Some of the periodic wars have concerned important issues, from Vietnam to whether or not writers should be paid royalties; others have been fought over trivia, like Nebula rules and a proposal for an official SFWA tie. Most generate more heat than light. That's certainly true of the latest, a huge firestorm that had broken out all over the blogosphere, centering on issues of e-piracy, copyright, "creative commons," and SFWA's response to same.
The difference is, where most of the past wars have been fought internally, in the pages of the old print SFWA FORUM, or the private areas of bulletin boards like GEnie and SFF.net, this one is being fought in public, with the whole internet watching, thanks to the decision of a few of the participants to air the issues on their blogs instead of keeping them "in house." I think that's unfortunate, myself, but it's a brave new world we live in.
One of the unfortunate side effects here, however, is that I see a lot of people slagging on SFWA as a result. The ones that disturb me most are the posts from young writers, an awful lot of which say something like, 'well, I'm not a SFWA member, and now I'm glad,' or 'after all this, I've resolved never to join SFWA,' calling the organization stupid or clueless or out of touch or... well, I don't have to rehash it all here, the fight is being fought on a dozen different blogs right now. Read the posts, and weep.
The part that really makes me gnash my teeth is where I see young writers saying that they don't see what they can get out of joining SFWA, so why bother?
Maybe it's a generational thing, I don't know... but as I see it, SFWA is not about what you can get out of it, and never has been. Damon Knight did not form the group to boost his career, way back when. Robert Silverberg, Jack Williamson, Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, Joe Haldeman, Jane Yolen, Roger Zelazny, and so many more did not give up time and energy they could have devoted to writing novels and short stories to serve as SFWA officers because they thought they'd benefit from the networking, or get higher advances, or win a Nebula. It was all about improving the field. Writers helping writers. Paying forward. Heinlein said it best. You cannot ever hope to pay back the people who helped you when you were starting out, so instead you pay forward, and try to lend a hand to the ones who come up after you.
To paraphrase JFK, one of the heroes of my own generation, ask not what SFWA can do for you, ask what you can do for SFWA.
SFWA is not a union. (I wish it was, and during my own terms in office I tried to move it in that direction, but it's not). It's not the WGA, never will be, never can be under current laws. But it's the closest thing we have. It's forty years of writers helping other writers as best they can. It's the Grievance Committee and the Emergency Medical Fund and the Legal Defense Fund, it's Writer Beware, it's hospitality suites at cons, it's model contracts and random audits, it's the Nebula Awards (love 'em or hate 'em) and the Nebula anthologies and THE SCIENCE FICTION HALL OF FAME. It has done some incredible things during its tenure, and it has made some colossal fuggheaded blunders too. It can be amusing or infuriating. It's a brotherhood -- and a sisterhood -- of professionals that has included Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Alfred Bester, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, Andre Norton, Robert Silverberg, Jack Williamson, Clifford Simak, Fritz Leiber, Theodore Sturgeon, and more, and more, and more. That's a club that I'm still very proud to belong to.
I have been a member since 1972. I have considered resigning half a dozen times, pissed off by one or another thing that SFWA has done or failed to do, but I never have, and I'm glad for that. In the late 70s I served two years as South Central regional director; in the early 80s I was a member of the Nebula Rules Committee (may god have mercy on my soul); in the late 90s I was vice-president for two terms; I organized and chaired a Nebula Banquet once. If I had never done any of that, I'd probably have gotten more writing done (or maybe not). I accomplished some good things during my time as a SFWA officer. I made some mistakes as well (one very bad one). It was never what could be called "fun," but I did have the satisfaction afterward of saying I'd done my best for the field and my fellow writers... and looking back, I'm glad that I took my turn in the barrel.
And maybe that's the point of this message. So if any of you reading this are young writers who have the professional credentials to join SFWA but haven't... or aspiring writers who hope to have those credentials soon... and you're reading all this crap in the blogosphere and wondering whether or not you should join... well, I say you should.
SFWA has flaws, SFWA has warts, SFWA makes mistakes from time to time... but in the end, the good it does far outweighs the bad, and you owe it to those who came before you and those who will come after to do your part, whatever that may be.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
grrm- George R.R. Martin
- George R. R. Martin
Page Summary
- dragonet2 : thank you for [+0]
- princeaeneas : (no subject) [+0]
- grimmtooth : Related reading [+10]
- jonquil : (no subject) [+22]
- lonfiction : (no subject) [+3]
- electorprince : (no subject) [+0]
- owen_stephens : (no subject) [+0]
- hippoiathanatoi : (no subject) [+0]
- buggery : (no subject) [+0]
- sfdiplomat : (no subject) [+14]
- jasonsanford123 : Comment from one of those younger people on SFWA [+21]
- _standback_ : Thank you, George [+0]
- littledrow : (no subject) [+0]
- matociquala : (no subject) [+4]
- la_marquise_de_ : (no subject) [+2]
- the_outlaw : (no subject) [+0]
- nihilistic_kid : (no subject) [+2]
- teratologist : (no subject) [+0]
- swan_tower : (no subject) [+7]
- ryumaou : My Opinion is Irrelevant [+3]
- fiction_theory : Yet another young writer chiming in [+1]
- david_chunn : (no subject) [+0]
- james_orrin : SFWA [+0]
- alice_the_raven : (no subject) [+0]
- chaosmaster42 : Well said [+1]
Comments
I too wish it wasn't being fought out on the internets, but such are the times.
Where'd you learn to write like that?
I am not a writer, but I can say that one handy reference of people and pitfalls to avoid, for example, would be a valuable reference for a new writer.
There is no denying that what was done, was done poorly. But I think what the SFWA really needs from these people is less sharp editorials about how full of fail they are, and more rolling up of sleeves and helping out. Stross and Scalzi especially are well familiar with the comings and goings of the internet, an area that the SFWA seems to be tragically ignorant on. Why the SFWA hasn't reached out to these gentlemen, and others of like mind, is beyond me.
(and if they have, and the Strosses and Scalzis of the world have rebuffed them, then somebody has something /else/ to answer for).
This isn't a case of people who didn't roll up their sleeves and try to help criticizing people who did. It's complaints from people who feel like their hard work was cast aside.
This is not a purely SFWA-internal matter; if it were, SFWA would not have felt it necessary to issue a press release on the website. It is, however, a matter whose public relations SFWA's leadership has very badly bungled.
People infringing authors' copyrights electronically is a BAD thing. Let me make that clear. I do not approve. However, SFWA's public reactions to infringement to date have not been those of a technology-aware or publicity-aware organization.
If that is incorrect, please feel free to correct my facts.
If that is the actual sequence of events, it still seems to me that the whole thing could have been easily rectified without all this vitriol. The titles that were taken down could have been put back up again (as I believe they have been in any case), apologies could have been made (as I believe they have been) and accepted (less sure on that point), procedures could have been reformed to prevent it happening again, and everyone could have gone about their business.
Bottom line, I think it is wrong for to post an author's work on the net without his permission, and I also think it is wrong to demand work be taken down if the creator wants it up. This is a thorny issue, no doubt, but until it all shakes itself out, it has to be left up to the individual author. I don't know that anyone, in SFWA or out of it, would disagree.
First I want to say I really appreciated this post and perspective. I'm a newer writer and one who has been on the fence in 2007 about joining SFWA. You are absolutely right that the public airing of debates is turning people away, or at least in my case delaying potential members like me from joining. I'm all for "the noise of progress" but the things I hear coming out of various bullhorns sound more like the cacophony of Congress. :)
In fact, a few months ago I decided that I'd give HWA a try for a year first, since most of what I sell tends to be dark anyway and SFWA's official stances just don't seem to be a right fit, right now. Would I have put my limited funds toward SFWA instead, had the last year of foul-ups, bleeps and blunders not occurred? More than likely. Joining SFWA had been my goal for years, and I'll be honest: it was for the mentoring, professional community, and networking opportunities more than anything (i.e. the selfish reasons.) Which isn't to say that I wouldn't pay forward if the opportunity presented itself, or I found a way to do so. I'm a huge advocate of paying it forward, but first you have to have something to pay forward.
I've dedicated my entire adult life to serving in a large dysfunctional organization that often seems to be at cross purposes with itself. :D But one staple of the people within that organization is that they look out for each other and for the successful accomplishment of the mission, whatever that may be. There is also an entrenched part of the "organizational culture" which looks upon any who deviate from presenting a "united front" to outsiders/the public with about the same level of revilement as a Satanist at Sunday School. I see strong parallels with what you seem to be saying about SFWA as an organizational culture. (To be honest, with just about any large opt-in organization...)
But I am not so sure I agree with you that supporting SFWA is the same thing as supporting the field. The genres are strong. They have pervaded every medium of story-based entertainment in a way that indicates they won't be going away any time soon. The various parts of the field based solely on the written word may occasionally have a cough or sniffle, but they are not on death's door. Is some of this a cultural pervasiveness a direct result of SFWA and its members, past and present? A whole, whole lot, I'm sure. But if we look 20-50 years down the line, will the same thing still be true? Will science fiction and fantasy writers still be a driving force in our culture's story-based dialogue? I have no doubt at all. Will SFWA still be a part of that force? I'd like to hope so, but right now the magic 8-ball says "Reply Hazy - Try Again."
The fact of the matter is that we now live in an age where the way our culture transmits itself has changed--fundamentally and logarithmically. The heart of the copyright debate is a very SFnal debate, and one that SF helped bring into existence in the first place. I have to agree with those bloggers who say that the current SFWA leadership are ironically unaware of the revolution taking place around them... the one SF helped create. I appreciate them bringing this conversation out to the public in the same way that women in my "other" field appreciate the backward attitudes of Tailhook being made into a public conversation. From that heat, there did finally arise some light.
Every writer will make their own decisions and who knows? Next year I might feel differently. But as it stands, SFWA's actions appear to be more about keeping SFWA from changing with the times than about shaping and--dare I say?--helping writers to harness the revolution taking place for their own good as well as the future of the field. I hope that changes, and I hope that people inside bring it up to those outside when it does. Because in the meantime, it feels like a sad sort of winter for a genre with so much spring still in its step.
Sincerely,
Lon Prater
I was one of the charter members of that organization, back when Rick McCammon founded it. In the beginning it was called HOWL -- the Horror & Occult Writers' League. I had high hopes at the start.
After a few years, however, it became apparent that HWA was intent on repeating every one of SFWA's mistakes and adding a few of its own. Most notably, right from the start, the awards tail started to wag the organizational dog, and we got endless wrangles about how the awards rules had to be "reformed." For all I know, the debates are still going on. It was around then I let my membership lapse.
My outsider's perspective is that HWA tries to do many of things that SFWA does, but does them less well. Maybe that's wrong. If so, let me know.
I knew it was a bad sign when the first thing the organization did was change its name from HOWL to HWA, because the former was "too silly." Some people take themselves Very Very Seriously.
Me, I still like HOWL. It was cool... and much more memorable than the alphabet soup of SFWA, MWA, RWA, etc.
If anything, the public discussion has at least provided some explanations to the wider audience interested in the wider SF/F writing community that mitigate (if not resolve) some of the apparent problems with the SFWA. For example, it seems clear to me, anyways, that the organization itself is currently led by individuals who do not themselves have a real stake in the copyright-related decisions, and I believe that's a bad thing. Neither Mr. Capobianco or Mr. Burt have published anything in the last ten years, roughly; and Mr. Burt, at least, seems to have managed to just scrape by the skin of his teeth into qualifying for membership in the first place. When people get upset at "science fiction writers attacking their own fans" (which you just know someone out there must have said in the course of the scribd thing), it's because two non-writers who happen to lead the association made mistakes that effect the working membership. Maybe it would not have happened quite the way it did if the people executing the decisions were going to be professionally affected if they made a hash of it... or maybe not, I don't know. Mistakes happen, as you say, and often with the best intentions.
Because it's so tied into personalities, ultimately it's a "this too shall pass" kind of thing, especially if credible members challenge Capobianco and Burt on the ballot and replace them. I suspect they can undo a lot of damage in short order. But given that Capobianco went almost unchallenged and Burt _did_ go unchallenged on the last ballot, how likely is this to happen? There is a great deal of ennui around from what a number of writers have said, because the easiest way to prevent this from happening would have been for people to make a real campaign of SFWA elections, and they simply did not.
So, perhaps hopefully some members who are upset with the recent leadership will take you up on the suggestion of running on the ballot to replace Capobianco and Burt, and succeed.
One additional positive for public discussion: that the fact that it is a public, wide-open discussion _could_ be encouraging to people who have been disaffected with the leadership of the organization, but have felt that doing anything about it is not worth it. There could be at least a small additional sense that fighting over it matters when they see that their sense that it's a serious issue is correct, and that there are people out there who see it the same way as they do.
I think you're absolutely right that not enough is made of the things the SFWA does right, though, like the Emergency Medical Fund. That can easily get lost in the vitriol.
That said, I agree with the other commenters who feel the issue should not have been kept internal (which it would be hard not to read as 'hushed up'). Malicious (or simply incompetent) accusations of copyright infringement have real and serious consequences. The DMCA may have been enacted with the best of intentions, but it can be and has been used against people who were not infringing any copyright but who lacked the resources (financial, emotional or otherwise) to contest the accusation. This is a serious issue for all writers, whether they are SFWA members or not, as well as for many readers of SFWA members' work -- there was an incident earlier this year where a former LiveJournal user had his account revoked on the basis of his having written a review of a fantasy novel (a clear-cut case of fair use) over which a representative of the author sent SixApart a DMCA takedown notice.
Andrew Burt has proved he isn't competent to handle e-piracy or any other copyright issues on behalf of himself or anyone else. (There are serious statutory consequences for misuse of DMCA takedown notices, which he made the entire SFWA vulnerable to in the Scribd debacle, and it was only because the victims declined to use that form of legal redress that the organisation didn't have to literally pay for his mistakes.) For him to be put back in charge of these very issues on behalf of the SFWA and its members is a dangerous situation for both writers and readers, and there's no reason for his appointment or its circumstances to be kept secret. Rather the opposite.
On the one hand you want to say that the SFWA is all about helping out new young writers and it's a selfless thing. Fine, I can get onboard with that idea.
On the other, you're criticising the young and aspiring writers who say that they're not members and have no intention of becoming members because they don't see the point.
Is this not the whole problem with the SFWA? it's supposed to be helping writers but actually it isn't and, in the case of the Scribd thing, it's actually hurting some of their reputations.
If the SFWA is all about paying it forward but the supposed recipients either don't get or don't perceive any advantage in joining up then clearly there's something very wrong as people are paying it forward and nobody is benefiting from the fruits of those labours.
It's the equivalent of a charity that sets itself up to help disaster victims and people spend time and money on the assumption that they'll help disaster victims but when you ask the disaster victims what they think they claim to have either never heard of this charity or they claim that the charity in no way helps them and actually might well harm them.
That's a sign of a broken charity. Of an organisation that doesn't work.
It's all very well the SFWA being built upon good intentions but then we all know what the path to hades is paved with.
This statement seems to ignore all the positives George expressly mentioned simply due to the fact that the "cause celebre" of the moment which is the bad adminstrative decisions of certain officers of the organization. This is not how serious cost-benefit analysis is going to be made.
The cost-benefit analysis for many members of the SFWA is almost certainly likelier on the side of membership being a benefit rather than a cost, _even_ with the current bad publicity thanks to actions and decisions of Mssrs. Capobianco and Burt. For _some_ members, it is obviously becoming a cost rather than benefit, because they don't benefit from many of the SFWA services, and feel harmed by the current controversy.
There are certainly many writers who have received and continue to receive positive support from the organization in various areas. George has listed a number of the unquestionably positive services the SFWA provides its members, such as the Emergency Medical Fund, the Grievance Committee, model contracts, and so on. I suspect they are really valuable to two particular segments: neophyte writers, who are likeliest to need the professional advice and support related to the business in their first years as they build experience, and older writers, who in the face of rising health costs may find more and more need for the Fund's assistance.
It's the first segment that is most affected by this discussion, not having committed to joining the SFWA or not having been members long enough to know of the positive benefits during the storm that's concerned with a glaring (but assuredly momentary) negative. All many of _them_ see is the discussion focused on Mr. Capobianco and Mr. Burt and their various inequities, blown up to stand in for "Everything Wrong With The (Useless) SFWA".
The SFWA's disrepute in certain spheres right now will blow over, because Mssrs. Capobianco and Burt will not be officers forever. The sooner new names show up, probably the better. Ultimately, it is for the SFWA membership to take care of their own house, and ultimately they are the ones who have to act to fix it.
To sum up, the SFWA has helped many authors, does help many authors, and will continue to help many authors. The issue is not how to make SFWA a "good" -- because I think many members would say that on the whole it presently is -- but how to make it _more_ of a "good" by avoiding public relations nightmares and bad administrative decisions which has presently turned the SFWA into more of a cost than a benefit for some of the membership.
My perception of SFWA is that it is toxic and timewasting and internally-obsessed with patting themselves on the back.
I'm also not American, and SFWA does seem to be to be only paying lip service to being interested in the rest of the world. ("Of America" in the name should have been my first clue, I suppose.)
SFWA doesn't contain all the genre writers in the world, or even all the ones interested in paying forward. I feel as if I can more reasonably do my bit online and through fandom.
Jo Walton
I can't touch the pages, can't randomly close the book to look at the cover and say "Ah HA! This is the scene the artist chose!". A laptop does not nicely fit into my bag so that I may read my book on the train, in a park, on break at work, nor can you stick a nifty, homemade bookmark in it.
Maybe I'm old and set in my ways. Maybe it's a tactile thing, some childhood need still clinging to my desires. Whatever it is, I'm not giving it up, and I certainly won't pay good money for some nebulous "file" in a plastic box.
Putting books and comic books on the computer is a slippery slope, in my opinion. This will be just one more program we will have to purchase, install and oh, don't forget to upgrade your computer to accomodate for it. You'll have to have it in order to read the new books and comics, and it's only $499 with a $50 mail in rebate. Then the books and comics themselves will be another cost.
Bother.
I'll stick to my bulky pulp and buy a new bookshelf.
I'm one of the young writers saying that I won't rejoin. (I was a member--it had been a career goal of mine--and I found SFWA unwelcoming enough that I left.)
And when I say that I don't see what I get out of joining, what I mean is, I don't see how SFWA benefits the field (either as a trade organization or as a social club), the genre, and the authors working in it. The mentors I've found, I've not found through SFWA. The mentorships I've taken on, I've not taken on through SFWA. When I say that I'm going to send my $75.00 a year to Stephen King's Haven Foundation, it's because I want that money to go to benefit writers in need, not to pay for Andrew Burt's mad anti-E-piracy schemes and slapfights on the SFWA message boards.
--Elizabeth Bear
My name is Kari: we have met at one Irish convention and two British ones and you will have no reason to recall me. You might remember my partner, Phil, as you had a very long conversation with him about lead miniatures in Glasgow in Green Room.
I don't think being a socialist should impact your welcome in SFWA one way or another. The organization includes far-right loonies, far-left loonies, and every possible shade of political opinion in between.
This latest outburst has elicited a number of "I don't normally comment about the SFWA" comments from member writers my own age. And while the intent might have been writers helping writers, their experiences tend to describe writers tearing down other writers. While I was all intent to join when I first heard about SFWA, now I am not paying it any attention.
High-quality model contracts are trivially easy to find without SFWA.
The main problem with SFWA suites at cons is that they tend to be full of SFWAns.
Not so. The Writer Beware website came into existence (in 1998) as a result of a notice on the SFWA website calling for a volunteer to establish an online resource warning writers about literary scams. I had an interest in the subject and some knowledge, so I volunteered. The initial work on the site, as well as the establishment of the Writing Scams Committee, was done in consultation with SFWA officers. We do function pretty independently, but we wouldn't exist had SFWA not identified a need and reached out for someone to fill it.
In terms of taking basically good (if somewhat myopic) aims but then, in practice, destroying goodwill, making long-lasting enemies, and creating an entrenched leadership who have been forced to permanently deny reality in order to save face, this is starting to look like SFWA's Vietnam. Fortunately, of course, no one has died or been defoliated yet.
From where I'm standing, watching the internal problems with an alert and interested eye, there are better ways to contribute. I can donate to the Haven Foundation to help out those with unexpected medical emergencies. I can work through Toby Buckell's newly-formed SF Novelists to share information and advice. I can mentor young writers through AbsyntheMuse. And I can do all of this without dealing with the toxic social environment that seems to be poisoning SFWA from within.
I know it isn't just about what SFWA can do for me. But I can't bring myself to wade in and try to save it when I know too large, vocal, and unpleasant a portion of SFWA will attack me for trying to destroy it. My views and their views just aren't compatible, as far as I can tell. And fighting that battle, investing that level of time and energy and happiness for such little result, is not worth my $75 a year. I'll make my contribution other ways.
--Marie Brennan
Edited at 2007-12-02 05:22 pm (UTC)
Why do you assume your views "just aren't compatible" with those of SFWA? For starts, SFWA is very diverse. There are many views on every issue. (Maybe too many views. One of the reasons there are so many arguments in SFWA is because we're all writers, and every one of us has an opinion on everything, and will argue it till hell freezes over).
What opinion do you intend to espouse that will cause you to be attacked so much? (OK, admittedly, if you join up and announce that you're here to save SFWA, some sharp comments will be made... but if you join up and say, 'hey, I'm here to do my part, how can I help?' the officers will greet you with exclamations of joy).
The social environment of SFWA is not at all toxic. SFWA politics can be toxic, yes... but the vast majority of members just choose to ignore all that, and I doubt it impacts them much. The SFWA suite at a convention is sometimes overcrowded, but other than that, it's a pleasant place to be, and a welcome refuge during a con, where much useful networking takes place. (The SFWA Business Meeting is a different animal).
Who was it that fought for writer's rights when the Dragon CD-ROM issue came up? SFWA
Who established the first, AFAIK, writer's emergency medical fund? SFWA
Hell, they may well have been the first professional organization specifically aimed at SF&F writers!
My father ran a non-profit for years and issues like this came up with them, too. As you say, Mr. Martin, it's inherent to a volunteer-based organization. I've been involved with enough of them myself to know that much. And, yes, mostly, these little spats are driven by personalities more than anything else.
I think it was inevitable that such an argument would eventually happen in the public sphere, but it's unfortunate that people can't keep it in perspective.
Should I ever qualify for membership, I'll likely join. I may even volunteer to help run things, if for no other reason than to try to change things I don't like. In the end, that's the only way to do it. Non-members complaining are just noise.
Given the manner in which this was handled, that is nothing to brag about.
Who established the first, AFAIK, writer's emergency medical fund? SFWA
Nope. Dramatists League and the Authors League of America were doing such work in the early part of the twentieth century.
Is that really such a bad question to ask?
You do have to realize that, to the outsiders among us, the thought of joining the SFWA is like being told we should buy a car that's demonstrably a lemon on the premise that it once was a fine, fine car and sure it sputters now and doesn't always start on the first try, but if we just put premium in the tank and have it serviced, it'll be worth it.
I don't think it's at all selfish or inadvisable for young writers to say, "No thank you. I think riding the bus might be more sensible for me."
The fact is, at the end of the day, there does need to be a pay off for the things you do. And I don't mean just a personal or professional payoff. I don't just mean royalties or networking. I mean that, at the end of the day, the decision to participate and pay forward must meet the criteria of:
1. What is being done with all the money, effort, and headaches?
and
2. Are the things being done worth it when all is said and done?
And if the SFWA comes up lacking when younger writers ask those questions, I don't see how it's particularly their fault.
You use JFK's quote (a bit wrongly, IMHO, but that is neither here nor there), and indeed there is truth in the idea that you get out of things what you put in. There is, also, value in realizing that some things just aren't worth it. Beating dead horses and all that.
You speak of your generation, so let me speak of mine. My generation understands the value of results and understands that investments don't always work out, so care must be taken.
If I wish to find somewhere to meet other authors, somewhere to network, and somewhere to make charitable contributions to the benefit of my fellow authors, I have far better venues for my efforts than the SFWA. The SFWA might be a good thing, but it has yet to prove to me that it is the greater good. That more good will come of my investment in it rather than other things.
If I can accomplish all the things you listed, if I can find all that the SFWA offers with half the headache and twice the satisfaction, why then, should I join the SFWA? And why am I wrong for looking at the economics of it and making a goal-oriented, results-driven decision?
I don't see how I'm in the wrong for wanting to get the most bang for my buck.
When JFK made that statement in his inaugural address, he said so not because he felt that the resolve of the American people was lacking, he said so because he came to the American people with a bright vision of the future, with an ambitious plan.
And before saying so, he said this:
The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
When the SFWA can honestly aim half that high and follow through as JFK would have (had he not tragically been assassinated), and hope to achieve it instead of looking like a basket of crabs all pulling each other down and slapfighting on the internet - then I will consider joining.
Until then I feel no remorse for asking not "what can the SFWA do for me?" but "what can the SFWA DO?".
But I'm starting to sound like a broken record here. EMF, Griefcom, Legal Defense, cha cha cha. Plainly some of you don't want to dance to that tune.
So good luck to you, I guess. You may well need it.
Well, possibly you have a peaceful soul and would not feel that way, so it may come as a surprise to you that some people did become quite stressed. You must accept this as a fact, since you cannot change the past or human nature, but must work to accommodate both. That one of those affected by this clumsy move had both a will to see it corrected and some knowledge of the means is a happy accident. If the other writers had not had Cory Doctorow in their midst, then it may have taken longer to correct and raised more unnecessary ire in the long run.
The fact remains that the offending documents could easily have been taken down without collateral damage, if Andrew Burt had been competent enough to conduct a proper search. That he was also not competent enough to engage a lawyer or even read the relevant guidance on how to fulfill the requirements of a DMCA notice is another happy accident, since it meant that the damage was relatively easy to undo legally.
And your statement that there is no evidence that anyone attempted to download the innocent documents removed smacks of revisionism, since Cory Doctorow became aware that his novel had been taken down after someone attempted to download it and found it missing. Of course, as you are no doubt aware, without access to scribd's logs other evidence would be hard to unearth.