Larry Correia Endorses Richard Fox’s Piracy Claims

Larry Correia has decided to fully endorse Richard Fox’s DMCA harassment of File 770 [archive link]. See here and here for earlier context. {edited to remove the term ‘fake’ at Larry Correia’s request}

At Fox’s own website [archive link] and in an excerpt at Larry Corrieas, Forx is trying out a new explanation of events.

I don’t know who on the SFWA page made the link to the story public facing. The story was posted in forums for SFWA members to read for their consideration. As the Nebula’s are voted on and determined solely by SFWA members, it really does stretch credulity that File 770 would insist that authors want their work read by the general public for this award.

Wind back a bit. Fox is now confirming that the Google Drive copy of his story was his and that he had put it there. This is the version that I had linked to in February 2019 and that Fox had claimed was A PIRATE version back then. https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2019/02/27/next-few-days-are-nebula-shorts-days/#comment-32921

Even if we give Fox the most generous assumptions about his honesty (but less generous assumptions about his acumen) he was aware February 27 2019 of the public link AND he misrepresented it as piracy. Fox had put a copy of his work where anybody could access it, NOT pirates. Sure, I took the link off my website but the file was still publicly available. The link didn’t stop working until after his fake complaint to File 770.

Fox was also told March 2 were the source of the link was from. It was from this public SWFA page, along with a bunch of others. Here is the archive link to how that page looked until recently: https://web.archive.org/web/20190819222755/https://www.sfwa.org/forum/reading/work/3662-going-dark/

Those Google drive links have been taken down after my piracy complaint. Did you read that carefully? The Google drive links and the hosted PDFs have been removed following my piracy complaint. I as the copyright holder did not give permission for those files to be hosted or made available to the public. Piracy. Full stop.

Fox really seems to be struggling conceptually with the whole internet thing. The SWFA wasn’t hosting the content either, that was Google Drive. The links on the SWFA page were STILL THERE on August 19 several days after Fox made an abusive claim of ‘piracy’ to Mike Glyer.

It really does baffle the mind where the copyright owner of a work demands infringing material be removed, and somehow Glyer feels he has the moral high ground to keep that pirated up after repeated demands.

Except Mike Glyer had no infringing material. The material was on a Google Drive page that Richard Fox knew about for months and which he had taken zero action about and which had clearly been put there by either Fox or somebody close to the publication of his story. Note that the file wasn’t a scan or a copy and paste from an ebook either. Note that it was put up for the Nebula Awards and had (along with multiple others) been available on a public SWFA page for many months without any complaint from Fox.

Nor has Fox yet explained how his emails to Mike Glyer and Mike’s replies made their way onto Jon Del Arroz’s website the very next day.

tl;dr Fox is lying and Larry Correia is backing the use of fake DMCA takedown notices as an harassment technique.

ETA: Mike Glyer has pointed out the following:

“The Nebula Reading List is a public facing part of the SFWA site. SFWA issued a press release in 2015 announcing that the Nebula Reading List had been made public. It’s been public for four years. Whatever is linked to from there is visible to the public. That ranges from links to Amazon sales pages to links of the full text of works, as determined by the SFWA member involved.”

http://file770.com/perjury-not-piracy-is-the-problem/comment-page-2/#comment-1049294


237 thoughts on “Larry Correia Endorses Richard Fox’s Piracy Claims

  1. DMCA takedowns have been trollified for some time now, I think. It’s an easy way to harass someone who’s guilty of disagreeing with you, and of course so much of this is automated these days so it’s hard to get false accusations corrected (or downright weird ones like this).

    Didn’t we see something like this in (SPOILERS!) A Scanner Darkly? I never did get around to seeing the movie.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “As the Nebula’s are voted on and determined solely by SFWA members, it really does stretch credulity that File 770 would insist that authors want their work read by the general public for this award.”

    Um, that’s sort of one of the main benefits to awards, especially awards for short fiction. (And if I remember correctly, one of the main complaints of the Puppies was that they wanted to reap such marketing benefits from the Hugos.)

    If your short story gets nominated for a Nebula, then the hope is that as many of the public fans will check it out as possible as a Nebula nominated work and then, if they like it, go and buy your other fiction, such as the novels. And in fact, this again seems to be why Fox wrote the story in the first place — to go into an anthology that would then promote his fiction universe so that readers would then buy his books. It’s why nominated authors let their short stories go into the Hugo packet, etc.

    And as far as I know, when the SFWA puts up links to the nominated short works, they don’t put any sort of privacy setting on them so that only members can use the links and get to documents, though I could be wrong. But even if they usually did and messed up with Fox’s story, File 770 would not have known that if the document was public. So if Fox didn’t want it available after the Nebulas were done, why didn’t he go to Google and have it taken down?

    You cannot file a DMCA on a hyperlink. Fox can only file a DMCA on the actual file that contains the story in Google. Which as far as we know, he either put up himself or approved someone doing it for him, as he just admitted. So what the hey is he talking about?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Is it possible that Fox simple doesn’t understand how internet links work? That he somehow thinks that the link should only work from one place or something?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Near Nebula time, authors start posting links to free copies of their stories on the SFWA forums. These are private to SFWA members, but, of course, that depends on people being honest and not passing those links around.

      Lots of SFWA members contribute to the public-facing list of recommended stories as well. That has an optional field to use for a link to a free story. (E.g. if the story were published in Clarkesworld.) I suspect that Mr. Fox simply used the same link in both places, not realizing he was making his story available to the public in the process.

      The mistake was clearly his, but one could argue that the UI on SFWA is a bit misleading. Either way, his fix should have been to rename the file on Google Drive and then edit his post in the SFWA forum (which, last I checked, lets you edit your posts forever).

      Mike was simply posting a public link in good faith. He’s clearly blameless here. (Not that I needed to tell you that.) 🙂

      What SFWA probably ought to do is create a space where it can host stories from members so they can only be read by members.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It seems like I’ve seen the print magazines mention that their stories were available in the SFWA forums for Nebula consideration. How are those handled?

        Like

      2. Thanks again, Greg. I didn’t really expect you’d be able to see who had left the recs now since all links except the one to the SFWA forum have been removed. But I was curious if it might have been possible to see back in March when Richard requested Cam remove the link here.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Yes, any SFWA member could have seen who posted it, provided the person posting it didn’t use the “anonymous” option. However, I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that the people who run the SFWA site could have found out regardless.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I find the following two statements a tad contradictory:

    Richard Fox, 2019-09-16, as (archive.org) linked at the top of Cam’s post:

    > I shared my short story GOING DARK with the password protected site that was only for Science Fiction Writers of America. Sharing this was only for their consideration, and never for the general public as I had the story in an anthology that was for sale.

    Richard Fox, 2019-02-20, Facebook post that I’m not going to link to (so as not to dig even deeper into this mess), but which can be accessed without an FB account, and found via a Google search (and which has a Google cached copy in case it mysteriously disappears):

    > In honor of GOING DARK being nominated for a Nebula Award, Podium made the audio of the story available ahead of schedule.

    > Enjoy Luke Daniels’ narration!

    > [link to another site redacted, but it still works as of a few minutes ago, and seems to let you play through the entirity of the audio story without having to buy it, as far as I could tell]

    NB: My point isn’t that Fox shared a link to an audio version of his story – which he is of course perfectly entitled to do – but if he was concerned about (a) the saleability of his story an anthology and (b) not making the story available to the general public, then posting a link to a free audio version of it might not be a sensible thing to do?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “Sharing this was only for their consideration, and never for the general public as I had the story in an anthology that was for sale.”

      Could this be the root of the issue? Is it possible that Fox got in trouble with whomever published that anthology because he made the story public without THEIR permission, so now he’s forced to try to cover his ass?

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Contrarius, that seems like quite a credible explanation – although possibly we should stick with the simplest possible explanation that Fox was just being an ass.
        (Assholes Razor, if you like)

        Liked by 6 people

      2. I briefly suspect that the problem might be that the anthology was in Kindle Unlimited, which requires exclusivity and that Richard sharing his story publicly violated that exclusivity, but I just checked and the anthology is print only.

        Like

      3. Apparently, “Going Dark” is also included in Baen’s “Best Military SFF of the Year” anthology, which came out fairly recently. So it’s quite possible that it’s Baen who are annoyed that the story is available online for free and not the editor and publisher of “Back Blast Area Clear”. And considering that Richard will co-write a book with David Weber for Baen, I understand why he would not want to antagonise them. Though I have no idea why he felt the need to behave like a complete prat about it.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Yup, and Richard’s behavior has insured that I also won’t be buying any anthologies edited by David Afsharirad — even though I liked several other stories that were reprinted in it which I read in their original publications.

        Like

    2. @John S The audio version has a different rights agreement, and anyone that wants to listen to it signs up for the website to receive audiobook recommendations. It’s provided without cost, but it isn’t free.

      Like

      1. @Richard —

        “The audio version has a different rights agreement,”

        This statement makes me wonder even more strongly whether the real problem was that you publicly posted your story when you didn’t actually have the legal right to do so, and you managed to get yourself in trouble with the anthology’s publisher.

        I wonder what the publisher would have to say about it?

        Liked by 2 people

  5. File 770 won’t allow any comments that go against Glyer’s false narrative, Flipflopper has shown some integrity in the past and maybe he’ll keep it up.

    Let’s walk back a bit. There were Google Drive files of my story, but they were not created by me, not did I make that story available to the public. They were there for Nebula consideration to SFWA members and no one else. Further, all those files have been removed for TOS violations, thank you Google.

    The version this site shared back then was, and still, is pirated.

    It really is amazing how people can be told over and over again that linking to pirated material is piracy, but their eyes just glaze over that fact and stick to their own realities. https://www.quora.com/If-I-share-a-link-to-a-pirated-book-on-my-website-will-it-be-illegal

    Since Flipflop has been to my blog, he certainly saw the takedown notice from Google Drive showing that all the pirated files were removed. Amazing how he ignores those too.

    Let me use small words so flipflip can understand:
    1.) I own the copyright to that story.
    2.) I did not create those Google Drive files or give anyone the right to distribute them.
    3.) Sharing those files or those links is piracy.
    4.) When I see anyone pirating my material, I take recourse (sorry, too big)–I tell the thief to stop.
    5.) Flipflop did what he should’ve when I made my demand.
    6.) _____ decided he had the moral authority to keep pirating my work, and I submitted DCMA notices to make him stop. Defend Glyer. I dare you.
    7.) You really have to twist yourself into a logic pretzel to believe I created Google Drive documents and then submitted DCMA notices against myself. If you believe that, there’s little that can be done for you. If you don’t believe that, then I’m not lying when I say the work is pirated. Choose.

    @ Kat Goodwin The story was already published in an anthology when it was nominated. As are most nominated works. Having pirated copies out there when it is available for sale damages the commercial value of the story.
    [edited for language – CF]

    Liked by 1 person

    1. 2. Clearly somebody with access to your manuscript created the files AND put them up to help promote note your Nebula Award bid. So either you have the nicest pirates in the world or you are being dishonest.
      3) let’s assume you are not lying about your implausible pirates, then you still left that public SFWA link up on the promotional page. You were apparently happy to let anybody looking at that page think that this supposed ‘pirate’ copy was legitimate. So not only do you have amazingly cooperative pirates, you apparently help them out!
      4) this is a lie even if everything else you said is true. You saw the google drive link in February but you did nothing about it until your complaint about file 770 unravelled.
      6) he was within his rights
      7) no logic pretzels are needed. A simpler hypothesis is that you lied and got caught out.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. 2.) I shared the story to SFWA members for their consideration within the password protected site.
        3.) I didn’t know about the links on the public facing page until I saw them last months, then I submitted the DCMA requests. The pirated link you and Glyer shared were direct to the Google Drive and not to the SFWA page.
        4.) After you removed the link, I assumed the file was gone. My complaint against File 770 got the offending post in question suspended, I don’t know how that’s ‘unraveling’.
        6.) No one has the right to share work they don’t have permission for. How exactly do you justify that?
        7.) You can see my DCMA requests. You think I did them against myself? Again, that logic doesn’t work.

        The very simple message is that you and GLyer shared work you weren’t allowed to and got called out on it. Accept the mistake and move on.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. 2) – so you were the source of the file? yay, progress! We’ve found the source of the piracy.
        3) yet you knew about the link on website in February and comments pointed out the source. But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, it is still your f-ckup and you owe multiple people apologies for your accusations of piracy and theft.
        4) Seriously? You thought me removing a link would make the file disappear? How would that work? Have you never used the internet?
        6) You had submitted your work to the Nebula reading list which is public. You may not have UNDERSTOOD what you were doing but you were the one who did it. Anybody had the right to share a link to that up until you withdrew it. You didn’t do that until recently, until that point the (non-pirated because you were the one who shared it publicly) file was available for anybody to legitimately look at.
        7) Yes, you have literally just explained that you really literally DMCA’d yourself. Yes that is pretty daft of you but that is exactly what happened.

        Liked by 5 people

      3. 2.) I’ve said many times that I shared the story on SFWA’s internal page. I am not the source of the file you and Glyer pirated. Stop lying.
        3.) I didn’t see JJ’s comment and didn’t know about the other pirated files until ____ pointed them out. Then I sent DCMA notices through Google. You can see the time stamps. If someone shared a file I didn’t give them permission to, then that’s piracy and theft. Your earlier apology for that still stands. I’m still waiting for Glyer’s.
        4.) I thought you were hosting the file.
        6.) I hold the copyright, and if someone like you is going to use my work to generate ad revenue (even if it’s $0.25 a week) then using my IP to make money without my permission is piracy and theft. Had you linked to the SFWA page, that might have made things different. Did I ever give you permission to share my story, Cameltoe? Simple yes or no answer.
        7.) Funny how my inbox is devoid of DMCA notices from Google for those files. You’ve seen where I put in copyright strikes. Don’t deny it.

        [Edited for language CF]

        Like

      4. “2.) I’ve said many times that I shared the story on SFWA’s internal page. I am not the source of the file you and Glyer pirated. Stop lying.”
        i.e. YOU are the source of the file. I’m just repeating what you’ve already told us all.

        “4.) I thought you were hosting the file.”
        OK, well that at least illuminates were some of your confusion is coming from. Doesn’t excuse you baseless claims of piracy though.

        “Did I ever give you permission to share my story, ”
        Yes, when you made it publicly available you gave everybody permission to link to it by default. Why is that hard to understand? For example, you can link to my blog. You don’t need to ask my permission. If I don’t want you to link to my blog then I’d need to remove the content to somewhere else.

        Liked by 5 people

      5. 2.) Where do you get that I’m the source of the file you pirated? Because here in normal people land, that’s not the case. Put up or shut up.
        4.) Still waiting for you to name laws that allow the sharing of copyright material without permission or compensation. But we all know you can’t do it, thief.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. “2.) Where do you get that I’m the source of the file you pirated? Because here in normal people land, that’s not the case. Put up or shut up.”

        Uh, because you provided all SFWA members with a copy and then a SWFA member linked to it when they recommended your story publicly?
        I mean, if you’ve also sold individual pdfs of that story in the exact same format then I *guess* someone may have bought it and then uploaded it.. despite having a free copy.
        I mean, there’s Occams Razor to lead you to conclude what clearly happened, but in this case is more Well Duh’s Razor it’s so flipping obvious.

        Liked by 4 people

      7. So you’re saying someone other than me put the files on the public facing internet. Reasonable deduction. At least you agree I’m not the one that did it.

        Someone obviously put the links in the open for the public without my permission. That’s not really under discussion.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. //2.) Where do you get that I’m the source of the file you pirated? //

        I haven’t pirated any files. You are the one who explained that you were the source of the file.

        //4.) Still waiting for you to name laws that allow the sharing of copyright material without permission or compensation. //

        That isn’t what happened, as you know.

        Liked by 3 people

      9. 2.) Uh oh, Flipflop’s been backed into a corner by his own words. You facilitated piracy. You removed the link when demanded and issued an apology. Don’t deny it.

        4.) You can’t come up with a justification because you’re wrong and you know it. Own up like an adult.

        Like

      10. If linking is piracy, the post on your web site which links to Glyer’s blog post is violating the copyright. Unless they authorized it. Did you ask them? In fact, it links to a *copy* of Glyer’s blog post. That’s even more of a violation, is it not?

        Liked by 2 people

      11. Camestros got that you were the source of that file from me. I posted the screenshot showing the account that posted it had your name.

        Like

      12. No, Philip, you posted a link with a file name and my photo. I asked if you have something showing the metadata and the file in question, but you don’t have it. Thanks for playing.

        Like

      13. No one authorized you to distribute it, and I didn’t give permission for those files to face the public.

        You made the files public by placing them on the Nebula reading list, whether you intended to or not is immaterial. You put them there. You’ve repeatedly said that you did this. Complaining that you intended to place them in a private area doesn’t change the fact that you placed them on a public-facing part of the SFWA website.

        Once a file that has been placed in a public space like that is on the internet, linking to the file is explicitly not piracy. Your repeated links to an answer to a Quora question made by a random individual aren’t actually particularly convincing, especially since the answer is not entirely accurate, in part because it ignores the fact that the EU standards about such things are different than those used in the U.S. You would do well to familiarize yourself with copyright law as it exists outside the U.S.

        I can see why you and your publisher want the files taken down. If they are up, people might actually read your story, and then they’d see that your story is kind of bland and mediocre and not want to buy the anthology that it is in or any of your other published works. I’ve always said that the worst thing that could happen to the reputations of the Pups and the Pup-adjacent sycophants who come yapping after them is that people might read their stuff and realize just how mediocre to miserable their output is. Your story is yet another example of this.

        Liked by 6 people

      14. OK I don’t know what your problem with reading comprehension is, but you’re going to have to improve on it before anyone can have an adult discussion with you.

        I have repeatedly said I put the files on the password protected side of the SFWA page. Do you need a diagram in crayons to make this more clear?

        You know who agreed with my position that linking to the story was piracy? Glyer’s ISP. Are you more experienced with that realm of internet management? No? Didn’t think so. So why don’t you sit down and shut up when you’ve been exposed to the expert opinion?

        Said story was nominated for Nebula by other writers in SFWA, was included in the Year’s Best Military and Adventure Science Fiction and my writing brings in more royalites than any trad weenie you aspire to be. Yes, so ‘mediocre and miserable’. Too bad the free market is at odds with you. Another reason for you to sit down and shut up.

        Like

      15. “You know who agreed with my position that linking to the story was piracy? Glyer’s ISP. Are you more experienced with that realm of internet management? ”

        Well, that should fill everybody with confidence. Except it’s a complete misrepresentation of the law. If you fill out your DMCA takedown notice correctly, and the ISP you send that to sees they are hosting the targeted content, they are obligated to take it down and notify the customer of his rights, which includes the right to file a DMCA counter notice. The ISP is not the arbiter of the charge. They complied with the DMCA statute to avoid forfeiting the safe harbor they receive for obeying it.

        I filed a counter notice, as you know, starting the clock running where you had up to 14 days to file “an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.”

        You didn’t follow through with any legal action because your takedown notice was a prank, and one you could do for free.

        Liked by 10 people

      16. richardfox: You know who agreed with my position that linking to the story was piracy? Glyer’s ISP.

        This is yet another lie. They never agreed that it was piracy.

        Upon receiving your report, Mike’s ISP put the post into Draft status, which is standard procedure for the beginning of all DMCA processes. They notified you that you had 14 days following the receipt of Mike’s counterstatement that there was no infringement to provide them with proof that you had filed suit, or the post would go back up.

        Upon your failure to follow through with the appropriate notification of a lawsuit for copyright infringement (because, of course, there was no copyright infringement on File 770‘s part), the post was put back in Live status, where it still sits today — with that Google Drive link still intact on it, because the Google Drive link itself is not an infringement.

        I know all of this, because I was the author of the post, so Mike involved me in the process.

        I really didn’t think you could get any more incompetent than you already had, but it seems you are determined to win the DARRRRRRRwin Award for Incompetence, as well.

        Liked by 7 people

      17. @Richard —

        “OK I don’t know what your problem with reading comprehension is, but you’re going to have to improve on it before anyone can have an adult discussion with you.”

        This has got to be about the funniest thing I’ve seen all day. Talk about a total lack of self-awareness. Thanks for the laugh!

        First off, Richard: “sharing”, as in file sharing, simply does not mean what you seem to think it means. “File sharing” means **hosting a file and allowing others to download that file from your server**. It does NOT mean posting a hyperlink to someone else’s site. Those are two entirely different things. Please try to keep them straight.

        “I have repeatedly said I put the files on the password protected side of the SFWA page.”

        Which means that an SFWA member put a link to it on the public SFWA page. Which means that every time you accuse Mike or Cam of piracy, you are also accusing the SFWA of piracy. Again: are you really sure you want to do that?

        “You know who agreed with my position that linking to the story was piracy? Glyer’s ISP.”

        You do realize, don’t you, that ISPs may temporarily take down pages more or less EVERY time there’s a complaint filed, right? That’s to cover their asses while they investigate. That doesn’t mean they agree with you after investigation, or that the page will stay down. IIRC, the page you complained about is up and running.

        Seriously, for a guy who might want more Nebula nominations in the future, going around accusing the SFWA of piracy is not a real smart strategy.

        Liked by 4 people

      18. Contrarius: Please read my explanation of DMCA here. The ISP does not investigate beyond making sure the content being complained about is hosted by them (placed there by the customer.) The content gets taken down, and stays down, unless the customer files a counter notice, and after the expiration of 14 days, the complainant has not filed a legal action. Then the content can be restored to public view. If there’s a suit, the decision maker is the court. The ISP never has to decide who is right and wrong.

        Liked by 4 people

      19. @Mike —

        “Please read my explanation of DMCA here. The ISP does not investigate beyond making sure the content being complained about is hosted by them (placed there by the customer.) ”

        Yeah, with this type of complaint in particular I should not have used the term “investigate” in that context. The ISP might investigate some types of complaints, and *somebody* will have to investigate a DMCA complaint (for instance, you had to go look at the page, see what Richard was talking about, and so on), but aside from a very strained interpretation of the word “investigate” (the ISP “investigates” whether you file a response and whether Richard files a suit), investigation isn’t really what the ISP does in this case.

        Liked by 2 people

      20. OK I don’t know what your problem with reading comprehension is, but you’re going to have to improve on it before anyone can have an adult discussion with you.

        To have an adult discussion I would have a discussion with almost anyone else posting here other than you.

        I have repeatedly said I put the files on the password protected side of the SFWA page. Do you need a diagram in crayons to make this more clear?

        You put it on the SFWA Reading List. The fact that you mistakenly thought this was not a public facing portion of the SFWA site is no one’s fault but yours, and it doesn’t change the fact that you put it there.

        You know who agreed with my position that linking to the story was piracy? Glyer’s ISP. Are you more experienced with that realm of internet management? No? Didn’t think so. So why don’t you sit down and shut up when you’ve been exposed to the expert opinion?

        No, they didn’t. You don’t understand at all what happened here. You filed a DMCA notice. Glyer’s ISP sent him a notice that your DMCA notice was filed and he took the post down while he filed his counter notice and waited until time expired for you to respond. Then he put the post back up.

        The files were removed from Google drive, not Glyer’s site. They were never on Glyer’s site. His ISP didn’t agree with your position that linking to the story was piracy. Glyer’s ISP appears to have never taken any action other than passing on the fact to him that a DMCA takedown notice was filed, an action they are required to do by law. They appear to have never done anything further.

        At this point, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

        Said story was nominated for Nebula by other writers in SFWA, was included in the Year’s Best Military and Adventure Science Fiction and my writing brings in more royalites than any trad weenie you aspire to be. Yes, so ‘mediocre and miserable’. Too bad the free market is at odds with you. Another reason for you to sit down and shut up.

        Dude, just because you gamed your way to a Nebula nomination doesn’t make your story good. What tells me a lot about you is that you think that anything you have said here will do anything to offset the fact that you are a mediocre writer who doesn’t understand the basics of copyright, and can’t figure out how the SFWA website works.

        Liked by 5 people

      21. You’re welcome for the lesson.

        Well, I did learn two things.

        1. You don’t understand how the DMCA process works.
        2. You apparently don’t know the meaning of the word “alleged”.

        Liked by 8 people

    2. Richard, how do we reconcile these two statements
      “2.) I did not create those Google Drive files or give anyone the right to distribute them.”

      And

      *I shared my short story GOING DARK with the password protected site that was only for Science Fiction Writers of America. Sharing this was only for their consideration, and never for the general public as I had the story in an anthology that was for sale.”

      Precisely how did you share Going Dark with SFWA? Did you e.g. email them a copy and ask them to put it up? Attach it to a forum post?
      Assuming that you did something like that, how did you think they were going to make it available to members?
      Were you not aware that the SFWA recommended reading list was public?
      Are you aware you can go and look at this year’s list right now and see links attached to each rec?

      I can see a narrow window of explanation where you provided a file to SFWA but were unaware of how it would be hosted, but in which case you’ve been targeting your ire in completely the wrong direction while ignoring all explanations.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The Nebula Reading list is public. “Richard Fox was confused” does not equal “Richard Fox was pirated”.

        Kudos that you are moving towards the “I messed up because I didn’t understand” defence but you may have burnt too many bridges for that to work…

        Liked by 7 people

      2. I believe I’ve seen reference somewhere to some facility in the SFWA forums or site where copies can be made available privately – Asimov’s etc make themselves available, but not via the reading list. I don’t know exactly how it works though.
        So the most generous interpretation here is that Fox put in a copy of Going Dark in a private section. Someone with access to it, i.e. a SFWA member, wanted to put it on the reading list so uploaded it to drive and put a link in the public rec list. JJ then went looking for copies for the Nebula post, assumed that like in all other circumstances where a story is uploaded for readers it’s with the authors permission, and that’s where the story starts. The final “generous” interpretation is that Fox somehow missed or misunderstood the many people all telling him where the file came from, and has spent months yelling at people instead of just having the file removed from drive.
        There are less generous interpretations.

        Liked by 8 people

      3. Right, now we’re getting somewhere.

        As an actual attached PDF, or a link?

        Do you think the reason that the metadata associated with the pdf that made it to drive has your name on it…. is that it’s a pdf you created?

        How do you think that file made it to be linked to the recommended reading list via drive? Did Mike, Camestros, or JJ do that? Or did some member of SFWA do it so as to support their recommendation of your story?
        Have you, at any point here, stopped to think about whether you’re throwing imprecations at the right people?

        Liked by 5 people

      4. I deleted the post after the Nebulas, but I put on several different versions.

        But let’s not get too far from the issue, as grasping at straws seems to be all you’ve got left.

        Were Glyer or Flipflop authorized to share my story? No. I didn’t give them permission.

        Now let’s take the Devil’s Advocate viewpoint; that those files were created by me and shared on the SFWA public facing page. If that was the case, Glyer and Cameltoe should have shared to the SFWA page, and put the responsibility there, and not direct to the document to distribute it.

        You can cluck all you like, but sharing work you’re not licensed to or given express permission for is piracy, especially when you link from an ad revenue generating page. If you want to make money off my work, you’d best pay me. Or any artist.

        Like

      5. Oh dear, you’re back to just being rude to people again. Maybe you should consider not doing that.

        Right, let’s go for a quick explainer on how the internet works. Files and links are different things. Links are an address on where to find a file; they are not the file.
        The person who is allegedly a pirate here is the person who allegedly uploaded your file to drive. They then created a link at the SFWA public recs page. Other people then used that link – not the file – on totally different webpages.

        No-one needs permission to link to public content on the internet. If you don’t like the content you need to take it up with the site where that content is hosted.

        Also, no-one involved is making any money – any ads served are by the overall host on sites like this.

        Has it occurred to you that in all instances the sharing of that link was with the intention of promoting your work – encouraging people to read it?

        Liked by 7 people

      6. (Or to put things a bit more simplistically, what’s happened here is that someone bumped into you on the street, and instead of looking for whoever that was, you’ve gone around yelling at people who turned around to see what the commotion was)

        Liked by 7 people

      7. Yes, we were authorised to share a link to a file that you (perhaps unwittingly) had made publicly available on a public reading list. That’s not a hard question.

        You’ve already conceded that the file was from you and not from a ‘pirate’. Blaming everybody else for your own mistakes (and that’s the charitable version of events) is at best childish

        Liked by 7 people

      8. Given that you’re an author, and a self-published one, it’s really bizarre that you don’t seem to understand how either words or hyperlinks work.

        You’ve admitted that you knew back in February about the SFWA page, which had links to your story.

        You’re saying that those links were to pirated copies of your work (while also saying that you approved those copies being made available to SFWA members).

        In other words, you’re saying that back in February, you knew that SFWA had a page which linked to pirated copies of your work, but for 6 months you were okay with those links being there. Maybe you did such a poor job of reading SFWA’s explanation of how their Recommendation List works that you didn’t understand that those pages were public. That is your fault, no one else’s.

        No one has to be “authorized” to re-post public hyperlinks. The fact that you didn’t “authorize” anyone to share links which you (or someone on your behalf) had posted to the public SFWA Recommendations list is irrelevant.

        Neither Mike nor Camestros shared your work. They posted hyperlinks to your work. These are two very different things, and as someone who ostensibly hopes to make a living from using words, you should be able to understand the difference.

        Removing a hyperlink does not remove the actual file to which it links. This is Internet 101… but apparently you are so lacking in the understanding of very basic concepts that you don’t know this. I hope you are not being allowed to operate a motor vehicle, or to make financial decisions involving amounts over $20.

        Liked by 3 people

      9. Camestros did not share your file. He shared a link to your file — a file which you’ve acknowledged you approved being uploaded. These are two very different things.

        Words have meanings. Learn how to use them properly.

        Liked by 5 people

      10. //I never approved that file being uploaded to the public.//

        Then how did it and the audio version end up on the public SFWA reading list? [Hint: you shared it…you already said that] Again, you might not have UNDERSTOOD what you were doing but I, Mike Glyer, the SFWA and the whole internet are not your guardians.
        A simple “oops, I messed up” on your part would have been enough.

        Liked by 6 people

      11. That audio file is password protected for Audfans members. I know what’s up with those rights and am happy with them. You’re grasping for straws, Flipflop.

        Like

      12. @Richard —

        “Nope. I never approved that file being uploaded to the public. ”

        You do realize that you’re accusing the SFWA of piracy, right?

        Are you sure you want to do that?

        Liked by 7 people

      13. Richard, you keep on being very rude to people and you need to stop doing that. Calling people made up names just makes you seem like a toddler.

        Anyway, a link that starts “yes and no” isn’t very definitive. You may wish to consider that people you’re talking to are in very different legal jurisdictions and what you believe is the law applicable to yourself may not be true elsewhere.

        Also, as your legal arguments are a quora link, I think we can assume you’ve got no legal knowledge here and are just using whatever you can Google up.

        Anyway, as I’ve said, all the people you’re yelling at simply linked to a file that someone else uploaded. Have you actually looked for who that was? That’s what sensible people who see pirated files do – they go after the files.

        The above is working on the generous assumption that you’ve been truthful about things. Frankly I’m losing patience with that assumption.

        Liked by 6 people

      14. I didn’t distribute it and it wasn’t pirated. You posted the file to the SWFA. They put it on the PUBLIC reading list. Lots of people have explained that to you now.
        If you take a photo of your own arse and then print out a huge copy of it and then put that copy on a billboard, you don’t get to shout at people for staring at your arse.

        Liked by 5 people

      15. No one authorized you to distribute it, and I didn’t give permission for those files to face the public. I’m the copyright holder and I’m well within my rights to sell and distribute it as I see fit.

        You never had permission. Thief.

        Like

      16. “I didn’t give permission for those files to face the public.”

        Facts not in evidence. Demonstrate that you did not approve the SFWA page. Assuming that you di not then your beef is with the SFWA not anybody who used it in good fait.

        Liked by 5 people

      17. @JJ Wrong. I did not know about those links in February. If you have something that shows where I acknowledge this, please share it. Other wise you should stop lying and apologize for spreading falsehoods.

        Perhaps you should put more time and effort into your work on bottom tier fan sites. Next time you want to share something that you even suspect has a copyright, ask the author or publisher before you share. Don’t assume. It’s the bare minimum of professional behavior that I doubt you can ever reach.

        Like

      18. richardrfox: Wrong. I did not know about those links in February. If you have something that shows where I acknowledge this, please share it.

        Gladly! You’ve done so at least twice just on this page alone:

        richardfox: They [the files of my story] were there for Nebula consideration to SFWA members and no one else.

        richardfox: I shared the story to SFWA members for their consideration within the password protected site.

        Really, if you’re going to be a successful liar, you have simply got to stop contradicting yourself. 😆

        Liked by 5 people

      19. Wow. You must not understand how websites work. Both times I referenced the story being within password protected forums for SFWA members only. No where does it say anything about files facing the public.

        Are you OK? Does your care taker need to give you a time out?

        Like

      20. richardfox: Both times I referenced the story being within password protected forums for SFWA members only.

        The fact that you didn’t read carefully and understand that the SFWA page was public is your fault, and no one else’s.

        Liked by 6 people

      21. richardfox: the private and password protected site is different than the publicly facing site

        Sure they are. The fact that you didn’t understand that the page with the links to your story was on the publc part of SFWA’s site, not the private part, is, again, still your own fault.

        Liked by 5 people

      22. The crayons may help as you seem to keep missing the fact that the Nebula Reading list is public. The file that was on the list was from you. Nobody here other than yourself had any involvement in it getting there.

        Liked by 4 people

      23. Ok, Richard, let’s have one last go at you reading what you’re writing and considering the implications.

        “As said before, I can still hold those that facilitate the piracy accountable.”

        Just to recap, a SFWA member recommended you for a Nebula – a highly prestigious award – and linked to a copy of the file you’d provided them. Your contention is that they ought not to have done that.
        You are now filling the internet with your screams of Piracy! Infamy! They’ve all got it infamy! directed at the kind soul who thought you should get a Nebula.
        Now, this is where I want you to take a step back and think.
        Is anyone going to recommend you for a Nebula – or anything else nice – ever again, when you launched a noisy public attack on the last person to do so?
        Is anyone ever going to say “here’s a story by Richard Fox that’s up for awards so it ought to be worth reading” when you’ve made wild accusations and vile insults against the last people to do so?

        Is anyone going to take you seriously as a SF author when you’re running around the internet showing you don’t understand the basics of its technology? (OK, quite a few authors do fine without understanding the tech, so maybe you’ll get away with that one)

        In short, is this really the sort of person you want everyone to think you are?

        Liked by 8 people

      24. Oh Mark, you sweet summer child. SFWA members have an internal forum to look at stories for their consideration. There’s no need for a public reading list, as the public doesn’t vote. Nebulas aren’t Hugos or Dragons. Real simple to grasp.

        You know what? Piracy is wrong. Sharing a story that hurts a writer’s financial well-being really is about as low as you can go among creatives. Don’t share material you don’t have permission to share. Real simple, even Cameltoe will grasp it eventually.

        The bottom line here is that ___ and Cameltoe shared a story they didn’t have permission to do. Cameltoe fixed his mistake when asked to, ___ doubled down on being wrong. You and every other ankle biter on here trying to find some sort of loop hole or gotcha to explain away their mistake really doesn’t change what they did.

        Did ____ and Cameltoe ever have permission to share my story? No. That’s all there is to it.

        If you know of a court case that exonerates those ____ share it. Because your ‘nah-ah’ grasp of copyright law is tiresome.

        Like

      25. If that was the case, Glyer and Cameltoe should have shared to the SFWA page, and put the responsibility there, and not direct to the document to distribute it.

        This is simply not correct. I mean, they could do ti that way, but that’s not legally mandated. Deep linking (i.e. linking to pages or links within a website) is perfectly permissible under current copyright law. Linking to a document doesn’t “distribute” it within the meaning of copyright law – I direct you to Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc and FlavaWorks, Inc. v. Gunter on this point.

        Liked by 6 people

      26. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc is for cropped images, not the whole work. ____ and Cameltoe shared the entire work and impacted the financial viability of the work. Same with the other case. What is it with you and porn? Get help.

        [ed for language]

        Like

      27. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc is for cropped images, not the whole work.

        That’s an irrelevant distinction from a legal standpoint when it comes to the legality of whether sharing a link is “distribution” for copyright purposes. You really have no idea what you are talking about on this subject, and it is really quite sad to see someone make an fool of himself in public the way you are doing.

        Liked by 3 people

      28. richardrfox @ Sep 17, 2019 at 10:01 am said:

        > That audio file is password protected for Audfans members. I know what’s up with those rights and am happy with them. You’re grasping for straws, Flipflop.

        That first sentence would appear to be incorrect. I have opened up the audfans.com page in a browser incognito tab, doing a hard refresh with emptied cache to eradicate any cookies, locally stored data, etc, and was able to listen to all 42 minutes of the audio drama without ever having to sign up, login, or purchase it. There is a “Sign Up/Login to Buy” link below the audio player on the page, but this doesn’t stop you clicking on the “Play” button in the audio widget.

        Given Richard’s comment naming the organization/domain that hosts this audio drama, I am – perhaps naively – assuming he isn’t going to issue me/this blog with a DMCA for posting the URL here, which is: https://audfans.com/book/going-dark-terran-strike-marines – it might be nice if someone else could also try playing that audio, to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not password protected for Audfans members.

        Ordinarily I might try to resist the temptation to be pedantic about correcting this, especially as it’s slightly off-topic, but given that Richard is mistaken about how publicly accessible this audio content is, you might reasonably wonder if he could be similarly mistaken about other statements regarding password protection, public content, etc.?

        Liked by 4 people

      29. John S,

        I’m not spending 42 minutes checking, but I can play and then skip to various points throughout the 42 mins, so I’m going to say you’re correct. I am not, and never have been, an audfan member.
        (I assume that the point of the free audio book playable on the web is to tempt you to buy an offline file.)

        Liked by 2 people

      30. What is it with you and porn?

        By the way, instead of posting this comment, you could have just said that you have never before read any caselaw concerning copyright and the internet. It would have amounted to the same thing.

        Liked by 3 people

      31. it might be nice if someone else could also try playing that audio, to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not password protected for Audfans members.

        I went and tested the link and had the same experience. I’m not even an Audfan member and the play button worked just fine for me.

        Like

    3. Ah ha ha ha! You must feel so stupid. And embarrassed. You’re welcome for the lesson.

      Except that it just shows that you have no idea what happened. The note you sent is dated August 23. Here’s how DMCA takedown notices work, since you seem to not understand any of this.

      1. You filed a DMCA takedown notice.
      2. Dreamhost sent the notice to Glyer that you had filed and took the data down – which they are required to do to preserve their safe harbor protections, regardless of whether the work is infringing or not.
      3. Glyer filed a counter notice.
      4. You had 14 days to respond by filing suit. You didn’t.
      5. The post is back up.

      The ISP never “agreed” that the material was copyright infringement. Note that the message they sent you says that it is “allegedly infringing”, as in, not proven to be infringing. You are supposed to be a writer, but is it possible you didn’t know what “alleged” means?

      Liked by 5 people

    4. “There were Google Drive files of my story, but they were not created by me, not did I make that story available to the public. They were there for Nebula consideration to SFWA members and no one else. Further, all those files have been removed for TOS violations, thank you Google.”

      I rarely see such self-owns like this these days.

      You do realize that a basic parsing of your paragraph here shows you being either contradictory or ignorant, right?

      If not, let me explain:
      First sentence: “There were Google Drive files of my story, but they were not created by me, not did I make that story available to the public.”

      Okay, we’re doing good here. An author can upload a work and it will be by default private, and this has been the default behavior of google drive since it launched.

      The second sentence is where we need to unpack a lot:
      “They were there for Nebula consideration to SFWA members and no one else.”

      Wait, what?

      If you did not create the files, nor did you make the story available to the public… how do you know the intent of what the files were for? How do you know they were intended for a specific, limited audience?

      So this leads us to some conclusions of different scenarios.

      1) Someone at the publisher uploaded the file. You knew about it. You knew the upload was intended for sharing the story with SFWA members. You and the uploader, however, misunderstood how link sharing files on google drive works. In order for SFWA members to access the file, it had to have been publicly available. There are two ways to share files on google drive: publicly accessible link, or specifically granted access.

      2) You uploaded the file. You knew about it. You knew the upload was intended for sharing the story with SFWA members. You did not understand how link sharing files on google drive works.

      3) Someone did pirate your work. They posted it on SFWA forums, and you do not know the intent, and misspoke.

      Given the way you have repeatedly made the same mistake about knowing the intent of the upload, then it is trivially obvious that the third scenario is not very likely.

      Piracy was not committed. Linking to the work, using a publicly accessible link, with no access control on it, is not piracy. You uploaded the file. There was no piracy involved. You know this.

      This is fraud, committed by you.

      Do be aware that Google has *every* piece of info and logging and *will* turn it over in a subpoena. They will have logs of you or someone close to you uploading the file and making it publicly accessible. They will have logs of you or someone close to you removing the file from Google Drive.

      You. Are. Screwed.

      Like

  6. It sounds like Fox mistakenly assumed the Nebula Reading list pages were only available to SFWA members. But that part of the SWFA website has had limited visibility to everyone outside SFWA for a few years now. (SFWA members can make recommendations, see how many recommendations for a work there are, and I think they can see who made the recommendations as well.) If you only want to give access to SFWA members, you need to make sure you only put it in their private forums.

    What stretches credulity is his asking why “File 770 would insist that authors want their work read by the general public for this award.” Besides what Kat said about enticing people to buy their other work, people also look at the Nebula finalists to consider them for other awards.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Yes, exactly. While the main point of most of these awards that aren’t public vote is not to necessarily promote the nominated works, that is a potential side benefit for authors of being nominated. It gets their name out there. Letting people read the nominated story builds up a fanbase and may get you nominated for other awards for that story, especially with short fiction which is short and thus easy to read. And then the next benefit is that as a short story Nebula nominee, your story goes into the Nebula Awards Showcase anthology, which has a potentially much wider reach than the promo anthology Fox originally published in. And all that can lead people to your other, usually longer fiction — short story collections, novellas published as short novels and novels, for purchase. Presumably this is why Fox also let people download the audio version of the short story for free as well — it’s promotional.

      But the main point is simply that if he didn’t want the story further accessed after the Nebulas, then all he had to do was go to Google Drive and take it down. Why did he leave it up? As long as the document is up, the link to it works and even if you get one site to take the link to it down, that doesn’t stop anybody else on the Web from using the link to the still public file. You have to take the file down. Mike didn’t put the file up, so he can’t take it down from Google. SFWA didn’t put the file up so they can’t take it down from Google. Only Fox or the person he authorized to put it up in the first place can remove the file from Google.

      Fox is trying to say that piracy is pointing out publicly available material exists on the Internet. Which legally is nonsense. And in this case, it was a purely promotional use of the link meant to help Fox get attention and new fans as a Nebula nominee. What exactly is it that Mike is supposed to be stealing with the link? How is it possible that Fox has signed a license deal with Baen and doesn’t know what infringement legally is? This is pretty basic stuff.

      So if he and LC, etc., are trying to create a marketing drama with File 770, this one doesn’t have a lot of legs. How dare you tell people where I put up my nominated story online! That’s stealing! Stealing what exactly? And again, even if you got Mike to get rid of the link and SFWA to get rid of the link, that still doesn’t keep other people from using the link or pointing it out to others. Only taking the document down that the links go to does, which only Fox could do and has now done. Why not just do that in the first place?

      I mean, if the guy has a mental illness or a learning disability that makes comprehension hard, I certainly don’t want to shame him for that, but he’s essentially yelling at himself for putting up his own story online. Even by Puppy standards, this is very weird.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Yes, even if the link on File770 had been from the private area of the SFWA forums instead of the public page, it still wouldn’t have been piracy. (Not that Mike or JJ would have even included it if that had been the case.) And even if someone else put the story on Google Drive, you don’t play internet whack-a-mole with every link that gets posted to it. You contact Google about having the actual document removed.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. richardfox: I didn’t know they were there.

        You knew that at least one of the files was there, for sure. You demanded that Camestros remove the link to it back on March 4. Why didn’t you file a DMCA takedown notice then?

        Liked by 5 people

    1. I guess we’re all trying to figure out the line of thinking behind the nonsense claim towards you, but there’s really none except that he just felt like attacking you. This must be very tiring. Especially when File 770 was trying to be fair and promote/announce all the nominees, not just some.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Interestingly it turns out you can search for DCMA notices:

    https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1VXk4vaju-OL-11kEZiYjybW7dX1cNDfS%2Fview&sort_by=

    I don’t think that actually adds any information but you can Fox made several.

    I’m wondering how the pdf actually made it to gdrive. Fox’s story(s) are inconsistent, but at the moment the most likely explanation seems that he provided it for upload by email or whatever, someone at SFWA did as he asked, but Fox didn’t actually realise he was volunteering to provide it publicly. (Or he did and he’s pretending ignorance to make hay here; either way he’s been fully informed of what the nature of the SWFA links were by now and is definitely just pretending ignorance now)

    Liked by 4 people

      1. Mark: I think there might be a bit of pedantic misdirection here, in that whilst Cam’s original post was on February 27th, the comments about taking down the PDF link weren’t posted until March 2nd and 3rd.

        Like

      2. Just because JJ replied to me didn’t mean I saw it. After you removed the pirated file I shut off new post alerts. Did I reply to JJ? No. No I did not.

        Nice try.

        Like

      3. “removed the pirated file”

        Richard, are you aware that links and files aren’t the same thing? That removing a link on one website doesn’t remove a file held on another?

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Mike Glyer: The timestamps I’m seeing here for those comments are:

        https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2019/02/27/next-few-days-are-nebula-shorts-days/#comment-32921 : “Richard Fox Mar 2, 2019 at 6:07 am”

        https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2019/02/27/next-few-days-are-nebula-shorts-days/#comment-32930 : “camestrosfelapton Mar 2, 2019 at 6:43 am”

        https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2019/02/27/next-few-days-are-nebula-shorts-days/#comment-32968 : “JJ Mar 2, 2019 at 10:46 am”

        I’m in UK timezone (BST), so I dunno if WordPress is converting the times to my local clock – although even then, March 2nd surely shouldn’t get translated to anything earlier than March 1st anywhere else on the planet?

        Like

      5. No, but if you bitch about supposedly pirated files and then don’t come back to read the replies to your post, which explain exactly where the file came from, it is your fault that you didn’t stop this alleged piracy any sooner.

        Liked by 5 people

      6. I stopped the piracy as soon as I was aware of it. JJ thinks he’s an internet sleuth, he could have contacted me with that information when he saw I didn’t respond.

        Like

      7. Pirate-Richard has been sinking his own ships since he started to comment here. Nor surprise that he seems determined to also walk the plank. I guess he’ll try to keelhaul himself next time.

        Ahoy, ye scallywags!

        Liked by 9 people

      8. Nobody here is your minder, Richard. You knew about the file and decided to do bollock all about it. It’s on you, not anyone else.

        Liked by 4 people

      9. What? You knew about the file, Richard. You commented here back in March asking Camestros not to link to it. That you chose not to follow up on it is *entirely* on you. Stop pretending that it’s someone else’s fault that you chose not to do anything else.

        Liked by 4 people

      1. The link that generated that metadata was this one: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VXk4vaju-OL-11kEZiYjybW7dX1cNDfS/view I didn’t screenshot it. Someone I am acquainted with was gleefully posting “don’t read this pirate copy because Richard Fox will hate it.” Because I really don’t like unauthorized copies I checked who was sharing it thinking I could maybe point out the issue to you. Then I saw that it *was* you (or had your name), so I assumed you were probably trying to gin up some controversy to get better notice. The original link is still in the place it was sent to me.

        Anyway, that’s the same link as what’s posted both here and at File770.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. @Philp Weiss If you don’t have a screen shot showing the metadata, or something else showing which file that’s from, then thanks for playing.

      And I wouldn’t brag about being a thief. Not a good look.

      Like

  8. @Philp Weiss If you don’t have a screen shot showing the metadata, or something else showing which file that’s from, then thanks for playing.

    And I wouldn’t brag about being a thief. Not a good look.

    Like

  9. This is painful. If he didn’t want the file public, all he had to do was take down his own file. Then the links wouldn’t work. I don’t understand why he is calling this piracy when he put it up himself.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. When I saw that he was arguing here I thought, “Well, this will be entertaining.” But, it isn’t.

      It’s like that saying, “When you are dead, you won’t even know that you are dead. It is a pain felt only by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.”

      Even the quora article he linked to said that a link to another site that isn’t under your control hosting pirated material only makes one secondarily liable under limited circumstances.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I disbelieve in that exchange and would like to see evidence for it – a request/demand from you to anyone at Google Drive, and a response, automated or personal.

        Like

      2. He’s posted a link to a screenshot, Bruce — but of course, there’s no indication on it that the DMCA request was on files he had uploaded himself. And of course, he waited 6 months to do so.

        Like

      3. “He’s posted a link to a screenshot, Bruce — ”

        I think he only posted a screenshot of the response to his demand to Mike’s ISP, not of his take-down request to Google.

        Like

      4. @Contrarius

        I think he only posted a screenshot of the response to his demand to Mike’s ISP, not of his take-down request to Google.

        The one to Google was on his own post (see Cam’s web archive link above), not here.

        Like

  10. I think SFWA members can see who recommended a work for the public Nebula Reading List. If so, then maybe a SFWA member would be able to tell who this dastardly pirate was. But maybe not since the Nebula Reading list page for the story now only has a link to the private area of the SFWA forums. Not only are the former links to the Google Drive document gone, but also the link to the Amazon product page to buy the anthology the story appeared in.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. @richardrfox

    Next time you want to share something that you even suspect has a copyright, ask the author or publisher before you share. Don’t assume. It’s the bare minimum of professional behavior that I doubt you can ever reach.

    Since the source of the link was a SFWA page where only a SFWA member could post it, I don’t think it’s a stretch for anyone to believe that was a link to a legitimate copy. You’d think your fellow SFWA member would have known better since one of the main points of the organization is protecting author rights.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. @Laura —

      “Since the source of the link was a SFWA page where only a SFWA member could post it,”

      Yeah, I can’t imagine that the SFWA is too happy that Richard is going all around the internet accusing the SFWA of piracy, even if Richard himself isn’t smart enough to realize what he’s doing.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Well, they have a disclaimer which says, “Links are added by members and not endorsed by SFWA.” But that does explicitly tell us that the links had to be provided by a SFWA member. One assumes they wouldn’t betray a fellow member of their professional writers’ association by linking to a pirated work.

        Liked by 5 people

      1. False. The source was Google drive.

        Incorrect. The host was Google drive. In fact, the only entity to host any of the files at issue here was in fact, Google drive. This is Internet 101 stuff, but you seem to need to have this explained to you: Links do not equal hosting. No one else – not SFWA, not Glyer, and not Cam, has hosted any files that contain your work.

        And, as you have said repeatedly, the person who linked the story on the SFWA site was you. You may have thought you were posting it in a private forum, but you weren’t. You posted it to the SFWA reading list, which is, and always has been, public.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Because you said you posted i to the SFWA site. You keep thinking that this means that it wasn’t public, but the problem is that you’re simply wrong on that point. By posting the link to the SFWA site, you made the link public, whether you thought you were doing so or not.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. I said I posted it to the SFWA internal password protected site. Not the public facing site. I’ve said this repeatedly. Stop lying. Are you in SFWA and have a detailed knowledge of the site?

        Like

      4. Well, we all saw it on the PUBLIC site. Unless you are going to claim that I or Mike hacked the SFWA forums and put it there (with you ignoring it all this time) then all your claims of piracy and theft are incorrect. The only open question is the extent to which you are confused versus the extent to which you are lying.

        Liked by 5 people

      5. richardfox: You shared work that wasn’t yours, thief.

        He didn’t share your work. He never had the file stored on his site, no one downloaded the file from his site, and he didn’t e-mail the file to anyone.

        He posted a public link. That’s perfectly legal, and not stealing anything.

        You really need to take some remedial language courses so you can improve your understanding of what common English language words mean.

        Liked by 6 people

      6. @Richard —

        “You shared work that wasn’t yours, thief.”

        You know, repeating a lie over and over will never make that lie magically become true. It isn’t like chanting “Bloody Mary” into a mirror. 😉

        Yet again — nobody was “sharing” that file except for possibly Google Drive. Please oh PLEASE at least try to learn a little terminology before you dig that hole even deeper. You’re already in WAY over your head.

        I allllllllmost wish you *would* file that lawsuit, just so we could all watch you get laughed out of court…..

        Liked by 5 people

      7. Richard, I’ve been to bed, had a good sleep, got up, showered, had breakfast…. and you’re still stuck in the same spot.

        Your view on the legality of sharing a link to a third parties file is apparently based on a quora link that doesn’t even particularly support your view.
        On the other hand, there is at least one actual, proper, qualified, real lawyer in this discussion telling you you’re wrong.
        (That’s not me, btw, I just know how to read more than one link)

        Look, the process by which your file became publicly accessible occurred on the SFWA site, by actions performed by SFWA members. (Which may well have been you, but I’m inexplicably still looking at this from a benefit of the doubt position). None of the people you’re blaming are SWFA members – they cannot be the source of your troubles!
        Everyone else involved simply believed the file was made available legitimately because it was made available from a legitimate site on which authors routinely make works available for award consideration. That’s the whole point of the list! To promote works!
        And then you start accusing people of being pirates, because you don’t understand the difference between a file and a link, you don’t explain why you think the file shouldn’t be out in public, you repeatedly miss great big clues to where the file comes from, you insult everyone in site, you change your story around….is it any wonder that people stop listening to you and just tell you to go deal with it properly?
        Here’s an alt-history version.
        “Hi, I shared that copy of Going Dark to SFWA members only, I don’t know it ended up public facing but I have an anthology sale and need to make sure it’s not publicly available. Can you remove the link and let me know where you found it?”
        Or maybe
        “Huh, someone recced Going Dark on the SFWA list, oh dear they’ve linked to a copy and I need it private only because of that anthology sale, guess I’d better email someone at SFWA and ask them to remove the link”
        Or whatabout
        “Oh, there’s a copy of Going Dark on Google drive, if I use DCMA to get rid of it at the source then it doesn’t matter who’s shared the link, that’ll solve the problem”

        I mean, you’ve managed to do this in the least efficient, noisiest, most unpleasant way possible. There’s a plausible theory that you’re doing all this to gin up publicity via outrage, and frankly the facts strongly support that.

        Liked by 8 people

      8. By the way. Some terms you are using in your posts are blocked and send your post to the spam filter where I’d have to fish them out and edit them. You my get your point made quicker with fewer embellishments

        Liked by 6 people

      9. I said I posted it to the SFWA internal password protected site. Not the public facing site.

        There are two things here that you don’t seem to understand. First, it doesn’t matter if it is a password protected site, it is still a public link, and the link itself was not protected in any way, which is why it was available. You keep assuming that this is a big deal, but legally it simply isn’t.

        You uploaded the story, and then you linked to it. The link was not protected. That’s a public link. That’s available for anyone to link to. That’s how the law works.

        Liked by 6 people

      10. The file was only ever hosted on Google Drive. But the link to that file was originally posted by a SFWA member on the public Nebula Reading list. Then other people copied the link (and only the link, not the file itself) to other websites. Since there were four links on the SFWA page to the story on Google Drive, it seems like four of your fellow SFWA members thought it was fine to include a link to the story when they added their recommendation for it to the Nebula Reading list.

        Liked by 2 people

      11. Laura: Since there were four links on the SFWA page to the story on Google Drive, it seems like four of your fellow SFWA members thought it was fine to include a link to the story when they added their recommendation for it to the Nebula Reading list.

        The different links were to different versions of the story: PDF, EPUB, MOBI. Which makes it especially likely that they were uploaded by either the author, the editor, or the publisher.

        Liked by 2 people

      12. It was definitely Fox. He stated earlier: “I have repeatedly said I put the files on the password protected side of the SFWA page.” note the plural. It’s maybe not clear who put the links on the promotional page but original files were from Richard Fox. He sort of sounds like he’s denying that because he’s either confused by the terminology or he’s trying to be confusing (or both) but I think he has basically conceded that the original files were given to the SFWA by him.

        Like

      13. Well, if you make the assumption that Fox is basically internet-illiterate and
        1) does not understand what hyperlinks are and how they work,
        2) does not understand how SFWA’s recommendation list works, or the way that submitting and linking stories is handled, and
        3) does not understand how Audfan works,
        then all of his contradictory statements are understandable, in a really bizarre sort of way.

        I’m just flabbergasted that someone could be a self-published author, have their own blog, and post comments on other peoples’ websites, without first bothering to educate themselves on how the internet works. Also, it’s not as if any of this is rocket science, even children can understand how the internet works.

        It really beggars belief.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. I feel bad for all these Baby Boomers who have no understanding of how the Internet works, or how IP works within it. I wish younger, presumably more savvy peers of theirs (like Larry “The Toilet-mouthed Mormon” Correia) would set them straight and help them not embarrass themselves, rather than egg them on. Sure, Correia gets a feather in his cap for railing against the fearsome SJWs, but it seems cruel to make a fool of a hapless dotard like Fox just to score a point.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Fox’s online bio says he graduated from West Point in 2001, which means he was probably born around 1980, which would make in Gen Y… and I know that at least three of us who have commented that he a link is not the same as file sharing are actually Boomers, so you can’t blame Fox’s misunderstanding on that.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I dunno, I have a hard time, reading his arguments, believing he’s anything less than an 18th Century ghost who’s read up on early- to mid-20th Century copyright law. And for the amount of effort it must have taken him to figure out how to file a DMCA complaint, I only have respect. Of course, if he’s actually corporeal, he should be embarrassed and immediately issue apologies all around. .

        As for Correia… bless his profane, dumb-ass heart.

        Liked by 7 people

    2. > I feel bad for all these Baby Boomers who have no understanding of how the Internet works, or how IP works within it. I wish younger, presumably more savvy peers of theirs (like Larry “The Toilet-mouthed Mormon” Correia) would set them straight and help them not embarrass themselves, rather than egg them on

      I notice that SFWA has a 10-person “Copyright Committee” listed on their site: https://www.sfwa.org/member-links/committees/ Does anyone know if part of their remit is educating and/or advising SFWA members on this sort of thing?

      In particular, I note that Cory Doctorow is listed as an “advisor” to this committee. Buried elsewhere in these comments – posted a few hours ago whilst I was asleep, I think – Richard Fox requested:

      > If you know of a court case that exonerates those ____ share it. Because your ‘nah-ah’ grasp of copyright law is tiresome.

      Such a case might be “Playboy Entertainment Group vs Happy Mutants”, where a blog (Boing Boing) won [*] a case where the plaintiff had filed suit against them for posting links to content hosted on another site. [* – IANAL, but my understanding is that the original complaint was dismissed, but the judge offered the plaintiff the chance to come back with more evidence to come back with more evidence to support their claim, which they failed to do. This would seem to count as a “win” to my mind].

      https://www.eff.org/cases/playboy-entertainment-group-v-happy-mutants

      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/playboy-drops-misguided-copyright-case-against-boing-boing

      As I’m sure many know, Cory Doctorow is – or perhaps was? – one of the editors of Boing Boing, and has also been a coordinator and fellow in the EFF, who were also involved in this case. My guess is that perhaps he has a different opinion on the legality of linking compared to some ambiguously worded (“yes and no”) post on Quora.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. John, you’ve reminded me of why Doctorow is on that committee: he gave the SFWA a very public haranguing about their misuse of the DCMA on behalf of some authors estates, which led to a kerfuffle, the then-VP who supported the use lost an election for president that partly turned into a referendum on the issue, they had to reform their stance on copyright and the DCMA, and various other bits I’m probably forgetting.
        Short version: yes, SFWA is very aware of DCMA use and abuse and would no doubt have been able to advise Fox properly had he asked questions rather than going off the deep end.

        Liked by 8 people

  13. Wow, catching up on the ravings here. This is getting more ridiculous.

    1) Someone put the file containing the story up on Google Drive as a public document, presumably downloaded from the SFWA forums where Fox had uploaded the original file. Because Fox may have also placed links to the story for the SFWA PUBLIC reading list of the nominees, members of SFWA would have assumed that the author had authorized the story being seen in public. Although there seems to be some confusion as to whether Fox himself put the story up on Google Drive.

    2) Assuming it wasn’t Fox, the person who put the file containing the story up on Google Drive was not selling the file/story and attempting to make money off of it, nor was claiming the story as their own, so it wasn’t a deliberately pirated file. (Nor is Google Drive a piracy torrent site.) Presumably the person who did it did so in good faith that the story was being offered publicly for Nebula consideration and was trying to help Fox in that capacity, not understanding that the story was not meant for public viewing because Fox had — accidentally? — put it in the SFWA public rec reading list and the link to the file on Google Drive was also listed as the file for SFWA members to connect to. While I guess there’s a chance it might have been a deliberate appropriation of the file to Google Drive, it seems more likely that it was done accidentally due to the confusion with the SFWA site and whether the story was to be publicly viewed or not.

    3) Upon having learned of the existence of the file, it was the job of Fox and his anthology publisher as the copyright holders to contact Google Drive and have them remove the file as the hosting site. Once this was done, no link to the file would then work, including the link of the SFWA Nebula rec list.

    4) Fox seems to be accusing Camestros and/or Mike/J.J. of having been the person who put the file containing the story on Google Drive. There is no evidence of this, nor would they have any reason to do so. You can’t simply go around accusing random people of placing the file on Google Drive unless you have evidence that they did so.

    5) Fox also keeps accusing Camestros and File 770 of distributing the file that was placed on Google Drive. To DISTRIBUTE the file, they would have had to have downloaded the file from Google Drive and then either placed the file on their websites, creating a public distribution from their sites, or distributed the file directly to other people through email or some other transfer attachment of the file. Neither of them did this. Distribute has in this case a specific legal meaning; you can’t just claim people are distributing a file when they are not doing so.

    6) Fox keeps accusing Camestros and File 770 of “facilitating” piracy by offering a link to the file on Google Drive, along with links to other nominees’ works as part of their coverage of the Nebula award finalists, because he claims that the file on Google Drive was unauthorized and not part of the SFWA list. But there was no way for Camestros and File 770 to KNOW that the file was unauthorized, since they got the link from the SFWA rec list, which would appear to be an authorized public link. And there was not a clear way for SFWA also to know that the link in their rec list was to an unauthorized file unless Fox told them it was. Everybody who shared the link to the file did so because they thought the file was authorized to be there and they were promoting all the Nebula nominees. It is not unusual for authors and the magazines or anthologies in which their short fiction is originally published to make the nominated work available for free during the award season — attracting readers to the authors’ other works, and to the magazines and anthologies that published the nominated works. So they didn’t know that Fox was not doing this.

    That is not facilitating piracy. If you offer a link to a file on torrent site that you know has been pirated, yes that is facilitating piracy, but that was not the situation here. Everybody thought it was part of the public SFWA rec list and therefore okay to use — and that it was helping Fox as a Nebula nominee. No one was trying to appropriate the story and sell it or encourage others to do so.

    7) Having taken down the file from Google Drive, Fox didn’t really have to worry about any links that had been passed around for the file since none of them would work any longer. But in the process of doing that, letting people know that the link they had offered was to an unauthorized file and he’d like them to remove it from their sites, most particularly the SFWA site, was certainly a logical thing to do. Except that instead of simply informing sites that the link was to an unauthorized file, Fox told them they were pirates and thieves for having the links and tried to do takedown notices for links, which is not how takedown notices actually work. You have takedown notices for content, such as the file, not links. You can’t sue someone over posting a link to something that they think is authorized as a public file, which anyone listing the link from SFWA’s site would think that it was, and which the SFWA site thought it was.

    8) So essentially Fox is screaming at SFWA and other sites for not magically, telepathically knowing that the file on Google Drive was unauthorized and not supposed to be publicly available to promote the story as a Nebula nominee. He’s declaring infringement through link, which is not a thing, because he messed up things with the SFWA site and the link to the file was on the public rec list, which led people to believe the file was authorized and fine to link to.

    Now certainly the person who put the file up on Google Drive might owe Fox an apology, though it seems to simply have been a confused mistake due to how Fox set things up for his story on the SFWA site. But those who got the link to the file from SFWA and posted it in good faith as part of coverage of the Nebulas do not owe an apology and are not, in any sense of the word, thieves or pirates. People who read the file to be able to consider the story or judge it as a Nebula nominee didn’t pirate either — they didn’t know the file was unauthorized. It seemed to be official, on the SFWA site, and the SFWA site did not know that it wasn’t either.

    Infringement is a specific, legal thing. This was not infringement. It was a series of accidents and a lot of people being totally unaware of there being a problem with authorization at all. You can’t hold people responsible for something they didn’t even know was happening and you can’t expect them to react well when you accuse them of theft for posting what they thought was an official link to an official file.

    And more to the point, this is again not how you promote your work to the core SFF fan audience. Many fan websites like Camestros’ blog and File 770 cover things like the Nebula and Hugo nominees, and that gets the word out about those works and authors to other fans. It’s free promotion. Calling them thieves for doing that means that they and other fan websites are never going to mention your work again. This does not seem like a brilliant marketing plan. Especially when it was Fox’s mess up with the SFWA site that started everything off.

    A file with the story appeared to be authorized but was not. It’s unfortunate and now corrected, but people who didn’t know it was not authorized can’t be blamed for its existence or mentioning its existence. And trying to abuse the legal system to attack folks who had actually nothing to do with the problem seems a pretty pointless effort to me.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Very cogent summary – not that it will do Fox any good.
      This whole thread has been the most amazing train wreck. And not any ordinary train. No, this is one of those mile-long coal trains you see in the western US, slowly toppling off the tracks as car after car is dragged past the tipping point by the one in front of it and spills.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Thanks, but it’s doubtful that Fox will read all of it. Shorter version: Everyone who used and shared the link, including Camestros and File 770, thought it was an official public link from the SFWA site to an authorized file of the story. You can’t call them pirates for not knowing that it wasn’t that, and the takedown notices on links to the file were legally pointless and a waste of everyone’s time.

        It’s also bizarre because again the main purpose of the 20to50 anthologies seems to have been to promote the authors’ longer works and attract them new readers, rather than to make profits from it. That’s why the short stories are set in the universes of their novel series. When one of the stories in the anthology gets a Nebula nom, the usual strategy is to make that story as widely available for free as possible, which then drives new readers to the anthology itself and the other authors in it and to the longer works of the author of the nominated story, which is where the cash is.

        If Fox wants to do a different strategy where it’s a narrower audience and only a paying audience for the short story, that’s certainly his right. But he can’t get angry at people for not knowing that he wasn’t doing the traditional marketing strategy with the short story. We are not mind readers.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. Gotta ask, beyond tone policing, why not just remove the link, in full knowledge that you’re helping out an author who rightfully wants to get paid properly?
      All this brouhaha, and it could have been solved with a ‘Sir, I didn’t host that, but I did post the link to whoever did. Wicked sorry, I didn’t know. I deleted the link.”
      Kinda rotten of you, and Mike too.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is what both I and Mike Glyer did. Fox continued to be abusive to Mike claiming he was stealing from him, Mike called his bluff. Cutting through the assorted crap, Fox was clearly just looking for ways to annoy Mike and Mike decided to stand up to his bullying.

        Liked by 5 people

    3. The google drive files were not placed by the author – it was created by a 3rd party with files gained from the PRIVATE files shared at the SFWA group. Now copyright infringement has been determined to be even POINTING to the file with a link or torrent, but generally is just handled with a DMCA takedown request. Now with THIS site the link was removed so piracy is not the intent as they followed the law and removed the link, now with China Mike, he initially removed the link but then he REPOSTED the link which then shows intent, which is then under USA, and EU laws piracy of copyright materials.

      For #4 he simple felt that they were facilitating access to the infringing media and has said as much repeatedly.

      For #6 Since ____ DID repost the link after he filed a complaint shows intent. He was legally required to remove the link following the DMCA copyright infringement claim. Then when he reposted the content knowing of the claim is intent. Which makes this piracy because the takedown request proves that by reposting the links he was directly contributing to the direct copyright infringement of another.

      I work with these requests a fair amount because my company repair manuals are tossed online more than we like. The original copyright infringement was handled by filing a claim on both this site and __\\ this site followed the law and removed the link. Which determined piracy was not the intent so it would be very hard to get thru court as merely posting a link to copyrighted material is not direct infringement of the copyright in that content, so long as it does not contribute to the direct copyright infringement of another.

      Now that —/ added the link again he then goes from a minor copyright infringement claim to piracy – because he knowingly and willfully committed the action of adding the content back. And if the author wants to, can file a legal claim for exactly this reason. Frankly he should too. This site followed the law, being dickish about it isnt a crime, just in bad taste.

      Like

      1. maciver: The google drive files were not placed by the author – it was created by a 3rd party with files gained from the PRIVATE files shared at the SFWA group.

        So you’re saying that SFWA, by having links on their page to EPUB, MOBI, and PDF versions of Fox’s story, was engaging in piracy.

        Good to know. I’m sure that SFWA will be wanting to hear from you about that.

         
        maciver: Since ____ DID repost the link after he filed a complaint shows intent. He was legally required to remove the link following the DMCA copyright infringement claim. Then when he reposted the content knowing of the claim is intent. Which makes this piracy because the takedown request proves that by reposting the links he was directly contributing to the direct copyright infringement of another.

        At the time that the post with the link was made live again, the file to which it linked was long gone. Oops. No piracy.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Firstly, if you want to be treated seriously and get a comment posted you’ll need to drop the juvenile nicknames for people- they only make you look silly (& not in a good way)
        Secondly, the author has stated that he shared the files with the SFWA. Thirdly he was aware of the google Drive files at least by March (assuming he didn’t put them there himself) and was aware they were publicly available and where they were from having been told that here. He consented to leaving those files in place knowing that they were publicly available. Only *after* he accused File 770 of piracy did he make any moves to change the publicly available promotional material. There is zero evidence that any of these files were pirated and linking to them cannot have been piracy.
        Fox was well within his rights to withdraw those files from public availability but until he did so, he cannot claim any link to them was piracy.

        Like

      3. Totally untrue. Caselaw, including a Ninth Circuit decision, says that posting a link to content is not the same as hosting the content — ergo, not piracy.

        And it’s actually Fox who could be subject for damages under 17 U.S. 512(f) for his knowing misrepresentation that the link was infringing his copyright.

        Liked by 4 people

      4. Well it at least we can see what the consensus argument from Larry et al is now: Fox clueless provided files on the previous care forum, magically (& unnoticed by Fox) these appeared on google drive and the Nebula Reading list, something something, PIRACY!

        Let me take these supposed legal principles for a spin.
        1. Larry Correia’s friend made an Archive copy of a File 770 post
        2. He did this without the consent of the copyright owner (yourself)
        3. Larry has a link on his post to the non-approved copy
        4. By Larry logic Larry is a pirate and a copyright thief!

        The only difference is that this version of the argument actually does include an unauthorised copy.

        Like

  14. Richard Fox, did you use Gmail to send the document to the SFWA? It will automaticity convert large attachments to Google Drive documents, and send a link instead of the full document. So it is possible that you thought you sent a copy, the SFWA saw a link to a public document and so assumed it was public.

    This would explain why the Google Drive link was under an account called “Richard Fox”. But it would mean you have been sending DMCA take-down notices to yourself.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Tobias
      I like that explanation a lot. It explains all the data without having to resort to claiming the man just lied about hosting his own story. It also explains why he thought someone was pirating his story even though no one actually was. In this case, I’d say it’s actually Google who is to blame.

      I can understand how an author could be upset if he thought someone was stealing his story. He was sure he didn’t host his story on Google Drive.

      The only remaining question is who stuck that link on the story when it was added to the SFWA recommended reading list. My guess is it was someone who read it, liked it, and thought they were doing him a favor.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Richard Fox’ emails to me came from a gmail account, for what that’s worth.

        However, I didn’t feel I had to keep reading his abuse and blocked him back in August, so I haven’t seen any more lately.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Currently, my only reason for thinking that the google drive thing was unintended by Fox is his apparent complete lack of understanding of anything to do with the internet. Even assuming a lot of what he is saying are lies, if he understood technology a tiny bit better he’d be telling better lies.

        Liked by 6 people

      3. “Even assuming a lot of what he is saying are lies, if he understood technology a tiny bit better he’d be telling better lies.”

        So much this.

        Every lie he attempts just reveals how little knowledge he’s working with.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Maybe but the simpler answer is Fox was being an arse. He only took interest in the File 770 link when Correia was on a Mike-Hate bender and it was clearly his attempt to get cookies from Larry and JDA.

        Liked by 4 people

      5. Given that he doesn’t realize that Audfile currently has an audible version of his story available for free to anyone (and not just to Audfile members), the notion that he doesn’t understand how Gmail or Google drive works is not too much of a stretch.

        Like

  15. Wow, I missed a lot by only following things at File 770. Caught up now.

    Having issued many copyright infringment notices of my own in the last year, because of use of my photography, there is a difference:

    Linking to a photo of mine on the internet. NOT pirating.

    Taking my image without my permission, hosting on your own server and defacing it: Pirating.

    Liked by 8 people

  16. Well, one thing’s for sure. Even though I like the genre the story is in, Fox’s behaviour here has pretty much killed my interest in his work. I try to keep my perspective on the author separate from the work itself, but harassment and bullying behaviour kind of overflow the buffer between the two for me.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. It’s hard to say which was the bigger self-inflicted wound on the part of the Puppies: exposing people to their fiction, or to their personalities.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. The worst thing that can happen to the Pups’ reputations is that people will read their work. The second worst thing that can happen to their reputations is that people will interact with them.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. I agree with you (for the most part) about the quality of the Puppies’ work, but the interactions I’ve had with them privately have been decent–particularly face-to-face. Disagreeing with them in public forums can be discouraging, but, hey, that’s true on File770 too.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. Richard, if you’re still reading: I’m sorry, man. Linking to a public SFWA page is not piracy. Mike and Camestros have not hosted your story.

    You might suggest to SFWA that they tell authors more explicitly when they’re publishing something to a public page; you could even ask them about the copyright issues (that’s one of the things SFWA is there for!) but they’re not going to tell you anything different.

    I’d add that even if everybody removes all the links to the Google docs file, if the Google docs file itself is still publicly accessible people can still download the file. It’s just harder to get to, and anybody who bookmarked the link can still get to it pretty easily.

    I’d almost admire your tenacity if you weren’t so clearly in the wrong here. Please read the EFF link on the Boing Boing lawsuit that John S put up; it’s directly applicable here.

    Liked by 6 people

  18. I just love the bit where every time somebody asks Richard Fox, “Richard, are you accusing the SFWA of piracy?”, he blithely refuses to answer as if it’s going to go away.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. You people really are despicable. You’re doing flips and spins trying to convince yourselves that pirating is okay in this situation. Disgusting.

    Like

    1. Jo: You people really are despicable. You’re doing flips and spins trying to convince yourselves that pirating is okay in this situation. Disgusting.

      You obviously haven’t bothered to read the entire thing, so I’ll give you a TL:DR;

      No piracy occurred.

      Richard Fox has been screaming about files which he submitted to SFWA for uploading himself. He issued DMCA takedown notices to himself.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. Well, we’ve never before encountered an author who says a story of his posted on an award advocacy page was pirated. It takes some getting used to.

      Liked by 9 people

    3. Actually we’re “doing flips and spins” trying to conceive of how someone could possibly misunderstand the way the internet works to this extent. It’s really baffling.

      Liked by 3 people

  20. The funny thing about them making this a culture war battle is that they are attacking actions that were attempted to help Fox as a Nebula nominee, not attack his work. The SFWA was promoting the story, as they thought the author wanted and apparently accidentally set up himself, as a Nebula nominee. File 770 was promoting for free the link to the story along with links to the other Nebula nominees. Camestros was going over and promoting the link to the stories of all the short story Nebula nominees, including Fox’s story, which was again free publicity, even if Camestros didn’t love Fox’s story.

    Can you imagine if File 770 had promoted and offered what they thought were official links to all the Nebula nominees for short fiction except for Fox’s story? If they had excluded it as the only nominee they didn’t cover, despite what seemed to be an official link on the SFWA site? Fox and co. would have screamed bloody murder at being left out, claimed that File 770 was discriminating against him by not putting his story and a link to it in the piece as a Nebula nominee along with all the others.

    What if Camestros had presented and reviewed all of the short story nominees except for Fox’s story? Again, Fox and his friends would have railed against the evil SJWs deliberately ignoring his work and discriminating against it even though he was a Nebula nominee too. That would have perhaps been a logical culture war battle — an argument that even though Fox is a far right author, he was a Nebula nominee and should be treated the same as the rest.

    But because he was a Nebula nominee, they DID treat him the same as the rest of the nominees and promoted him for free and let people know what they thought was an official link to his story to draw attention to his writing. And in return he’s now much after the fact threatening a few of them with invalid lawsuits for promoting his work for him. It’s bizarre.

    There was no piracy because no one except Fox knew the Google file with the story wasn’t authorized and that the link on the SFWA public list wasn’t official. They were just promoting and getting out the news about all the Nebula nominees. But now, if a Puppy or other known far right author manages to get a nomination for a major award, even the Dragon Awards, websites that cover the nominations probably will not treat those works the same as the other award nominees, won’t promote them for free, won’t encourage readers to check them out with links or anything else. Because they’ve ignorantly threatened people with unworkable legal action for helping them. Even if it’s just saying, here’s the story nominated and it’s in this anthology — I wouldn’t be surprised if some sites don’t even list nominated far right authors who threaten people mentioning them with lawsuits. They’ve been complaining for the last years that they are being excluded. Now they’re demanding to be excluded. A lot of people are going to try to oblige them on that.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Kat Goodwin: I wouldn’t be surprised if some sites don’t even list nominated far right authors who threaten people mentioning them with lawsuits.

      Oh, yes. I linked to Fox’s story on my Where to Find the Nebula Finalists Online post only out of an innate sense of fairness.

      Assuming the unlikely occurrence that it’s ever an issue again, I won’t be making the same mistake.

      Liked by 5 people

  21. Not that anyone with the possible exception of Richard himself really needs this fansplained at this point, but here goes:

    – Richard uploaded his story to Google Drive, created a link to share, and posted this link to the private SFWA forum.

    – A SFWA member added a recommendation for the story to the public Nebula Reading List and included a link to the story on Google Drive. This is the only person whom Richard should have any gripe with. But they probably didn’t realize they were making the link public, and they were recommending his story for a Nebula. So maybe cut them a bit of slack.

    – People finding the link on the public Nebula Reading List have every reason to expect that this has been intentionally shared with the knowledge of the legitimate rights holder(s).

    – Whenever Richard discovered there were publicly available links to his story on Google Drive, his next step should have been to turn off file sharing and remove his own file from Google Drive. This should have broken all available links both public and private. No need for DMCA take down orders.

    – If this was still during the time when Richard wanted the story available to SFWA members, he could re-upload the story to Google Drive, create a new link (all old links would remain broken), and put that in the private SFWA forum.

    – In the unlikely event that any of the public links to the story remained active, then he could contact Google about having the file removed.

    – However, this would mean that a SFWA member copied Richard’s story to Google Drive themselves, created a link to share, and posted this link to the public Nebula Reading List. This would have been piracy. I find it hard to imagine that a SFWA member would manage this and be ignorant that it was the wrong thing to do. Or do it intentionally to their fellow SFWA member.

    TL;DR: Richard Fox never needed to issue any DMCA take down notices because the file that all of the links pointed to was completely in his power to remove or leave in place at all times.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. After reading Mike’s latest File770 post on this, I’m pretty convinced it was Fox himself who put the links to his story on the public Nebula Reading List. Since SFWA had the same link that got Mike a DMCA take down notice on their own page for “Going Dark” as a Nebula finalist, I imagine they must have believed that the links were intentionally made publicly available by the author himself. He only thought the Nebula Reading List was part of the private SFWA forum since you need to be logged into that forum to post on the list. So, yup, the only person he has any legitimate gripe with is himself.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Cam,
    Your original story still contains errors.

    See quote below:
    “Even if we give Fox the most generous assumptions about his honesty (but less generous assumptions about his acumen) he was aware February 27 2019 of the public link AND he misrepresented it as piracy.”

    Fox has said repeatedly in the comments that he was unaware that it was still available publicly until recently.
    Just because you sent something to a forum in March does not mean he read it.

    Now, Fox could be lying of course. Maybe he did read it. But you are saying that he admits he knew on Feb 27, which he does not….

    To be honest …. you and Glyer and Fox all sound like idiots to me. Going on and on and not listening to what the other side is saying.

    Don

    Like

    1. He was aware of the public link – he’s claiming he didn’t understand its significance but the he was aware of it regardless and it was a public link regardless. I’m not obligated to believe that he thought that I was hosting on my blog a PDF on a URL to Google Drive.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Not to mention that “he wasn’t aware of X because he hadn’t yet read your message where you called it to his attention again” is a ridiculous way to look at it, when X is something that this person is very upset about – to the point of threatening legal action – and could therefore reasonably be expected to do some basic follow-up to see the current status of X before continuing his rants and threats. It wasn’t the job of anyone on File770 to make sure Fox did this basic due diligence. They were doing the equivalent of saying “Richard, remember how you mentioned your shoe is on fire? it looks like it is still on fire” – a helpful gesture but not something he can reasonably blame them for not making sure he heard.

        Liked by 5 people

  23. Wasn’t there a Puppy who talked about a plan of his to pirate his own book (selling e-copies from his own website, cutting his publisher out of the loop (for reasons!)). If I recall correctly, it was the guy who wanted to punch an Alzheimer’s sufferer.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. @Tiny: I believe you are thinking of John C. Wright, who was, at that time, published by Tor. I believe he did post his novel free to download so as to, um, pwn his own publisher, maybe? It was rather unclear, even at the time. And, yes, he wanted to punch Terry Pratchett.

    I would like to say that i have never seen anyone dig a hole to China more expeditiously than Fox. It was quite the thing, i tell you what.

    I am also reminded that, many years ago, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wished that the Usenet Newsreaders would pop up a dialog button which read, “You have just used the word copyright. You are about to post this to the entire world. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?”

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.