Jerry Pournelle is a well known science fiction writer (among many other things - an amazing man) who posted an interesting article at his blog about three years ago on the issue of pirating &c. Basically, it involved a site called scrbd,com, the Electric Frontier Foundation, and the Science Fiction Writers of America.
Apparently, the scrbd site had all kinds of unauthorized ebook files on its site, so that it was, in effect, a pirate (I say "in effect" because their actual knowledge and culpability is not at all clear to me, but the practical result seems indistinguishable from piracy.) The SFWA tried to get these files taken down, and perversely, the EFF thwarted them. Meanwhile, there's some kind of side issue involving Cory Doctorow that I have not parsed out yet.
Pournelle sets up the situation thusly, then goes deeper into the facts:
Quote:
|
If one reads those versions and nothing else, the case is very clear. SFWA in a bumbling attempt to bully a legitimate web site threatened use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and was properly smacked down by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the cheers of all those who are hip to the ways of Web 2.0.
|
His article is at It is well worth reading in its entirety, but the part that is relevant to this thread begins at "DRM SUCKs":
Quote:
Another bit of deadwood is the argument that since DMCA is deeply flawed - downright evil in places - badly in need of amendment - that somehow gives everyone the right to ignore the legitimate rights of authors.
I don't think you know anyone more critical of DMCA than I am, and I've been pretty loud in my denunciations of the excessive extensions of copyright life embodied in that ill-conceived act; nor has anyone been more vocal in denouncing some of the criminal provisions of DMCA. We can all agree that DMCA has to be rewritten.
When Congress rewrote copyright law to put the US in conformity with the Berne Convention on Copyright, the result was the Copyright Act of 1975. SFWA was heavily involved in that work. Then President Fred Pohl, and other SFWA officials including me, testified to Congress and worked with Congressional Staff. So did the Authors' Guild and other writers associations. The result was a pretty good law.
The Copyright Act of 1975 changed the nature of copyright: prior to that, copyright extended for 28 years, renewable in the 28th year for an additional 28 years. Many authors, including me, were satisfied with those terms; but that had to change.
The change was forced by the Berne Convention. If the United States was going to join the rest of the world, we had no choice: copyright has to be for the life of the author plus fifty years, copyright must be automatic and hard to lose, and there must be no requirement for renewal. These provisions are hard wired into the Berne Convention and are not negotiable. They originated with Victor Hugo, whose influence and persuasiveness were decisive when the Berne Convention was drafted. He insisted on all three of those provisions. It would be nearly impossible to change them now.
The Berne Convention, alas, gives member states the right to increase the term of copyright, but never to shorten it. Congress, influenced by corporate lobbyists serving Disney and other such companies, has extended the term of copyright to what many call obscene lengths. Now what Congress has done, Congress can undo; and those who really hate lengthy copyright terms can and should work to have them cut back to life plus fifty years. They won't find any major opposition from authors' associations. The last time SFWA debated the issue, there were a few who were happy enough with the present terms - one children's book author says she likes the notion of her great grandchildren being supported by her works - but the general consensus was that life plus fifty years is either fair or more than fair, and certainly enough. I doubt SFWA would actually join an effort to shorten copyright terms, but I am absolutely certain it would not actively oppose the change.
There are plenty of other changes needed in DMCA, and SFWA - provided that it has not been entirely emasculated by the current imbroglio - will probably be working to get them. But whether or not DMCA is changed, the fact that part of DMCA sucks isn't and shouldn't be thought a moral excuse to rip off the rights of authors. Of course you knew that. As Samuel Johnson observed, we seldom need educating but we often need reminding.
|