See if you can decode the following acronym-heavy statement:

The SFWA has been accused of abusing the DMCA in order to remove infringing work on Scribd, including CC-licensed work.

The non-turbodork translation is this: The Science Fiction Writers of America association is catching loads of crap for using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to force the website Scribd to remove any pieces containing references to Isaac Asimov or Robert Siverburg, with the assumption that those pieces were unauthorized online reproductions of those authors' works.

However, as any sci fi author worth their autographed copy of Bio of a Space Tyrant: Vol. 2 Mercenary will tell you, problems arose in the form of unchecked automation. Any reference to Asimov or Silverbug got your work pulled, even if was legitimate, original work that just happened to mention either author, including Creative Commons-licensed work like that of one very pissed off Cory Doctorow.

I'm fascinated by the constantly shifting balance between copyright and exposure. Some writer friends are firm believers in throwing everything online for all to see in order to spread the gospel. Some are adamantly pay-to-play. Personally, I'm more in the latter camp, but not for the pseudo-financial reasons. It's more about barriers to entry for me. If I can write something compelling enough to convince an editor (not an infallible being, I understand) to print my work in their limited space, that they believe this story "good enough" to convince their readers to put some effort (i.e., money) into reading it, I feel like I've accomplished something. I could publish every word I've ever written online right now (ok, later tonight), but I'd feel a hollow kind of joy in that.

I do truly believe that the writing is the thing, the story is the accomplishment; publication and readership are simply the reactions. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't get real pride from having others read this thing I love so much and hearing them say, "That doesn't suck."