Asimov Asimov Asimov
Aug. 31st, 2007 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
green_dreamsFirst: Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom is a novel by Cory Doctorow. He's made it freely available under a Creative Commons license. It's got blurbs and favourable comments from several people whose names I recognize--Bruce Sterling, Kelly Link, and Gardner Dozois.
(SFWA, obviously, does not hold the copyright for this book. This will be important in just a bit.)
"Asimov" and "Silverberg" are words that show up a fair bit in written material. They're often--I would even say "primarily"--associated with Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, but even a quick Google will turn up other references on the first page of hits. And not every written mention of "Asimov" or "Silverberg" is a violation of copyright--witness the title of this post.
There's a site called Scribd (like Flickr, but for text not photos--one of the places Doctorow's novel was available). This site got a very long e-mail from Dr. Andrew Burt, the VP of SFWA, listing documents on Scribd that had the words "Asimov" or "Silverberg" in the text. Burt then sent a second e-mail, claiming that the first one had been a DMCA takedown notice.
And Scribd, perhaps understandably unnerved, took down the listed documents. But the list of documents violating copyright was apparently compilied by the thorough, reliable, and cunning technique of listing every document that had the word "Asimov" or "Silverberg" in it.
*Every* document.
So Doctorow's novel was taken down, because the quote from Gardner Dozois identified Dozois as the editor of Asimov's SF. And some of Ray Gun Revival's back issues. And a list of SF books that kids might like reading, compiled by a junior high teacher. And a ton of other things, many of which (like these) are not in violation of copyright, and for which copyright is not represented by SFWA.
Now, despite Dr. Burt's claim to the contrary, the e-mail from SFWA VP *wasn't* actually a DMCA takedown notice. It lacked key things, like the statement of a good-faith belief that the material being complained about was a violation of copyright, and that they were authorized to act on behalf of the the holder of said copyright.
I am actually inclined to cut Scribd a little slack for responding as they did. The words "DMCA takedown notice" are kind of unnerving, and the possible penalties are frightening.
I am not inclined to cut Dr. Burt said slack. He is familiar with the Internet, and can reasonably be expected to know that it's necessary to refine searches. He participated in International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day, so he is hardly unfamiliar with the concept of people posting their own written work online. He cannot *possibly* have reasonably thought that everything on Scribd with the words "Asimov" or "Silverberg" were in violation of copyright.
And I like to think that people think before doing this kind of thing.
(SFWA, obviously, does not hold the copyright for this book. This will be important in just a bit.)
"Asimov" and "Silverberg" are words that show up a fair bit in written material. They're often--I would even say "primarily"--associated with Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, but even a quick Google will turn up other references on the first page of hits. And not every written mention of "Asimov" or "Silverberg" is a violation of copyright--witness the title of this post.
There's a site called Scribd (like Flickr, but for text not photos--one of the places Doctorow's novel was available). This site got a very long e-mail from Dr. Andrew Burt, the VP of SFWA, listing documents on Scribd that had the words "Asimov" or "Silverberg" in the text. Burt then sent a second e-mail, claiming that the first one had been a DMCA takedown notice.
And Scribd, perhaps understandably unnerved, took down the listed documents. But the list of documents violating copyright was apparently compilied by the thorough, reliable, and cunning technique of listing every document that had the word "Asimov" or "Silverberg" in it.
*Every* document.
So Doctorow's novel was taken down, because the quote from Gardner Dozois identified Dozois as the editor of Asimov's SF. And some of Ray Gun Revival's back issues. And a list of SF books that kids might like reading, compiled by a junior high teacher. And a ton of other things, many of which (like these) are not in violation of copyright, and for which copyright is not represented by SFWA.
Now, despite Dr. Burt's claim to the contrary, the e-mail from SFWA VP *wasn't* actually a DMCA takedown notice. It lacked key things, like the statement of a good-faith belief that the material being complained about was a violation of copyright, and that they were authorized to act on behalf of the the holder of said copyright.
I am actually inclined to cut Scribd a little slack for responding as they did. The words "DMCA takedown notice" are kind of unnerving, and the possible penalties are frightening.
I am not inclined to cut Dr. Burt said slack. He is familiar with the Internet, and can reasonably be expected to know that it's necessary to refine searches. He participated in International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day, so he is hardly unfamiliar with the concept of people posting their own written work online. He cannot *possibly* have reasonably thought that everything on Scribd with the words "Asimov" or "Silverberg" were in violation of copyright.
And I like to think that people think before doing this kind of thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-31 06:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-31 07:04 pm (UTC)You think there's that much of a market for the SFWA (a writer's association which is not exactly a huge publisher--I think they switched the newsletter over to e-format) to print lists of SF books and assorted high-school essays?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-31 07:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-31 07:23 pm (UTC)While they do have a members-only forum (and I admit to a certain train-wreck desire to see what's going on there right now), becoming a member is not exactly the kind of thing that someone can do casually, so it seems unlikely that they started up this mess to increase membership ("Man, I'd love to see what they write about there! I'll just whip out three stories and sell them to pro markets!").
Similarly, I doubt SFWA is going to chase down everyone who posted something (that wasn't a copyright violation) with the word "Asimov" in it on Scribd and offer them all memberships so they can post their writing in the members-only forums. :)
Scribd appears to be free to access and use. Like Flickr. Or LJ.
*exposits*
Date: 2007-08-31 08:35 pm (UTC)SFWA is Science Fiction Writers of America, the major professional organisation for Science Fiction and Fantasy writers.
It functions not unlike Actor's Equity (http://www.actorsequity.org/) or Actra, broadly.
As Torrain says, to become a member you qualify via selling to three professional (as defined by SFWA) publications and then you pay your dues every year and you are a member.
The provide the sorts of services that professional organisations do: health insurance, an emergency fund, professional advice, opportunities for networking, contract negotiation help, etc, etc.
Their putative interest here is to act as agents for Robert Silverberg and the Asimov estate in the matter of copyright enforcement.
None of this is inherently illegitimate, nor is it profit-motivated as such. SFWA is non-profit; the idea is for its members to make a profit.
The current issues at stake are, as I understand them:
1) They have cast an overly wide net which has caught at least one Creative Commons document, and as luck would have it, that document was written by Cory Doctorow, former European Director of the EFF (http://www.eff.org/).
1a) Which potentially opens them, in turn, up to an action for perjury (a DMCA notice constitutes an oath/affirmation that one has the right to act wrt the rights of the material involved) and/or damages to Mr Doctorow and possibly others.
2) They have failed to follow proper form for issuing DCMA takedown notices.
2b) It is suggested that this may in fact insulate them from the legal action referred to in 1a), at least wrt perjury.
2c) It is further suggested that most accidents are, by definition, inconvenient, i.e. that the executive of SFWA may have been aware of 2b)
3) It has been repeatedly suggested over the past few years that SFWA's executive are seriously out of touch with current law, current practice, and the desires and interests of the greater body of its membership wrt copyright, piracy, and ebooks.
3b) A significant and vocal selection of said membership are Seriously Not Impressed with this situation.
Short version:
It's Worldcon Weekend, when traditionally the fans behave themelves and let the pros do the wanking.