Ursula Le Guin gets her panties in a bunch. The SFWA vs. Everyone Else part 2.

[Talia]

Apparently Ms. Le Guin got angry when Cory Doctorow quoted the entirety of a piece of hers on boingboing.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html

Despite his apologies and attempts to clarify the matter, apparently she's still mad (though the rant on her website is dated two days before this current boingboing post. http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-OpenLetter.html).

I know, two sides to every story and all that, it just vaguely seemed like severe overreaction. It also interests me that she's very pro-SFWA, and it seems to me that there's a real division in the SF community over this group. Which leads to some colorful, unfortunate conflicts, apparently.

Anyway I thought it was interesting, thought I'd share.

[sirana]

Well, I'd say Cory is not innocent in this one.
While his current post is very reconciliatory his first reaction to the issue ( his answer to Andrew Burts open letter which was approved by Le Guin ) wasn't. He was on his usual crusader stance and ripped into Burts, asserting fair use and questioning the marketability of the piece (which Le Guin apparently sold for 200$ to Harper's).
So given LeGuin's stand on copyright and the SFWA's e-piracy commitee it is no wonder that she was pretty pissed about this.

Was this an overreaction on her part? Maybe, but if so then what was Cory's responce to the scribd/SFWA Snafu? He went nearly ballistic because the SFWA mistakenly represented themselves as having the authority to take down his work.
If Cory wants to dish out this kind of fervour he can't really expect other parties to remain reasonable and calm.

[Opabinia]

Andrew Burt has repeatedly claimed that he can't replicate any of Cory's emails, witout infringing on Cory's copyright. Until Burt is able to put up evidence, I think that it's problematic to claim:

While his current post is very reconciliatory his first reaction to the issue ( his answer to Andrew Burts open letter which was approved by Le Guin ) wasn't. He was on his usual crusader stance and ripped into Burts, asserting fair use and questioning the marketability of the piece (which Le Guin apparently sold for 200$ to Harper's).

We haven't seen the letter that Burt ascribes those qualities to. Given Burt's personal vendetta against Cory, in tandem with his track record for misrepresenting other people's words, Burt is not a reliable source on the issue.

[sirana]

I made a mistake there. I thought the answer to the letter (in the link I provided) was by Cory when in fact it was by Robert Bruce Thompson, somebody who is afaik unconnected to boingboing.
Disregard anything I said in the previous post.

[gedion_ki]

You know what seems to be the greatest problem at hand here? Ms Le Guin chose to communicate her issue through a third party, seems like if she had simply sent a direct email stating her position and asked for the quote to be removed the matter might have resolved quickly. Not knowing all details, who can say for sure, but it seems like a direct request would have been a reasonable start?

[Rachel Swirsky]

We know that the request was first sent through Burt, who is not LeGuin's official representative, and who Cory had killfiled.

The next request appears to have come through LeGuin's agent, and it seems that Cory acted on it immediately (first trimming the excerpt in accordance with what he thought were LeGuin's wishes, and then removing it entirely).

[gedion_ki]

it seems that Cory acted on it immediately

Yea, seemed like Cory wasn't really at fault here, though I'll admit to a slight bias in Cory's favor.

[Czhorat]

Apparently Ms. Le Guin got angry when Cory Doctorow quoted the entirety of a piece of hers on boingboing.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html

Despite his apologies and attempts to clarify the matter, apparently she's still mad (though the rant on her website is dated two days before this current boingboing post. http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-OpenLetter.html).

It seems that you're taking an obvious side, Talia, rather than "sharing" as you stated. You're right that there are two sides to every story, and it makes me sad that we have petty bickering in place of an intellectual debate. Your message header was, in my opinion, needlessly inflamatory. In fact, the followup posted on Ms Leguin's website on the very day of your post seems to accept Mr. Doctorow's apology and attempts to put the matter in the past where it belongs. I understand that exchanges between Mr. Doctorow and Mr. Burt have gotten contentious, but the killfile strikes me as a bit childish and counterproductive.

SFWA has taken what appears like a hopelessly out-of-date stance against digital sharing of intellectual property, but I do believe that authors should have the choice to have their work shared for free or not.  It looks to me as if LeGuin had a valid issue and that it was resolved.

[Opabinia]

It looks to me as if LeGuin had a valid issue

Debatable. Doctorow, Scalzi, and Shetterly have all said that they think Doctorow would have a good case against LeGuin in terms of fair use.

[Talia]

Apparently Ms. Le Guin got angry when Cory Doctorow quoted the entirety of a piece of hers on boingboing.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html

Despite his apologies and attempts to clarify the matter, apparently she's still mad (though the rant on her website is dated two days before this current boingboing post. http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Note-OpenLetter.html).

It seems that you're taking an obvious side, Talia, rather than "sharing" as you stated.

Heh, fair enough. I may be a little prejudiced. I tried to be objective in my in-thread statements anyway, even if the thread title is a little inflammatory :p

I too will fess up to a bit of a pro-Cory bias. But I am also aware we are probably all missing some part of the story.

[sirana]

It looks to me as if LeGuin had a valid issue

Debatable. Doctorow, Scalzi, and Shetterly have all said that they think Doctorow would have a good case against LeGuin in terms of fair use.

I didn't know that Scalzi and Shetterly had aired their thoughts on the matter and google didn't turn anything up. Could you give me a link?

[DKT]

If their comments were in the original article Cory posted, there may not be a link anymore since he took it down.  Honestly, this sounds like a big misunderstanding to me on Cory's part, and in my mind it's a whole lot more understandable than the Scribold thing Le Guin brought up.  Le Guin should get to control her story exactly how she wants to.  When Cory understood he'd quoted the story against her wishes and upset her, he took the article down completely and apologized. It read like a sincere apology and Le Guin seemed to take it as one. 

I was a bit bothered by some of the stuff in her original post because it seemed to single-handedly blame Cory for all the in-fighting at SFWA which seems kind of unfair.  And it seems bizarre that despite all that in-fighting, she'd ask Burrs to address the situation.  For me it's not hard to blame Cory would delete anything that came his way from Burrs. But in the end, it seems like Cory and Le Guin have generally reconciled and moved on.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Scalzi's at Whateveresque (the forum attached to his blog), and Shetterly's comments follow the original SFWA post, and its follow-up, in the SFWA livejournal community.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Mine are in the comments following the SFWA entries, too, for the record, along with the comments of my slush reader, Ann Leckie. Nick Mamatas also weighs in heavily.

(Other people, too. Mary Robinette Kowal, Kat Allen, Gord Sellar, and others. Plus lots and lots of Andrew Burt.)