"The Sword in Two Hands by Brian Price" review wan

[Galleron]

I believe the implication is that the author will be receiving copies of his own books, not just random boxes of books to sell.

I was thinking of non-authors who accept payment in books for other debts, such as deposits against armor not delivered, or merchandise swaps that Brian has not made good on.

[DukeAvery]

Broad brushes are in front, tar and feathers in back, pedestals on the right, and torches and pitchforks on the left.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can hold an sca king responsible for policing mundane contracts. Maybe you could have the judge drop the king of Ansteorra a note after a real court sorts it all out?



Regards

Avery

Note - this comment is aimed at those who appear to be spinning up the crowd, and not those making sincere and reasoned statements.

[Aerimus13]

Ihave been following this thread for a few days and I must say. UN-FUCKING BELEAVABLE!

You mean to tell me that a large chunk royalty and noblity of the SCA knew about this and didn't speak up until highly respected people get screwed?

Thanks for the comic irony.

Things to keep in mind:

- Few if any knew all of this together until recently. Many of the principal players only knew their own bits.

- It concerns Real Life business dealings, many of which were entirely outside the SCA.

That really does not matter. If you are stand around and profess that you uphold chivalric ideals then it is your duty to out a wrong when you see it not wait until you hear stories from other people who got screwed like you. it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? If they were seeing this happen time and time again it was their duty to have a polite discussion with him. His actiosn not only reflected on the SCA but it also reflected on how the non-peer view the peers.

I have yet to hear one of the so called peers involved with this fiasco apologize for dropping the chivalry ball you guys play with.

Granted I might have used a mighty broad brush and I also know there are a lot of good people who are chivals but there are those who knew about this and chose to keep their mouths shut. Those are the poeople who need to do pennance because they did not uphold the code you all profess to follow.

[DukeAvery]

If every one of you went to a handful of knights and said "raise your social consciousness" I'd be obliged.

Positivism is like trying to get across town making only left turns.

Regards

Avery

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hello all,

I want to be clear on several points here:

1. Brian has made NO arrangements with the aggrieved authors involved here.

2. Any bargain struck with Talbot by Brian is irrelevant to the above, save insofar that this too represents further 'sold' goods with no royalties paid, as Galleron has noted.

3. We (the 7 authors, as mentioned by Greg) want Brian to STOP using our intellectual property, as well as surrender extant copies of said intellectual property, as assurance he will truly cease and desist.

4. Regarding 3., paying 'back royalties' is insufficient, and for the following reasons: a) we have no reliable accounting proving to us than any such payment truly reconcile past malfeasance, b) this would allow him to then go on to sell more copies without author compensation, and c) continued sales of our books will continue to fund what has proven to be a wide-reaching criminal enterprise - one that extends far beyond the book business.

Brian appears to be playing "divide and appease". Don't fall for it guys. Sending Talbot a few hundred dollars wholesale value of books doesn't make up for, or resolve, everything that's been discussed here. Even if he 'makes good' on Talbot's demands, it's a token gesture by a desparate man cornered by an angry crowd, with 40,000 hits of this thread to back it.

All the best,

Christian

[Christian H. Tobler]

Dear Aerimus13,

As the one who first raised the author issues here, I'd like to be clear about something: I am not an SCA peer. In fact, I'm not a member at all. And while I'm often accorded "visiting dignitary" status by SCA peers at Pennsic (which is most gracious on their part), it is not my place to speak out on matters pertaining to the SCA's peerage.

As to why I've remained (somewhat) silent thus far, please see elsewhere in this thread.

Best regards,

Christian

[Aerimus13]

Dear Aerimus13,

As the one who first raised the author issues here, I'd like to be clear about something: I am not an SCA peer. In fact, I'm not a member at all. And while I'm often accorded "visiting dignitary" status by SCA peers at Pennsic (which is most gracious on their part), it is not my place to speak out on matters pertaining to the SCA's peerage.

As to why I've remained (somewhat) silent thus far, please see elsewhere in this thread.

Best regards,

Christian

Sir, I am not pointing my finger at you. I am calling in to question the motives of the SCA peers who stated they knew Brian Price was commiting these acts for years but yet did nothing to address his behavior. He was billing himself as an SCA Knight and "writing" books on chivalry that espouse the ideals of knighthood. They knew he was being hypocritical but yet they let him into thier ranks unsanctioned. Those are the people I am calling into question. That is where I find the comic irony.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Brian appears to be playing "divide and appease". Don't fall for it guys. Sending Talbot a few hundred dollars wholesale value of books doesn't make up for, or resolve, everything that's been discussed here. Even if he 'makes good' on Talbot's demands, it's a token gesture by a desparate man cornered by an angry crowd, with 40,000 hits of this thread to back it.

All the best,

Christian

I think Vegas would agree with you. I'd bet money that if he gets people to let off long enough for him to make a tidy penny at GW, that he won't be making terribly good on his debts to the people he's defrauded.

[Christian H. Tobler]

Dear Aerimus13,

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't necessarily think you were directing your comments to me, but though it best to be clear on my place in the world nonetheless.

All the best,

CHT

[FrauHirsch]

it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? .

Realize that each Order of Peers in each kingdom operate independently from each other and other kingdoms. If some Peers did take him aside and discuss issues with him, the public would not know about it, nor would the other Orders or even other members.

Even if the complaint is issued through a Seneschal or Crown, the peers may have no knowledge of it.

Most of these issues tend to happen without written complaint.

[Galleron]

This must be "making amends before I get lynched at Gulf Wars" day!

While I appreciate Doug doing what he has done, remember: Brian is getting out of a debt he owes Doug by providing books that he's not paying his authors for - he's letting Doug do that. As the oer-unit cost of the book to Brian is about 1/10 the cover-price, 1/5 - 1/4 if we include warehousing, handling, product degradation, etc., he's paying $2k of debt with about $200 - 400 of expense.

Now, here is the real question: last week, seven of Brian's *authors*, including myself, have written him with a specific set of demands as regards our intellectual property and due royalties. A reply is due tomorrow....I guess we'll all see what happens.

Doug, get a tracking number.

Greg

If Brian doesn't agree to a fair settlement with the authors by their deadline, I would support a reguest that he be barred from selling at Gulf Wars.

[Kilkenny]

Ihave been following this thread for a few days and I must say. UN-FUCKING BELEAVABLE!

You mean to tell me that a large chunk royalty and noblity of the SCA knew about this and didn't speak up until highly respected people get screwed?

Thanks for the comic irony.

Things to keep in mind:

- Few if any knew all of this together until recently. Many of the principal players only knew their own bits.

- It concerns Real Life business dealings, many of which were entirely outside the SCA.

That really does not matter. If you are stand around and profess that you uphold chivalric ideals then it is your duty to out a wrong when you see it not wait until you hear stories from other people who got screwed like you. it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? If they were seeing this happen time and time again it was their duty to have a polite discussion with him. His actiosn not only reflected on the SCA but it also reflected on how the non-peer view the peers.

I have yet to hear one of the so called peers involved with this fiasco apologize for dropping the chivalry ball you guys play with.

Granted I might have used a mighty broad brush and I also know there are a lot of good people who are chivals but there are those who knew about this and chose to keep their mouths shut. Those are the poeople who need to do pennance because they did not uphold the code you all profess to follow.

I suggest you go back and read the thread again.
Take special notice of how many people tell of how they raised issues with Brian, going back, I believe, as far as twenty years.

Note the comments regarding what happened when these issues were raised.

Your condemnation is misplaced, for in making it *here*, you put it upon people who have raised the alarm in the past. Those who ignored it, even put it down, are not here reading or participating in this thread.

It's very clear that the pattern has been going on for some time and has been reported.

It's also important to understand that when it comes to matters that involve violation of actual laws, rather than SCA regulations, the SCA practice is to allow the legal machinery to reach a conclusion before any SCA sanctions are imposed. To do otherwise exposes the SCA, and individuals within it, to potential liability should the accused be found not guilty by the courts.

[Aerimus13]

it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? .

Realize that each Order of Peers in each kingdom operate independently from each other and other kingdoms. If some Peers did take him aside and discuss issues with him, the public would not know about it, nor would the other Orders or even other members.

Even if the complaint is issued through a Seneschal or Crown, the peers may have no knowledge of it.

Most of these issues tend to happen without written complaint.

Ich verstehe Frau.

But to take that line is letting the chivals off the hook for the actions of one of their own. If they do not police themselves then who will? And my contention is that if the peers did talk to him then it odviously did no good and they should have taken it to the next level. But they did not.

[Aerimus13]

Ihave been following this thread for a few days and I must say. UN-FUCKING BELEAVABLE!

You mean to tell me that a large chunk royalty and noblity of the SCA knew about this and didn't speak up until highly respected people get screwed?

Thanks for the comic irony.

Things to keep in mind:

- Few if any knew all of this together until recently. Many of the principal players only knew their own bits.

- It concerns Real Life business dealings, many of which were entirely outside the SCA.

That really does not matter. If you are stand around and profess that you uphold chivalric ideals then it is your duty to out a wrong when you see it not wait until you hear stories from other people who got screwed like you. it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? If they were seeing this happen time and time again it was their duty to have a polite discussion with him. His actiosn not only reflected on the SCA but it also reflected on how the non-peer view the peers.

I have yet to hear one of the so called peers involved with this fiasco apologize for dropping the chivalry ball you guys play with.

Granted I might have used a mighty broad brush and I also know there are a lot of good people who are chivals but there are those who knew about this and chose to keep their mouths shut. Those are the poeople who need to do pennance because they did not uphold the code you all profess to follow.

I suggest you go back and read the thread again.
Take special notice of how many people tell of how they raised issues with Brian, going back, I believe, as far as twenty years.

Note the comments regarding what happened when these issues were raised.

Your condemnation is misplaced, for in making it *here*, you put it upon people who have raised the alarm in the past. Those who ignored it, even put it down, are not here reading or participating in this thread.

It's very clear that the pattern has been going on for some time and has been reported.

It's also important to understand that when it comes to matters that involve violation of actual laws, rather than SCA regulations, the SCA practice is to allow the legal machinery to reach a conclusion before any SCA sanctions are imposed. To do otherwise exposes the SCA, and individuals within it, to potential liability should the accused be found not guilty by the courts.

You are right. The peers at fault are not reading this thread not do they care that people got screwed over. But I would expect that the peers who are here to spread the word, denounce, and if necessary do some kind of sanction.

Silly me. I guess I expect people to live up to the standards they publicly profess. And this whole buisness "they will take care of it behind closed doors" is a cop out. It is a way for them to propogate the inherant faults in the system. If they (peers acted transparently then the non-peers would ahve more confidence in them.

[Morgan]

So you didn't really read what Gavin said, then.

[Count Johnathan]

Aerimus13, SCA peerage is not a legal system and has nothing to do with the private business practices of any individual. Sounds like you simply have some sort of beef with peers. That, we cannot help you with.

Brian was a peer long before any of these kinds of business practices saw the light of day. Many have raised issue with him individually and many of the people who are here, now making public complaint are peers. They are doing what you think they should be doing.

[Kilkenny]

So you didn't really read what Gavin said, then.

Gavin's a peer and part of the Conspiracy.

[Tomburr]

It's also important to understand that when it comes to matters that involve violation of actual laws, rather than SCA regulations, the SCA practice is to allow the legal machinery to reach a conclusion before any SCA sanctions are imposed. To do otherwise exposes the SCA, and individuals within it, to potential liability should the accused be found not guilty by the courts.

Aerimus, read this part carefully.

[Jeff J]

I fail to recall any part of a peerage oath or other duties assignment/job description for peerages that we are required or empowered to police our bretheren.

I am participating in this dialog as a member of the overall SCA/reenactment community and supporting the actions of those whom I know and believe to have been wronged, I this, my opinion counts for no more or no less than any other person, regardless of whatever geegaw I happen to wear occasionally on my clothing.

[Alexander of Lancaster]

I am not sure what more you want the chivalry to do. He was investigated by two crowns. If he doesn't show up in Ansteorra what do you want them to do? Are you sure he has a membership? Are you sure his membership is in Ansteorra? It's not like the Chivalry can shun him when he never shows up.

[Galleron]

it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? .

Realize that each Order of Peers in each kingdom operate independently from each other and other kingdoms. If some Peers did take him aside and discuss issues with him, the public would not know about it, nor would the other Orders or even other members.

Even if the complaint is issued through a Seneschal or Crown, the peers may have no knowledge of it.

Most of these issues tend to happen without written complaint.

Ich verstehe Frau.

But to take that line is letting the chivals off the hook for the actions of one of their own. If they do not police themselves then who will?

The police?

There's a reason why we have a civil and criminal justice system in this country. Society institutions are a poor substitute.

And informal social sanctions are not very effective against a man with no sense of shame.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I changed my mind, since it isn't my money we are talking about here.

[Lady Charlotte]

Hello, Greg,

5. failure to provide one cent of compensation to Agilitas.tv for the Messer or Longsword DVDs, and failure to return the master-copies they have provided Mr Price for replication. That is why Agilitas have now placed their products with Freelance Academy Press.

After reading about Galleron's copyright infringement experience, and recalling that the Agilitas TV's Ochs Liechtenauer Longsword DVD has for years appeared consistently on Revival's Top Ten Products list (today at #4), I was also reminded when re-reading this thread of what you'd indicated in this early post concerning Revival's alleged unauthorized replication and sale of their DVD.

As the U.S. Copyright Office explains in its Stopping Copyright Infringement flyer,

Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

And:

If you believe that a criminal infringement of copyright has occurred, you may contact the Intellectual Property (IP) Program of the Financial Institution Fraud Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Two main FBI divisions investigate intellectual property crimes:

1. Cyber Division
-investigates intellectual property crimes involving all digital and electronic works (including Internet, CDs, DVDs, etc) www.fbi.gov/ipr
2. Financial Institution Fraud Unit
-all other intellectual property crimes

There are three ways a complaint made be filed:

* Complainants may contact their local FBI field office, and the complaint will be properly referred.
* A complaint may be filed online at the Internet Crime Complaint Center www.ic3.gov and, again, it will be properly routed.
* Suspected criminal activity of any nature may be reported online at https://tips.fbi.gov and will be routed accordingly.

The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice is the federal entity that prosecutes intellectual property crimes. Parts III and VI of the Department of Justice primer provide further information on the prima facie elements of criminal copyright violations, both misdemeanor and felony, and the factors considered in determining when to charge. However, all criminal complaints should be directed only to the FBI.

17 U.S.C. § 506(a) "Criminal Infringement" provides, in pertinent part:

(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000;

At $34.95 per copy, that would require only that 29 copies of the DVD be sold illegally in a six-month period to meet the statutory threshold.

18 U.S.C. §2319, "Criminal infringement of a copyright," provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Any person who violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.


(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17—

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works,
which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.


(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(B) of title 17—

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

Given that it is apparently a German company, Agilitas TV may not have been aware that they might have recourse under U.S. criminal copyright laws. If they report this matter before Gulf Wars begins, they could then request that the local FBI office seize any contraband copies of their DVDs offered for sale at Gulf Wars.

HTH Agilitas TV, if they're reading this thread.

Lady Charlotte

[Greg Mele]

Lady Charlotte,

I doubt Agilitas was aware of all of this, but I do know that they are reading this thread now, so I am sure that they will review the information you provided. The Longsword and Messer DVDs sold very aggressively when they released, there is little doubt that 29 or more copies solid in far less time than 6 mos.

And, of course, one doesn't need to hire an attorney in a *criminal* case...

Best wishes.

Greg

[Lady Charlotte]

Hello, Count Johnathan,

Aerimus13, SCA peerage is not a legal system and has nothing to do with the private business practices of any individual. Sounds like you simply have some sort of beef with peers. That, we cannot help you with.

Brian was a peer long before any of these kinds of business practices saw the light of day. Many have raised issue with him individually and many of the people who are here, now making public complaint are peers. They are doing what you think they should be doing.

This exchange among several of you and Aerimus13 made me sufficiently curious to see what the SCA's Governing Documents state on such matters. Section II.G.3. of the The Corpora of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. appears to me to bear directly on it:

3. It is not the responsibility of Crowns to deal with violations of modern law. When asked to
resolve situations that fall under the jurisdiction of modern authorities, it is the Crown’s responsibility to
cooperate in referring such violations to the modern authorities. Further, it is the responsibility of the officers,
particularly the local or Kingdom Seneschal, to ensure that the modern authorities are promptly notified.

Who is the Seneschal of the Kingdom of Ansteorra? Is that person reading this thread or have they been alerted by another peer of that Kingdom?

Lady Charlotte

[Maeryk]

Lady Charlotte, that's a big FAT can of worms right there...

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Brian has refunded the money for the defective gauntlets. I hope he can somehow make amends to everyone he has pissed off.

This has all been sad and depressing in the extreme.

[Lady Charlotte]

Hello, Maeryk,

Lady Charlotte, that's a big FAT can of worms right there...

What do you mean?

Lady Charlotte

[Count Johnathan]

Hello, Count Johnathan,

Aerimus13, SCA peerage is not a legal system and has nothing to do with the private business practices of any individual. Sounds like you simply have some sort of beef with peers. That, we cannot help you with.

Brian was a peer long before any of these kinds of business practices saw the light of day. Many have raised issue with him individually and many of the people who are here, now making public complaint are peers. They are doing what you think they should be doing.

This exchange among several of you and Aerimus13 made me sufficiently curious to see what the SCA's Governing Documents state on such matters. Section II.G.3. of the The Corpora of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. appears to me to bear directly on it:

3. It is not the responsibility of Crowns to deal with violations of modern law. When asked to
resolve situations that fall under the jurisdiction of modern authorities, it is the Crown’s responsibility to
cooperate in referring such violations to the modern authorities. Further, it is the responsibility of the officers,
particularly the local or Kingdom Seneschal, to ensure that the modern authorities are promptly notified.

Who is the Seneschal of the Kingdom of Ansteorra? Is that person reading this thread or have they been alerted by another peer of that Kingdom?

Lady Charlotte

That I do not know. All I can assume is that events where he has been merchanting at there were no complaints about him to the appropriate entities. I'm not sure that anyone would think to question the business practices of a merchant at events other than if they were selling known illegal products and they were caught doing it. At that point they would be promptly turned over to the appropriate legal authorities. But who checks copyright laws and such at events? None that I am aware of.

When people are caught breaking the law at events (which is rare) it is recorded of course and then the SCA steps out of the way allowing the legal authorities to do their jobs. It has nothing to do with the SCA inc. or it's members really. We are just a community of medieval enthusiasts and nothing more.

If this situation requires a court of law then so be it. That should happen but the SCA really has absolutely nothing to do with the guys business practices. It is an interesting circumstance that I am sure will be discussed by the BOD and the SCA legal team in the future.

[Count Johnathan]

Hello, Maeryk,

Lady Charlotte, that's a big FAT can of worms right there...

What do you mean?

Lady Charlotte

HG Gavin sums it up well with this...

It's also important to understand that when it comes to matters that involve violation of actual laws, rather than SCA regulations, the SCA practice is to allow the legal machinery to reach a conclusion before any SCA sanctions are imposed. To do otherwise exposes the SCA, and individuals within it, to potential liability should the accused be found not guilty by the courts.

[Greg Mele]

Jonathon,

Granted - I have not been a member of the Society for a decade now but I remember its worries of liability - on the other hand the quote from Corpora is pretty clear that it is the Great Officer's duty, not to press for SCA sanctions, but to make sure that when a crime is being committed it is brought to the *authorities*. The issue here would be that now it is *known* - the defrauded parties have posted here.

Honestly, like Christian, I am not overly interested in what the Society does corporately in regards to this issue, one way or the other - that is for current members to decide, not myself, and I respect that. I am interested in real, mundane law and popular awareness of what has happened.

I think the ethical question for ALL is, once you see a growing, preponderance of evidence, at what point does honor compel you to SAY and DO something? That's a decision for each individual to make, in the way that feel best.

Best,

Greg

[FrauHirsch]

it is said he is a "peer" in the SCA then why didn't the peers take him aside and discuss it with him long before now? .

Realize that each Order of Peers in each kingdom operate independently from each other and other kingdoms. If some Peers did take him aside and discuss issues with him, the public would not know about it, nor would the other Orders or even other members.

Even if the complaint is issued through a Seneschal or Crown, the peers may have no knowledge of it.

Most of these issues tend to happen without written complaint.

Ich verstehe Frau.

But to take that line is letting the chivals off the hook for the actions of one of their own. If they do not police themselves then who will? And my contention is that if the peers did talk to him then it odviously did no good and they should have taken it to the next level. But they did not.

How So? If we don't know about something, what can we do?

If I personally know about a specific issue, I am willing to take another Peer aside and talk to them. I am also willing to help a victim review their complaints and even collect and forward them to the right people (Seneshallate). I actually did this with a situation that ended up being a full court of chivalry.

But if the local 'talking to" doesn't work, then the next level is to have the person wronged write a complaint to the Seneschal and BoD. If they don't, then nothing happens. Most formal offices or orders won't act based on second hand info. While there are no formal rules, I think we assume that at least someone with standing as the injured party needs to speak up.

SCA Peers don't have any real world power to affect anyone's business, nor should we. The Knights and Laurels (he is both) have to follow the rules of complaint and dispute resolution per the SCA corpora like everyone else. There is no single SCA-wide entity recording local complaints about every other peer in the known world. Problems that came up in one kingdom are not reported to another.

People who are really good at getting away with problem behaviors often are pretty good about making sure their victims feel like they are the only one with the problem. And if the victims don't come forward, the behaviors continue. In the SCA, sometimes these people have been talked to by many other peers, as likely happened here, over many years.

[Lady Charlotte]

Hello, Louis,

...didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

*baffled*

If you're reading this Lady Charlotte, thank you.

You are most welcome; I'm gratified you found something of value in that post, as I have in so many of yours.

Lady Charlotte

[Lady Charlotte]

Hello, Count Johnathan,

HG Gavin sums it up well with this...

It's also important to understand that when it comes to matters that involve violation of actual laws, rather than SCA regulations, the SCA practice is to allow the legal machinery to reach a conclusion before any SCA sanctions are imposed. To do otherwise exposes the SCA, and individuals within it, to potential liability should the accused be found not guilty by the courts.

Yes, I understand the issue quite well, since universities, colleges, museums and libraries also face potential liability for disciplining or terminating someone for a violation of the law or a breach of ethical duties.

That said, there is also considerable potential liability to an organization that fails to take action against a "bad actor" if any of its officers knows of misbehavior that may harm others and fails act to protect those placed at risk.

In the academic world, that sometimes extends to revoking a degree even years after it's been granted, if the misbehavior later revealed is deemed sufficient and the miscreant has been afforded a fair hearing. For example, in 1986, Kent State University rescinded the B.A. granted to a student 17 years after it was awarded, and the student later sued Kent State. The District Court held, in Waliga v. Board of Trustees, 488 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio 1986):

We consider it self-evident that a college or university acting through its board of trustees does have the inherent authority to revoke an improperly awarded degree where (1) good cause such as fraud, deceit, or error is shown, and (2) the degree-holder is afforded a fair hearing at which he can present evidence and protect his interest. Academic degrees are a university's certification to the world at large of the recipient's educational achievement and fulfillment of the institution's standards. To hold that a university may never withdraw a degree, effectively requires the university to continue making a false certification to the public at large of the accomplishment of persons who in fact lack the very qualifications that are certified. Such a holding would undermine public confidence in the integrity of degrees, call academic standards into question, and harm those who rely on the certification which the degree represents.

It was not necessary, the court held, for a board to await the "legal machinery to reach a conclusion" before reaching its own conclusion concerning "good cause," however.

One of the reasons I'd spoken up earlier in this thread is that Mr. Price and I are both members of the American Historical Association. The AHA's Statement on Plagiarism notes that:

...The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry.

In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, can also be an offense against the literary rights of the original author and the property rights of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in academic sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, termination of a faculty contract, or denial of promotion or tenure) but in legal action as well. As a practical matter, plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court, in part because legal concepts, such as infringement of copyright, are narrower than ethical standards that guide professional conduct. The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars...

...All who participate in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals, as students or as established historians, have an obligation to oppose deception....

...Every institution that includes or represents a body of scholars has an obligation to establish procedures designed to clarify and uphold their ethical standards...

...All historians share responsibility for maintenance of the highest standards of intellectual integrity...Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and candor, which should include the scrutiny and discussion of academic deception.

Those principles apply more broadly, too, than to just plagiarism.

...We are just a community of medieval enthusiasts and nothing more. .

Given the copious research done by SCA members and their commitment to accurate historical detail -- not to mention the significant body of academic scholars to be found among its ranks -- I had considered the SCA to be composed of "participa[nts] in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals."

Lady Charlotte

[Count Johnathan]

Jonathon,

Granted - I have not been a member of the Society for a decade now but I remember its worries of liability - on the other hand the quote from Corpora is pretty clear that it is the Great Officer's duty, not to press for SCA sanctions, but to make sure that when a crime is being committed it is brought to the *authorities*. The issue here would be that now it is *known* - the defrauded parties have posted here.

Honestly, like Christian, I am not overly interested in what the Society does corporately in regards to this issue, one way or the other - that is for current members to decide, not myself, and I respect that. I am interested in real, mundane law and popular awareness of what has happened.

I think the ethical question for ALL is, once you see a growing, preponderance of evidence, at what point does honor compel you to SAY and DO something? That's a decision for each individual to make, in the way that feel best.

Best,

Greg

Honor has nothing to do with it. If the dude is breaking the law then he should face the legal consequences. If not then It matters little what my personal opinion is. If it is found that he (or anyone) was breaking laws at events there are grounds for their removal from the SCA entirely. That's it.