InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Thank you, Doogie Howser."

theatresm (theatresm) wrote,
@ 2007-08-31 23:23:00

OTP: Censorship/Idiocy. (see also Law Noob/Potential Perjury; Overreaction.)
Proof that LJ/6A are not the only fucking idiots on the block: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009334.html
Wherein the SFWA send threats citing DMCA to a file-sharing entity, and in which legitimately uploaded works get yanked. Stay tuned for whether the SFWA actually violated several writers' copyrights in so doing, or whether the sharing entity overreacted.

Newsflash: whomever is dumping the Stoopid Virus on the interwebs this month, please desist. Enough Stoopid already occurs in Nature.

ETA 9/11:

SFWA President makes a PR statement here: http://sfwa.org/news/2007/creativerights.htm. John Scalzi thinks this is reasonable. While I think Capobianco's post raises important questions and issues, I don't particularly appreciate the characterization "scribd.com and its ilk". "Ilk" tends to have negative connotations. For someone who actually sounded reasonable in statements a week ago, this release sounds rhetorical, elitist, and uselessly ad hominem. I'm not saying that scribd.com has the best moderation/policing in regard to infringed works; I'm saying Dammit, if you think so then deal with it constructively and LEGALLY, don't just sling mud. Making yourself sound like an asshole, clueless or otherwise, doesn't do a bit of good.

Scalzi's post pointing out the new statement is here: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/2007/09/michael_capobianco_on_creative.html

(Post a new comment)

	ann_mcn 2007-09-01 02:01 pm UTC (link)
	Thing is, I have a tendency to expect higher standards from SF writers. Am crushed. (Reply to this) (Thread)

theatresm
2007-09-01 07:22 pm UTC (link)

That's the thing -- it *wasn't* the writers, in general. As I understand it, a few writers or their estates may have authorized SFWA to go after valid cases of piracy. (Doctorow had not, in fact his work was registered under a Creative Commons license. That's his business model/marketing strategy. Other non-infringing works were yanked, too.)

So presumably the jerk at SFWA didn't bother to be specific and do the legwork, simply demanding that "Works by Asimov and [insert luminary here] be removed from your site", implying that SFWA had a legal right to represent all the listed authors in all cases, and/or a goofball at the site got scared at the OMGPseudoLegalese, just did a global search and yanked everything with (for example) "Asimov" somewhere in the body (which, given Uncle Izzy's status, would be a LOT).

I'm betting on a combination of the two, and as far as I'm concerned that's even worse than the asshattery from SFWA. If there's one thing I've learned from being a supervisor, it's that your instructions MUST BE CLEAR and *YOU* have to understand the legality and legal/liability ramifications of what you direct, because the supervised or respondants are often relatively clueless and prone to overreaction (or outright stupidity). Taking a shotgun approach gets your just that: a big noise followed by a helluva mess. It's not worth the collateral damage. A smart manager focuses on the project or problem and takes careful aim. ("Casting the net too widely" is a more accepted and pertinent image, I suppose, but I like the potential violence implicit in my choice.) Whatshisname of the SFWA may have been a lazy bastard, or he simply may not have anticipated an overreaction on the part of the site. If it was the latter, he should have.

This and the LJ/6A crap make it clear that service providers/carriers are not really paying attention to and may not really understand the legalities involved in DMCA, proper DMCA notification, and copyright (and in LJ/6A's case, distinctions between child porn and general obscenity, vulgarity, harmful groups, and the illegality of not having a clear, updated and well-enforced ToS). They're all running scared from idiots who abuse the DMCA guidelines and the whackjob guerilla "protectors" using what I call the Dover Strategy: "Our goal is really *this*, but we're gonna pretend it's *that* because we can exploit the law in re: that". Screw the users/clients and, in this specific case, validly-represented authors.

WARNING: POLITICAL RANT AHOY.... Here's the big picture, though, in the rough:

Welcome to the New NeoCon/Dominionist society. (But other than having your civil liberties curtailed, being found guilty by association, and being blacklisted, America, how did you enjoy the McCarthy hearings?)

You know, I think there's something to that. While this one swallow does not a Spring make, this running scared business, particularly in regard to the LJ debacle, may be symptomatic of something other than management stupidity. It isn't just the resurgence of extreme Conservatism we've been dealing with the last eight years; what we're seeing overall is a weird melding of it with the McCarthyist mindset, red scare-style tactics, and abuse of laws that's just disgusting, and potentially very dangerous.

*Insert our two favorite Ben Franklin quotes here*

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ann_mcn
2007-09-02 03:55 am UTC (link)

You have described exactly what I've been seeing. Remember FDR "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The Shrub and his coterie want us to all be scared and fearful, and then hand over everything for spoken assurances that we will be protected from the boogeymen out there.

Sam Nunn is talking about running as a third party candidate. He was senior on the Senate Armed Forces committee before the Republicans took majority. He's intelligent and savvy, and knows about defense. I would work for him.

(Reply to this) (Parent)