scads of congratulatory, supportive commentary that we're not seeing, or is the public reaction as uniformly negative as it seems to be from both this LJ and the assumpting everyones of the blogosphere?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ksumnersmith
2007-11-30 06:02 pm UTC (link)
I think a more relevant question may be whether the reaction from within SFWA is as negative as it is here and elsewhere in the blogosphere.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-11-30 06:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ineti, 2007-11-30 06:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bruceb, 2007-11-30 06:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-11-30 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-11-30 06:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ineti, 2007-11-30 07:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-11-30 08:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-11-30 08:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tnh, 2007-12-03 05:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yagathai, 2007-11-30 06:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-11-30 08:23 pm UTC

[info]allochthon
2007-11-30 06:33 pm UTC (link)
A main question, to me, seems to be:

Did you (Capo) actually receive the back-channel recommendation of the exploratory committee to keep Dr. Burt away from the new committee?

If not, then I can maybe see your side.

If so, dude, you've made a whopper of a mistake here. Back out now, and take Dr. Burt with you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vylar_kaftan
2007-11-30 07:54 pm UTC (link)
I'm very interested in hearing the answer to this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]vylar_kaftan, 2007-11-30 08:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-11-30 08:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scalzi, 2007-11-30 09:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-11-30 09:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vylar_kaftan, 2007-11-30 10:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]david_de_beer, 2007-11-30 10:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]michaelcapo, 2007-12-07 07:48 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2007-11-30 07:43 pm UTC (link)
The response from the SFWA president is essentially "trust us". Trust is earned not guaranteed. If there's no confidence in the system it behooves those in charge to provide confidence building exercises. Leaving personnel in place that were directly responsible for the last failure is not an example of this. Saying you will doublecheck their work begs the obvious question of why they're needed in the first place.

(Reply to this)


[info]cadmus
2007-11-30 08:20 pm UTC (link)
It doesn't matter what you say here. If Burt is involved, the credibility is zero.

(Reply to this)

Ye Gods
(Anonymous)
2007-11-30 09:06 pm UTC (link)
Why don't you people just let Nickolaus Pacione run the organization for you at this point, or perhaps the collective nitwits on the Shocklines message board?

(Reply to this)

GOTO is deprecated
(Anonymous)
2007-11-30 10:04 pm UTC (link)
You cannot persuade him to quit. Look to his support instead. Today he is protected, but soon he will revert to form - he can't help it - and your opportunity will appear.

(Reply to this)


[info]swan_tower
2007-11-30 10:57 pm UTC (link)
Also, I would like to point out that the 60+ comment thread one post up from here is a perfect illustration of why reinstating Burt is the wrong course of action. Every action he takes on this front will be dogged by the memory of what he did before, and the ill-will and lack of trust now associated with him.

You need a fresh start. This does not qualify.

(Reply to this)


[info]lintra
2007-11-30 11:46 pm UTC (link)
I am not a member of SFWA, as I'm not as SFW - I'm a reader. But I did used to be involved in marketing.

I really don't understand, Michael, why you posted this, left the comments on (you can turn them off), and then have failed to respond to any of them. You must not understand it's insulting to the people who have bothered to come here and make a comment to you. Please respond to these folks, or ask someone to teach you how to turn comments off in the future.

I really hope this all works out for you, and things improve from here. I like the writers to have an organization to back them up during hard times.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rachel_swirsky
2007-12-01 12:29 am UTC (link)
"left the comments on (you can turn them off), and then have failed to respond to any of them."

Oh, I think it would be a bigger disaster if he'd turned comments off. At least this way, he has some way of claiming he gives a damn what his constituents think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]swan_tower, 2007-12-01 06:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]michaelcapo, 2007-12-01 04:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jonquil, 2007-12-01 05:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]swan_tower, 2007-12-01 05:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_swirsky, 2007-12-01 06:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ktempest, 2007-12-01 07:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tnh, 2007-12-04 04:26 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2007-12-01 09:00 pm UTC (link)
Could you please disable that stupid "Snap" feature that pops up a preview when you move your mouse over a link? Firstly, it's annoying, and secondly, I saw an autism-related link show up below the preview for the SFWA copyright committee page - which, though amusing, doesn't look good.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jonquil
2007-12-01 09:02 pm UTC (link)
He can't. It's an LJ feature. It is rich in the suck, isn't it? (At least, I haven't been able to disable it, not through lack of trying. My LJ-fu may be weak.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-12-01 09:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jonquil, 2007-12-01 09:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-12-01 09:20 pm UTC
Try this. - [info]kwanboa, 2007-12-02 02:50 am UTC
Re: Try this. - [info]jonquil, 2007-12-02 02:54 am UTC
Re: Try this. - [info]pecunium, 2007-12-02 04:01 am UTC
Re: Try this. - [info]kate_nepveu, 2007-12-02 02:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]coraa, 2007-12-02 03:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-12-02 06:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ellen_datlow, 2007-12-04 12:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]denni_schnapp, 2007-12-06 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-12-02 06:05 am UTC

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