Scribd, SFWA, and Whose Rights are Whose

posted by Doranna

These days, writers have different ideas about what they want done with their work.  Those of us who write for a living tend to want control over how the work is displayed--and so do our publishers.  Others of us sometimes want their work freely available, as widely as possible.  The nice thing is, we can each make that choice for our own work, and proceed accordingly.

The not-so-nice thing is when others try to make that choice for you.  A site called scribd did just this, pirating thousands of works and creating an intractable opt-out system, complete with an onerous process requiring documented proof of our right to even make such a request (which even then might not get the job done).  Convenient for them--in their opt-out world, it was significantly easier for them to steal our work than it was for us to request that they cease stealing it.

As a result, SFWA stepped in on behalf of its writers.  After a lot of wasted time and a certain amount of neener-neener from scribd (uncooperative responses, a series of "jump through this hoop first!" exchanges), SFWA served scribd with a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notice, which basically says, "Take it down or the Federal government is going to be knocking at your door."

So scribd did.  Though it's a shame that they played their neener games until it went that far, and that in the confusion they'd created by usurping thousands of works--and the rush to comply once things got serious (surprise, we meant it!), the several works that were there by design got caught up in the mess and were also removed.  Fortunately, once that error was realized, it was rectified both by SFWA and by scribd within a matter of days--a situation corrected a whole lot faster, with a whole lot more grace from SFWA, than ever did scribd display along the way.  And since then, SFWA has decided to re-evaluate its procedures, so it can move ahead with fighting such thefts with less chance of inconveniencing others along the way.

But what's really a shame is the hullabaloo that's followed.  In weighing weeks-to-months of stolen property against a few days of inconvenience, one faction thinks that the inconvenience is the greater crime.  In weighing theft of property over transitory error, the error is more heinous.  In the grand scheme of things, somehow it's better for scribd to steal thousands of properties than it is for SFWA to protect those thousands, even if it takes a few days for things to shake out properly.

Yes indeed, SFWA is the Great Evil.

Me, I don't see why this has to be either/or--why we all can't simply agree that we each have the right to do with our works as we choose, and that no one else has the right to make those decisions for us--but some people are determined to make it that way.  Those who steal it in the first place; those who can't seem to acknowledge that the stealing is wrong.  Those who would gladly support organizations who steal, and those who would excoriate the people who try to stand up for their rights.

In the meantime, scribd seems to have suddenly become much more responsive to individual requests for removal of work, which was the whole point.  Had they been this responsive in the first place, none of this would ever have happened.

*imagine Calvin face here*

It might be time to mention that I'm on staff at Helix, an online quarterly posted in the storyteller bowl model--that is, we post it, it's free for the reading, and if you like it we ask that you contribute toward paying the authors. 

So I'm not against exploring new business models--as long as the authors are in on the decision to do so.  I'm not against progress, change, or recognizing that the world is really round after all.  But I'm for protecting my rights.  And I'm standing up in support of one of the organizations currently helping me to do that.

Comments

[Lorraine Bartlett]

I've been told how STOOOOPIIIIDDDD I am because I pay for my music.

How are artists to survive if we don't pay them for their work?

[Doranna]

I believe the general thinking is that such pirating doesn't *matter.* In some cases, there's enough data so an argument could could be mustered--a very limited argument, with limited scope.

On the other hand, in some cases, by exposing works to the Internet, they're considered permanently published by publishers who are no longer interested in acquiring the rights--say, to something out of print.

And on the third hand, both those examples are irrelevant. Stealing is stealing. The control of my works is mine. Other people shouldn't make those decisions for me.

[Elizabeth Moon]

Agreed on all points. As a writer, I want to control whether, when, and how my work is distributed. I want to be sure that what the reader gets is actually what I wrote, for instance. (When someone scans printed work and then publishes that e-file, it's often not correct--scanners have an inherent error rate, especially when paired with a basic spell checker. In one case "soldiers" turned into "sold hers," leading to sentences like "Twenty sold hers waited in the courtyard...") I have contracts with publishers, and I can't give someone else permission to distribute the same work (my contract forbids that)--not even for, for instance, a Nebula anthology. (Cost me several thousand dollars, making that mistake!)

Artists may survive if they're not paid--those who aren't unemployable for other reasons like (in my case) being too old to get a job except as a Wal-Mart greeter--but they won't produce the stories and music that people claim to want. Some claim that pirating works online doesn't really cost the writers any income...but even if it didn't (and I believe it does, from the number of gloaters who've bragged that I won't get any royalties from them because they don't have to pay for my books), it steals my right to control my own work.

I don't think everyone who downloads a book is a bad person. I do think everyone who puts up work knowing it's got copyright protection--everyone who acts as a broker for pirated work--everyone who defends the practice--is harming those whose work they claim to value.

[Doranna]

All I can do is go *nod, nod, nod!*

I especially like your points about the brokers and defenders of pirated works, and also about the quality of work that will be available once those of us who used to be paid for it are working as Wal-Mart greeters. And oh, about the quality of the pirated works, and--

Hmm. I guess I could just end up repeated everything you said.

[Morgan]

The quality of the work--my head hurts just thinking of it. That slush pile--why would anyone read it if there's no chance of finding gold? So that leaves, for the most part, self-published work. Some good, some "well, my mother liked it." Just a guess. I could be missing something.

And I'm thinking sometimes it's hard enough getting your own words published by your publisher. :-P

[Doranna]

I'm thinking you're not missing much.