Several years ago, although I was publicly supporting Harlan Ellison's lawsuit against AOL over internet theft of copyrighted material, privately I was expressing to him my concern that the case was unwinnable. That AOL was too big with too many lawyers. And that the case would be a devastating endurance test that would suck the health out of Harlan. And Harlan said to me, "There's one thing you have to understand about me: I always win. Always."
Damned if he wasn't true to his word, as a reading of the info referenced below will prove.
http://www.authorslawyer.com/c-ellison.shtml
PAD
I’m glad things worked out for him. Just because someone can scan and post an author’s work on the Internet for millions to read and download doesn’t mean they should do so.
If I remember correctly, the person initially doing this claimed he was helping Ellison by getting his work out to new readers. That’s disingenuous (or, more charitably, very naive). Making a writer’s work “free” on the Internet doesn’t help that writer, only hurts his or her ability to publish and sell it (or sell a new edition, in the case of out of print work). It’s amazing sometimes that people don’t _get_ that.
Rick
And it's not like it's all that hard to find Harlan's stuff in bookstores - you could walk into, say, B. Dalton, ask for "Deathbird Stories", and expect to find it in stock...
Interstingly, it looks like Harlan didn't win, but that AOL "settled". Altho I did just skim the article, as I could care less about copyright.
But it sounds a lot like the RIAA, notice that they always settle rather than letting the cases get to court?
I'm glad he won the legal suit, but I always try to look at the ethics of the situation rather than the legalities.
There have been occasions where tapes have circulated among fandom -- blooper reels, early MST3K, B5 episodes that aired in the UK before the US, etc. Legally, none of those is defensible. Ethically -- I always ask, "what does the person who created it think?" MST explicitly said "keep circulating the tapes" in its closing credits. JMS had no problem with tapes jumping the Atlantic. Thus, I personally don't see the problem with that (and most assuredly got a B5 season 2 final 4 tape in that summer).
When it's something the author/creator *doesn't* want circulated, then legalities aside, you shouldn't do it. Several years ago, some idiot decided to post the entire text of the Okudas' "Star Trek Chronology" to Usenet. A few people argued that "it's just providing free publicity" -- but most of them shut up when I had the chance to ask Mike Okuda and got back the answer "no, we're not happy with this."
Just my two cents -- Harlan should've been able to walk away with this case a long time ago from an ethical POV. I'm glad he won in the end.
TWL
What is truly fascinating is that Harlan is paying back the contributions that were made for his attorney fees. To me, this indicates that the settlement is not simply for nusance value i.e AOL settling for what it would have paid its attorneys in legal fees to bring this matter to trial. David whipped Goliath again.
I'm glad to see Harlan, yet again, kicked some legal butt.
I'm also glad that, unless someone knows something I don't, he didn't have to mail any bricks or dead gophers to anyone this time around.
I'm GLAD Harlan won out, in the end. An INGENIOUS author, I am fairly sure that Harlan doesn't NEED any help getting his work out to the masses.
Just MY 2 cents...
I'm happy that Harlan "won/settled", but I don't think I like the implications of this case.
Basically, he said that people used the internet to violate his rights; and as an internet service provider, AOL is responsible and liable for what is accessed in cyberspace.
Is this right? Does AOL 'own' Usenet?
Can somebody help me wrap my mind around this? 'Cause as far as I can tell this is akin to me suing Ford for making the car that a drunk driver used to kill Grandpa.
Know what I mean?
And if we take this argument to the next level; can Federal and Local Governments sue AOL based on the fact that their users can use their services to access Pornography? (Or some other type of illegal activity, like God forbid, Liberal thinking!)
VERY valid points, red-Ricky! It also brings to mind: suing McDonald's because you're fat...suing tobacco companies because you have cancer...suing Remington Firearms because some thug used one of their weapons to kill your Dad...so I see, very well, what implications you're talking about.
Red-rick, had you read the legal brief that was linked to, you'd have seen the basis of the complaint. In brief, AOL archived two weeks' worth of every Usenet thread they linked - including the one with Harlan's misappropriated work. When notified, they ignored him. One ignores Harlan Ellison at one's own peril...
The original posters of the copyrighted materials might have a had a point about "getting his work out to new readers" -- but only if they had posted only the first chapter. You know, the "crack" method -- The first hit is free... the rest are gonna cost ya.
(This is not to say that I think it's OK to illegally post someone's work if you only post part of it just that if you are claiming to just be trying to "get the work out" you don't need to use the whole thing -- if it's good, just a taste will do.
Pirating is wrong... but holding service providors accountable is worse. It's a slippery slope that is going to help errode ALL fair use rights.
This is the first time I have seen USENET in a case, and it is about time. When used to its fullest capability ANYTHING & EVERYTHING can be found and downloaded faster and more conveniently than any other Internet service out there. A friend and I were speaking about it as the dark-underbelly of the Internet that no one wants to complain about because no one knows how to use it. For online downloaders it is like browsing through Best Buy where you can come across any CD, movie, application, game, book or even comic-run and have it faster than you could go to your local store to buy it.
It will be interesting to see if anything progresses on USENET after this or if the focus will stay on p2p.
Mike, I used to feel like you about who should be accountable. It is easy to look at this case and say that AOL shouldn't be at fault. They didn't post or encourage anyone to post pirated material. Lets assume that nobody at AOL downloaded the material. Essentially all they did was back up their servers to keep the posted material longer. But, at heart, while AOL didn't commit the crime, they did hold the door open and allow the crooks to go in and pirate what they please. For that they do need to be held accountable. I will agree that they can't monitor every single USENET newsgroup out there. But they can use some common sense. USENET used to be a wonderful service. Of course even the service it was intended for is now replaced by blogs and forums. But, before you talk about fair use, browse through USENET groups and find me one single binaries group that does not contain pirated material. A simple filter of these types of groups, or a simple filter of a max posting size on articles would solve the problem on their end and return the service to what it was intended. But, as long as they don't take that effort, they are just as guilty.
The reason for Ellison's suit against AOL and other parties was the fact that HE tried to get AOL to do something about the offending materials on a service that ran through AOL and they essentially told him to pound salt.
Never tell this guy to pound salt. He'll pound it allright. Into your left ear.
He simply wanted a legitimate complaint addressed. They refused. Keep in mind about 95% of all writers who get published (if I remember correctly) don't make enough money to live on, so they keep their day jobs. Pirating a writer's work is not exactly stealing from the rich.
By the way, there are a number of contributors to the KICK fund who are telling Ellison, "Don't bother about paying me back. It's a gift."
I don't know the man and didn't see the look on his face when several of his supporters told him this. He seemed to be very touched by this. It's just as well I didn't see his face. I hate to see a grown curmudgeon cry.
Chuck
(quote)Altho I did just skim the article, as I could care less about
copyright.(unquote)
If you don't care about copyright, then you don't care about ownership and protetcting ownership.
If you don't care about ownership, then you shouldn't mind if I (or anyone) should back a truck up to your home and empty it out.
How's next weekend?
Jonathan,
I just wanted to clear the air. I did follow PAD's link to authorslawyer.com and read what was summarized.
The press release given states and I quote:
"Ellison sued AOL in April 2000 over concerns that unauthorized copies of his and the works of other authors were being distributed through the USENET newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book, which, at that time, could be accessed through AOL's and others' services."
See? They clearly stated that AOL's fault lies in providing ACCESS. The article also talked about AOL being a conduit, but never about storing the files.
Basically, I never read the brief because it never occurred to me that a joint statement coming Harlan and AOL would misrepresent the facts of the case by failing to mention one of the main points of contention.
What you explained to me is an entirely different case. After all, "others' services" don't store USENET files. Then again I could be wrong.
I appreciate you setting me right; after all, the intent of my post was to find out what I was missing. But it's not that I didn't bother reviewing everything, it's just that it never occurred to me that "accessing usenet files" was code for "storing usenet files".
Skrinq, you show your ignorance boldly.
Copying something doesn't steal anything. The original is still with the original owner. All the copier has is a copy.
You cannot "own" some that is not physical.
PERIOD
I am one of the contributors and I would rather have a tour of Ellison Wonderland (Harlan's home) than my money back :) If anyone can communicate this him it would be greatly appreciated.
Let's just hope everyone here is just as supportive when parents start suing AOL or a Library or something, when their child uses the internet there to access porn, or a website the parent disagrees with (maybe even PAD.com).
Because that is what this lawsuit opens up. It puts the liability on the service provider for what bits of data the end users of that provider access. And that should scare everyone. How many people get the majority of their news and information from the internet? And how much will that number grow over the next few years? Now people can sue to have that information filtered? That scares the shit out of me.
Don't get me wrong, I support Ellison's right to get this resolved. But I would rather he sued the poster (most everything on usenet is traceable) which would do more to discourage people getting the data.
Because, end of the day, anyone who knows how to use usenet, can find alternate usenet providers for free, or $9.99 a month which backup the data for as long as a year. Even AOL users. So what did he accomplish besides making AOL censor content, and making some cash.
Jerry
That's odd, I didn't see mention of this on the news section of my AOL start up screen...
Copying something doesn't steal anything. The original is still with the original owner. All the copier has is a copy.
Which is something they might otherwise have bought, or something the original author might not have wanted to get out.
You haven't stolen anything physical, no, but you have most assuredly done a disservice to the author's right to decide how and when his/her work is to be distributed.
Now, if you don't think the author should have such rights that's your call ... but I think it takes balls to come out and say that on an author's own site ... and not in a good way.
TWL
Jerry,
Let's just hope everyone here is just as supportive when parents start suing AOL or a Library or something, when their child uses the internet there to access porn, or a website the parent disagrees with (maybe even PAD.com).
I think the porn lawsuits have already happened, or are already in progress.
The "a website the parent disagrees with", however, is way beyond the pale, and I don't think Harlan's suit opens the door to that in any significant way.
Harlan was trying to put a stop to something that was clearly illegal. A parent trying to keep their kid from seeing this site has no grounds other than "I don't like it" -- and unless said parent is a good friend of John Ashcroft, at the moment that's not a viable reasons.
I'm as concerned as anyone about not wanting to limit the free flow of information. I just don't think this lawsuit is doing anything in particular to harm it.
TWL
Tim,
"Which is something they might otherwise have bought"
How do we justify libraries then? This is a real question, not just trolling. I was thinking of this the other day. A given copy of the book probably get's checked out 100 times or more correct? My local library, for example, owns 6 copies of IQ. If there are 1000 libraries out there, that's 6000 copies, read 6000000 times. That means if you asume $7.99 a copy, then $47,892,060 was STOLEN from publishers and PAD, for just that one book. Unless you realize that people who check out the book either wouldn't have bought it anyways, or may still buy it. The same could be said for someone who downloads the copy of the book.
I thought the copyright laws were better before the went and changed them recentlty. Used to be it was only copyright infringment if you made a profit off of it. Now anything that is typed or written is copyrighted, including this text I am typing now. If you copy and paste a reply, technically, I could sue you. Stupid laws, written for corporate interests...
Jerry
Tim,
"Harlan was trying to put a stop to something that was clearly illegal. "
Correct. But lots of illegal things happen over the net. Should AOL start filtering out websites? There are plenty out there that provide links to illegal content (warez, music, books, etc). Maybe they should start blocking ports to stop people using bit torrent, since people trade illegal stuff there. They could read emails, to watch for stuff there.
And again, at the basis what we are talking about, is holding an ISP responsible for what content their users access...illegal or not. That is scary. And the moment people realize they can make money suing ISPs for this kind of stuff, then everything will be up for grabs.
Jerry
Jerry,
How to justify libraries?
I believe libraries themselves pay a certain fee to the publisher over and above the price of the book, and that the publisher can set that fee according to how much business they think checking out will "take away". (I do know that journal subscription fees for a library are steeper than individual subscriptions, for just that reason.)
Even if I'm wrong about that part of it, though, library use is something publishers choose to do in an attempt to increase interest in a particular book or author. I think that's the key -- it's an agreement everyone enters into consciously and purposefully, not someone trying to sneak a free copy.
I quite agree with you that copyright can go out of control. I don't think letting the "screw it, I want this and don't care who it hurts" crowd have free rein is the answer, though.
TWL
Jerry,
And again, at the basis what we are talking about, is holding an ISP responsible for what content their users access...illegal or not.
But it's NOT "illegal or not." That's your fear, and it's a legitimate one, but it is not what Harlan's particular lawsuit addressed. I think that's a crucial difference -- crucial enough that the slope isn't slippery yet.
Don't get me wrong -- your scenario could happen, and I think all of us should be keeping eyes out to make sure it doesn't. I just don't think Harlan's suit is grounds for yelling about the sky falling.
TWL
" I don't think letting the "screw it, I want this and don't care who it hurts" crowd have free rein is the answer, though."
Just for the record, I agree with you 100% there. Just playing devils advocate a bit. that and this lawsuit still scares me a little.
Jerry
Bladestar, look up the concept of "intellectual property".
Jerry, look up the "fair use doctrine".
And AOL already filters out certain websites. Try accessing, say, xratedlist.com through AOL's browser, without going through Google or something first.
Jerry,
I understand what you're saying. However,I am heavily involved with libraries, so I can say almost with certainty that publishers and authors alike do NOT feel "ripped off" by library usage for the follwing reasons:
1.) As Tim stated, selling to libraries is something a publisher CHOOSES to do
2.) The price of a book being sold to libraries is generally spiked to offset the possible "lost business"
3.)A large number of library readers are very old, very young, or the poor. Each of these demograghics are among those least likely to actually buy a lot of books instead of reading them for free. But it could still be of benefit, since...
4.) By sampling different authors and different books, there is a chance many library patrons will eventually buy a book they liked reading so they can have their own copy and/or become a fan of an author
5.) If a publisher, especially a small one, can get in a library system, especially in a city like Philadelphia, that is a guaranteed number of copies sold.
6.) As library budgets keep getting cut, more and more books are bought from stores by local Library Friends groups or donated by individuals and businesses, who get a tax write-off, and who obviously had to buy them first.
4.)
Jerome Maida,
The only problem is, that doesn't counter my first point, which is that I have a problem with the "Which is something they might otherwise have bought" reason for this lawsuit.
Someone had to buy the book in the first place (or the e-book) to put it online. Just like a library, the people who would download the e-book probably would not have bought the book, and those who never would have might by it because of their exposure.
I just never liked that reason, so that's really the reason I brought up libraries. There are much other reasons, but lets not go confusing people who download e-books illegally with customers. They rarely are. The real reason for pursuing those suits is to keep the value of your book from becoming devalued.
Jerry
Question:
What about out of print or hard to find books -- books that are of little interest to publishers -- or a least not "worth" a 2nd printing?
How gray is the area here? If a "legit" copy can't be found, and an illegal copy *can* be, can one justify downloading said work? One (not myself) could argue that the author was not being cheated out of any money as there is no legitimate way to order the book. No publisher is losing money since they are the ones not printing the book.
If one DID decide to download an out of print book, is there any way to re-imburse the the author?
Copyright as it is applied to today is pure garbage.
I don't recognize copyright. I recognize "creator" and think that should be maintained, but that's it.
So much for a "free market" once you introduce copyright.
The library concept doesn't infringe on the author's copyright because the book they are lending is an authorized version.
However a photocopy of the book, freely given or sold, is a violation.
Think of the Library as a Blockbuster Video store. They can lend you copies of the movies they already own/bought that doesn't mean you can burn a CD, video or DVD during the two or three days it's in your posession.
I think most people are missing the fact that Harlan actually LOST his initial case since the court dismissed his suit.
His appeal, merely made the Ninth Circuit reverse the lower court's decision to dismiss the case. Had the case gone back to court, it's most likely that AOL would have been "held harmless " and Harlan would have lost.
So yeah, AOL actually settled a "nuisance suit". On the other hand, I think Harlan had a point, and all AOL had to do was delete the offending material off it's servers and deny access to that particular newsgroup.
I glad the case was settled, but I think both parties won. Harlan may get some remuneration, but let's say that AOL had lost, there was the potential for being sued out of existence by other writers and artists alleging similar damages.
Way to go, Harlan! I'll have to pop my ol' "Friends of Ellison" button on my lapel, grab my dog-eared copy of "The Glass Teat," and drink a toast to writers everywhere.
Libraries buy the book and LOAN it out. It's not for resale (until the big once-a-year or so used book sales). The library own the physical book, not the ideas or thoughts in the book. When you check out a book from the library, they library really doesn't care if it's 'Catch-22', 'Izmadi', or 'Miesry'.
Posting someone elses work on the internet without permission is stealing their intelluctal copyright and using it without authorization. The unauthorized posting of copyrighted words or images on the internet is hurting possible future sales of said product.
Yes, Harlan Ellison may still own the ideas, but the posting of those ideas can hurt him financially. Have you ever looked up an artist's web site? There might be thumbnails of their work available, but larger images generally have some sort of watermark or other image on them to prevent the "stealing" of the image. If you want a print or an original, you need to pay for it.
Movies are having an even harder time due to piracy these days. I read a news story (sorry, don't remember where) that stated that Soul Plane tanked at the box office. No, that's not suprising. The blame for it tanking is the abundance of pirated DVD's on the street the day the movie opened. This doesn't hurt just the studios, it hurts the actors and crew members that have a stake in the production.
BTW, I now own a copy of a book of science fiction stories bought in a library sale. One of the stories in the book...Harlan Ellison's original "City on the Edge of Forever". If you've never read the original, it's pretty darn good, and not suprising that it was changed so much for the show.
The previous copyright laws did *not* require that someone profit for it to be copyright infringement. Copyright is actually a pretty simple concept at its core, summed up in it's name; control of the right to copy a work. And I successfully got a settlement once from a completely non-profit group which used my work (and I had an extremely strong case, since I'd specifically told them not to use it).
(quote)Copying something doesn't steal anything. The original is still with the original owner. All the copier has is a copy.
(unquote)
balderdash.
Intelllectual property is property. Period.
Tell you what, how about if I 'steal' your name-- it is not a "physical object."
Tangibility has nothing to do with the legal interpretation of property. If it is not yours, don't appropriate it.
As for copying, you wouldn't mind if I copied your passport and substituted my picture for yours? You would still own the original, yet would apparently insist no violation or crime took place.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are confusing 'patent' with 'copyright' or even with 'trademark' -- if not, then get a clue.
You cannot own non-tangible items.
A passport is a tangible items, not to mention a piece of official government identification, it's not a "copyrighted" document.
You cannot own music, movies, or books, only the media they are on. Once you let another human being see/hear something you've written, you've lost control of it, it's no longer yours alone.
Humans take whatever they perceive and make it part of themselves in one way or another. You can't legislate that.
By the way, there is no "right to make a profit".
You don't have a "right to get paid."
You have a choice, work for what your employer agrees to, or take a hike. When you you create music, movies, books, and release them into the public eye, they are out of your control at that point. It's up to the buying public to decide what they want to spend their money on at that point. If there are those who buy something and then copy and post it, welcome to capitalism.
Although why anyone would want to read a novel from a computer screen... ughh, staring at the screen that long you're just asking for a major headache...
To those who oppose what the person on USENET did because it allowed people to read Harlan's work without reimbursing him in any way (i am not disagreeing this was wrong), what are your opinions about the fact that when bookstores have mass market paperback books that do not sell, they only have to tear off the front cover and return that rather than they whole book. Now its illegal to sell the book like that because the author does not receive money for it. However, it can still be read by anyone for free. This is similar to libraries because the publisher is ok'ing it, however there is no compensation that I am aware of.
Just curious as to what people think of this.
On another note, while I agree that the majority of people who pirate music, books, movies, whatever do abuse the system, I believe sometimes it can be good for the authors of such works. I don't get Showtime and therefore miss series' such as Dead Like Me. I downloaded a couple episodes because I was curious and enjoyed it so much that I bought the Season 1 DVD. And I intend to download the Season 2 episodes as they air, but will buy that DVD when it comes out as well. I know I am in the minority when it comes to this, and I tend to think that it is bullshit (I apologize to anyone this offends) when the guy says he was trying to help Harlan out. I doubt that was foremost in his mind. But sometimes it does work out that being able to read/watch/listen to something for free, interests people in purchasing said work when otherwise they would not have. I am not defending anything. Just giving a different POV. Thank you.
"To those who oppose what the person on USENET did...what are your opinions about the fact that when bookstores have mass market paperback books that do not sell, they only have to tear off the front cover and return that rather than they whole book. Now its illegal to sell the book like that because the author does not receive money for it. However, it can still be read by anyone for free. This is similar to libraries because the publisher is ok'ing it, however there is no compensation that I am aware of."
Actually, they are technically supposed to throw the book away or recycle it. That method is used to save the store from having to ship copies of the entire book back, and the publisher from having to store or trash them. The same system is/was used for returnable periodicals, including comics. But i know that at least some of them often end up going home with store employees. As for my opinion on that....
Well, i kind of feel about that the way i feel about bootlegs (including burned "mix" CDs) and pirated copies of out of print material. And that is, if you receive some of such - either as a gift, or by your own action (downloading, etc.) - then you have an obligation to "pay back" the creators of the work(s) in some way. The way i would do that is, for example, buying one of the CDs represented on the "mix" CD, or purchasing a legit copy of the out-of-print work if/when it comes back into print or, failing that, buying another work by that creator as a way to help make up for the loss. It ain't much, but at least it's something. (Of course, now a lot of authors with Websites now have PayPal or something similar, so in those cases you could make a direct payment to the author if it's a book that's involved.)
(On this point, i also agree with Greenbaum; pirated copies do have a place in promoting *certain* things. It's when they are used as a way of not having to pay for originals that i take issue with them.)
Oh, and one question for Bladestar. So, by your logic, if i collected all your postings, sold them as a "Wit and Wisdom of Bladestar" e-book and pocketed the money, that'd be okay, right?
Brian
You cannot own non-tangible items.
So "identity theft" is a completely meaningless crime to you, then?
Seems to me that if you're correct, you'd have no problem with someone posting your credit card numbers here and letting the rest of us go off on a spending spree. All we took from you is a number -- that's not tangible, right?
TWL
Or for something even more pertinent...so, it would be okay with you if someone, say, scanned in every page of PAD's latest "Fallen Angel" TPB and posted it on the Web for download...right?
Brian
I have to admit that I'm torn between both sides. For the first time I actually agree with what Bladestar says, but I can also see the points made by others.
I guess I don't have a problem with people sharing music files, movies, software, etc. However, I don't think it is right for someone to download music, burn a CD and then turn around and sell it for profit.
That can work with the credit card number as well. As much as I'd hate you having it I don't think it would be stealing for you to possess my credit card number. It is just a number. However, the instant you use it, sell it, or in anyway profit from directly taking money from me you've crossed the line.
Of course then we get into the "well, what if I post the cc number on the internet?" question. So the person who has my number isn't buying anything with it and he isnt selling the number either. So is that ok?
It gets a little messy, I think.
Thats why I'm torn. :)
Brian,
Seeing as how there appear to be more than just me as Bladestar out there (I've sighted a few others the past few months) be my guest.
I agre with James, if you aren't reselling the copy, then so eff'n what!
Plus:
A) Credit numbers are NOT copyrighted. You can't copyright a string of numbers.
B) Credit cards ARE used as a cash substitute, so ringing up bills under another's name halready has a crime: FRAUD.
C) Identity theft has an actual value attached to it, the $$$ that was used to obtain the physical goods is still owed. The physical goods are gone from their provider, who no longer has them, and depending on the specific case either the merchant, the credit card company, or individual lose the money value of the Fraudulent transactions.
Get your "crimes" right people. (Not you James, you had the right idea)
Call me naïve, but I guess I just don't see why anyone would see that supporting a process that means the author of a work does not get paid in some way for each additional copy a separate person receives is ethical, defensible, or anything other than outright stealing.
There's been a good discussion, much along the same veins, on this topic over on The Comics Journal discussion board, and the best thing I took away from that is, let's stop calling it pirating. Pirates terrorized, plundered, and sacked the high seas. Internet 'pirates' sit in the safety and anonymoity of their own rooms and steal and distribute stolen goods. The TCJ discussion group proposed a good alternative name for these people, but I won't use it here!
So "identity theft" is a completely meaningless crime to you, then?
Seems to me that if you're correct, you'd have no problem with someone posting your credit card numbers here and letting the rest of us go off on a spending spree. All we took from you is a number -- that's not tangible, right?
Yes, it's a historic day here at PeterDavid.net! Tim Lynch and I find ourselves in complete agreement on this point..
The world shudders.
I work at a bookstore, and the policy there is that 'stripped' books and periodicals (where the covers are removed and sent back for credit) are NOT to be taken home by employees, but thrown away. (We even seal stripped magazines in cardboard boxes before disposal to discourage people from dumpster diving.) Sometimes people ask why we don't donate the stripped books somewhere; the answer is because they usually wind up for sale in thrift shops which cheats the publisher and author (to say nothing of the bookstore.)
Just so everybody knows, I ignored every other post after the one containing this quote:
But, before you talk about fair use, browse through USENET groups and find me one single binaries group that does not contain pirated material.
The fact is is that not all binary groups contain pirated material.
So a blanket banning/blocking would not only be unfair, it would be outright wrong.
This goes for any medium - usenet, p2p, web downloading, ftp.
You cannot simply blanket the whole method and say there are no valid uses for it. That's about as far from the truth as one can get.
I want to pose this question, since this ties in with another, recent thread.
If I went to alt.binaries.e-book (or whatever it was) right now, and downloaded an ebook version of, say, the Bible.
Is that wrong? :)
I'm curious here, because there are lots of books, no longer under copyright law/public domain, that are available and such, and are accessible via binary groups.
Rainbow Warrior: Last I heard on Harlan's board, if you contributed to the KICK fund and gave a reply address, you'll be getting a postcard in a few weeks or so asking you which option you want:
1) Get your money back plus $10 in 'earnest money' above and beyond your donation.
2) Get your money back without the $10 in 'earnest money'
3) I don't want my money, do what you think best with it.
Cheers, Jon Stover
And to clarify: Harlan's initial promise was that he'd pay back every KICK donation plus $10 'earnest money' as he dubbed it, above and beyond the donation. The three options listed above were Harlan's solution to the debate on his board that erupted after the decision -- a lot of people said they didn't want anything back, a lot suggested various other uses for it, and after about two days of posts, Harlan offered the above as his solution to the debate.
Again, cheers, Jonathan Stover
The bible question is interesting - clearly the original documents are in the public domain, as are many of the translated versions, but there are some recent translations that are probably still covered under copyright. I think that would be the key, since works in the public domain are not protected in any way by copyright.
As for Ellison, I'm glad the case was settled, because I never thought he deserved to win against AOL on the merits of the case - he had already gone after the individual who commited the copyright infringement, and AOL's only error was in not responding quickly enough to Ellison's request. A victory by Ellison would have a chilling effect on the internet (remember: the legal question in this case was not about active infringement, but rather contributory infringement through neglect, when such neglect may be a requirement of maintaining a "carrier" status according to the DMCA), and I like Ellison too much to want him to have suffered a loss in court. A settlement is the best way for this to have gone.
Darren...as I recall, the charges against the actual poster of the material was dropped (or settled) and the case was turned to focus on the carriers, like AOL....
If the focus was on AOL's blowing off Harlan's complaint's and not removing the posts from their servers. That's one thing.
If it's about that AOL carried the feeds in the first place, that's akin to blaming the phone company because someone commits fraud durring a phone call.
It's all about common carriage law. Been a few too many years since my Telecom Law class to remember it all, but as Darren says, holding an ISP responsible for what goes over it's wires would/will cause a huge chilling effect over the internet.
Don't believe it? Look what's happening in broadcast TV and radio because of the FCC's crusade spurred by Janet Jackson....Then think what'll happen if suddenly AOL or MCI or Qwest is suddenly liable for every bit that goes across their network.
Scavenger, you're constructing your argument on a false premise.
AOL did not merely transmit the data in question from point to point - they archived the material on their own servers, did not alert anyone to the copyright violation in progress, and ignored attempts by Harlan and his attorney to have the data removed. While they did not initiate the violation of copyright, they did continue the crime, which should label them at least as accessories after the fact.
Had they merely permitted access to someone else's archives, without holding that information themselves for any longer than necessary to transmit the data packets, they would not have been liable, and Harlan's attorney would, I'm sure, have so informed him.
Similarly, should someone use their Internet access through Cox (my own server) to access a peer-to-peer network in order to download and trade copyrighted music files, the downloader him/herself might well face charges, but Cox would remain blameless, as they would not have archived the music files in question themselves. Did they maintain an archive of files traded through a p2p system, they might well open themselves to liability for violation of copyright.
It is common practice for news servers to retain files for a certain period of time.
This is to ensure that the articles, regardless of content, remain available beyond the "here and now".
It's just how things work with usenet.
It's not like AOL or anybody else has the ability to filter everything. Again, not without removing everything.
There was a law passed concerning this subject about 6 or 8 or maybe 10 years ago. Part of that law was that when the server was notified, they had a reasonable amount of time to remove the offending material. AOL was informed on a number of occasions that Ellison's works were available through AOL. AOL chose to ignore both Ellison and his lawyer. They then sued. That is their right according to the law.
US copyright law has been gradually updated to be in line with the rest of the world. This is not just something that is going on here in the US. If I knew the exact date of the new law, I would be tempted to note that the Republicans have been in control of the Congress for the last 12 years, so don't go off on a tangent saying the Democrats or Clinton are "responsible for this mess."
The bigger part of this story is that so many, many people think that they have the "right" to own everything and anything for free. This is not so. Continuing to think and act on these thoughts makes one no better than the common criminals featured on "Cops" each and every week.
Now grow up and stop stealing shit. It's time to become adults and respect the rights of others.
The complete disregard of the rights to intellectual property expressed by self-centered greedy individuals like Bladestar can certainly be considered one of the reasons that companies are experimenting with self-destructing DVDS (which turn black and unplayable after a period of time or after a specified number of viewings) and other physical limits to purchase of creative works.
If I buy a book, that book is mine to read, loan to a friend or resell. That is the right I bought when I purchased the book. However, I do not have the right to scan the text and post it on the Internet or to make copies of the book and distribute them. I did not purchase those rights. That people like Bladestar cannot see the difference between these situations and their potential effect on the creator of the work--or more likely, simply don't care--is disheartening.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ellison's work, but I'm wondering about the sense in which "City on the Edge of Forever", "The Starlost", "I Robot" and The Last Dangerous Visions are successes. They must be, since he always win, but to the casual eye they look like defeats, at least from his point of view, given his views on the various bits of opposition.
Ellison didn't win in regard to his script for "City on the Edge of Forever"
Ellison's original screenplay for "City On the Edge of Forever" won (IIRC) a Hugo. Sounds like a win to me.
He managed to kill "The Starlost" after it became clear that the producers had no interest in, nor concept of, science fiction. He then reclaimed it, and published a novelization (which was darned good, IMHO).
"The Last Dangerous Visions" must be considered a Pyrrhic victory, in that he avoided having his vision compromised - but to someone of his artistic demeanor, it's still a win!
Uh, guys?
It's legal battles, not artistic ones...
Every time Mr. Ellison has entered the legal arena he has emerged victorious (ie: he's gotten what he wanted, either by outright victory or settlement).
Bern
Posted by Alan Coil: "Now grow up and stop stealing shit. It's time to become adults and respect the rights of others."
Bravo, Alan. It's seldom that I see this expressed in so eloquent but simple language.
Even though it does remind me of this exchange:
Federal Wildlife Marshal Willenholly: And you, don't steal any more monkeys.
Jay: F--- you.
Willenholly: Fair enough.
You still haven't shown what's actually been stolen when something is copied.
Becasue you can't. There's nothing stolen when a copy is made.
Imagine what would happen if someone decided to create libraries today.........
Beautiful point Frank.
Were libraries not already entrenched in the culture, they'd never get started thanks to the copyright gestapo.
**Sigh** I see I'm gonna have to spell this one out.
O.K.
Bladestar, you asked what, if anything, is stolen when someone makes a copy...
I think we can all agree that even intangible property can have substantial real value. The experience of live music, of a movie in the theaters - even though you leave the venue "empty handed" you have been intangibly enriched by the art you have experienced...
If you were to then package that experience and give it away for free - you are damaging the creator of the art's ability to "sell" the experience to others. Yeah, the creator still "has" their original experience to offer - you didn't physically remove it from them, you "just made a copy" of it. But the very real result is that they have lost the chance of a "sale" to those you have given the experience to for free.
You have stolen their right to "sell" their work - their art.
Of course, if you've made an imperfect copy, they still have the greater fidelity of their original to offer - but even then, it's been "devalued" by the lesser copies floating around... But when you post the work of a writer, you are giving away perfect copies of their art - the words themselves are the sum of the art. You are taking money out of the pockets of the men and women whom you admire so much that you feel COMPELLED to give copies of their work away for free. With fans like you, who needs enemies?
Next time you meet an admired artist - please do this for me. Ask them to reach into their wallets or purses and hand you a buck. Take that buck and walk away. Now ask each and every fan waiting in line for an autograph to do the same thing. The result is exactly the same as posting a copy of their work for free. Limiting, in however small a way, the artist's ability to make a livelihood at their art. Whether you steal the sale or take the buck, it's the same thing.
Now, on to copyright and libraries
In an ideal world the writer/artist would make a sale from EACH person who experienced their art, EACH time they experienced it. But we live in an imperfect world. There is no way of knowing who has experienced the art, without wildly impractical methods of controlling access to that art and totalitarian methods of peering into people's minds, looking for "unauthorized experiences".
Fortunately some brighter lights than mine came to an inspired compromise. They realized that while the experience of art was intangible, if one creates a container to hold the experience, you then had a tangible item... Rather than being paid for each experience of the art - the artist would get paid whenever the container that holds the art was duplicated. It offered a real-world, tangible - countable - method for limiting the world's access to the art AND a practical method for compensating the artist. As long as each copy of the container was paid for, you no longer had to worry about access to the art it contains - the tangible nature of the container was automatically limiting...
Copyright was born.
COPYright. Not EXPERIENCEright, or OWNright. COPYright. It's all about making copies and compensating the artist when you do...
Each and every book on a library's shelf is (hopefully) an authorized copy of the work of art in question. Some small amount of compensation was handed to the artist for that particular copy of their art.
The library is, and has always, been allowed to do with their purchased copy whatever they like. Just like any individual. You can choose to keep the copy to yourself - allowing no one but yourself to see or experience the art it contains. You can destroy it. Or you can lend it out to friend and foe alike.
But this is the kicker. If you hand it to someone else, you no longer have access to the art. You have the memories of your experience, sure, but no access. And remember, that was the point of creating a tangible container for an intangible experience - control of access.
The library buys an authorized copy of the art in question and each time a patron borrows it - NO ONE ELSE has access to the art. And no one will have access to the art until that patron returns the container and relinquishes THEIR ACCESS to the art. It doesn't matter how many people experience the art - only that the single access point to it was paid for.
Now, things have gotten a bit stickier in the digital world - since the digital containers (files) are themselves no longer tangible items. But the principle remains the same. The creator of the art has the RIGHT to control the COPYING of the containers that hold their art, even if the container is a computer file. They have a RIGHT to be compensated for that COPYING. It is IRRELEVANT if the copy doesn't physically take anything away from the artist - they have the right to control the COPYING of their work - in all media - known or to be invented. It's their only protection and it's the only way they're compensated.
Posting stories (or pictures, or music) on USENET, or P2P networks is nothing more than willfully stealing the artists legal and completely justifiable RIGHT to be compensated for those copies...
It's STEALING, plain and simple - even if they can reach into their pocket and find a dollar there...
Hope that clears some things up,
Bern
Hope that clears some things up,
Bladestar made up his mind long ago.
If he were on a jury trying to convict a man who admitted his guilt, and Bladestar thought him innocent anyways, nothing would change his mind.
That's the way he works, so I wouldn't bother anymore.
Sorry, there is NO legal "right to be compensated".
Your boss doesn't have to pay you, but you have an agreement with him to get paid. You don't have a "right" to a paycheck.
There is no "Right to compensation".
That's the way he works, so I wouldn't bother anymore.
So true. As my grammy used to say: "Never wrestle with a pig. It's too much work and the pig enjoys it too much."
I actually gave to KICK Internet Piracy twice because, as a creative person myself, I think creative people should be paid for their work. I'm also considering the "keep the money and do what you want to with it" option.
Bladestar, I'm curious about your reasoning there. My boss doesn't have to pay me, but I have an agreement with him to get paid? Really? I've been in the workforce for 27 years (Jesus Christ!) and I've never gotten the impression that any of my employers felt that paying me to do a job was something they did as a courtesy. In fact, I would think that the existence of a federally-mandated minimum wage pretty much wipes out your contention that "there is no right to compensation." If you run a business, and I come to work for you as a salaried employee, you are in fact obligated to pay me at least the minimum wage, and time-and-a-half for anything over 40 hours a week on top of that. That's the law.
There are other arrangements for independent contractors and workers-for-hire, but I don't know of any legal arrangement (other than those involving incarceration in a correctional institution of some kind) where one person can be compelled to work for another without monetary compensation of some kind. And making your kid cut the grass or take out the trash doesn't count.
Paul
No Paul, but you don't have to work for your employer if you don't like the terms either. You still don't have an automatic right to compensation.
That's like saying you go to your local park, pick up garbage, and then expect the city to pay you for your work even though they never asked and/or agreed to pay you. Just because you worked doesn't automatically entitle you to anything.
If you were a slaried employee of mine, we'd havew, at a minimum, a verbal agreement over what you'd be compensated, limited to what I feel you are you worth to me. If I don't offer enough, you don't have to work for me. If you work without my agreeing to pay you, then you get squat.
Well, Bladestar, how will you feel when all of your favorite authors adopt your philosophy and quit writing because they are not getting squat while the people downloading their works get a free ride?
Bladestar,
You speak of specific, contractual obligations. OK, I can buy that.
But - I did allude to this problem in my second, longer post: "In an ideal world the writer/artist would make a sale from EACH person who experienced their art, EACH time they experienced it. But we live in an imperfect world. There is no way of knowing who has experienced the art, without wildly impractical methods of controlling access to that art and totalitarian methods of peering into people's minds, looking for 'unauthorized experiences'."
So, rather than implement those wildly impractical methods or totalitarian measures - they (being the brighter lights I referred to) implemented copyright. Protecting the container. And it IS a law.
You may not like the law, you may even hate the law - but it is the law - and it binds you every bit as firmly to the implied "contract" between the artist and the audience as if you signed it yourself.
So yes, artists DO have a legal right to be compensated for their art. (I do note you had nothing to say about the "justifiable" part of the phrase - which would bind us to compensate them on a purely moral ground...)
You can despise the law all you want - and if you do, there are methods to change it. But you defy the law at your own risk. And you have no real justification for stealing money from artist except an anger at the law and supposedly "outrageous pricing".
If you don't want to personally compensate the artists, there are legal options available to you - the biggest is, of course, the library - they have already compensated the artists on your behalf and there are only minor barriers to your enjoyment of their art.
Or, you can choose not to participate in the system as it exists and NOT experience the art of any artist who has the temerity to expect compensation for their work. Show some personal integrity and live up to the behavior your personal code of ethics demands...
Either way, the choice exists and it's yours.
But please, don't suggest that copying works of art and distributing them freely is neither a crime nor without its victims.
Bern
And I do not accept any of the silly terms they try to unilaterally impose via "licensing".
They wrote their licenses without my permission or input, so I re-write them without theirs. I signed no contract accepting their terms, I use my own.
If you are foolish enough to accept their BS, then so be it, but there are many of us a lot smarter than you sheep, so go right ahead and let the corporations lull you to your own slaughter...
Let's get Harlan in here to "debate" Bladestar. I'd pay damn good money for that.
Bladestar,
So by your logic, if a policeman feels a law - oh, let's say against police brutality - is "silly" because the lawmakers passed laws "without his input" he "can rewrite them without theirs". Since he signed no contract accepting "their" terms, he can "use his own".
Or, if you feel a policeman actually signs a contract to "protect and serve", substitute an Average Joe who wants to kick the crap out of you because he finds you annoying.
Always ironic when someone who constantly rails against the "taking away of rights and freedoms" actually doesn't give a damn about anybody else's rights but their own.
Cops swear an oaqth to uphold the law, it's part of their "contract".
A software or music EULA is NOT a law. Big difference between laws, contracts, and non-negotiable EULA's.
I've already explained that you can't own music or books or intangible things, so there are no rights being violated by copying them.
Not very bright are you, Jerry?
Posted by: Bladestar at June 25, 2004 10:52 AM
"I've already explained that you can't own music or books or intangible things, so there are no rights being violated by copying them."
Bladestar,
Look around. Ask somebody nearby to go get a copy of Bill Clinton's nice, new, hardbound book. Then have them wing it at your head as hard as they can. When you wake up, give me your opinion on the intangibility of the container that BernieG was talking about.
A software or music EULA is NOT a law. Big difference between laws, contracts, and non-negotiable EULA's.
I've already explained that you can't own music or books or intangible things, so there are no rights being violated by copying them.
You've taken this up with Peter, right?
You can say that there are no rights involved with intangible things....but you can also say evolution doesn't work. Same thing.
You don't pay attention do you either do you Rog?
You should know by now that I hold evolution much more credible that "god".
Blackjack, you must have a severe learning disability. The hardbound book is a physical good. Taking it would be stealing. Copying the words in it would not be. Trying to pass them off as your own would be a foul lie.
I love you people, such a great source of entertainment.
Bladestar,
Look around. Ask somebody nearby to go get a copy of Bill Clinton's nice, new, hardbound book. Then have them wing it at your head as hard as they can. When you wake up, give me your opinion on the intangibility of the container that BernieG was talking about.
Posted by: Bladestar at June 25, 2004 01:28 PM
"Blackjack, you must have a severe learning disability. The hardbound book is a physical good. Taking it would be stealing. Copying the words in it would not be. Trying to pass them off as your own would be a foul lie."
That was sarcasm, which would be an intangible. So would things like honesty, integrity, honor, and bravery. Just because the military creates a tangible representation of bravery in the form of a medal, that does not make it any less of an intangible.
Likewise, just because, during the process of creation, a book or piece of music spends time as thought does not make the fruits of those labors any less tangible.
You don't pay attention do you either do you Rog?
Better than you read for comprehension.
"Bladestar" (after a furious battle with the forces of Skeletor) says:
I love you people, such a great source of entertainment.
I prefer books and movies myself, but whatever floats your boat, man.
Bladestar,
I have to say I'm disappointed. I had hoped you would provide some insight into your philosophy and code of ethics - but you haven't. Maybe you choose not to, maybe you can't. I don't know, but I am disappointed.
You've ignored or glossed over the points (reasonable points, I might add) I've brought up in answer to your arguments. You just restate your position with no further supporting fact or expansion. Or you change the subject. And you insult people who disagree with you.
Your worldview appears wildly egocentric, and frankly, it reminds me of nothing more than a greedy child. Surely you are more than that? If you want to disagree with me - please do so. But reinforce your argument. Unless you deign to educate us "sheep" with something more than unsupported pronouncement, I'm afraid you done little to persuade me that what you have to say about this is anything more than the prattle of that greedy child I keep hearing whenever I read your statements here.
Bern
Educating you was your parents job, not mine Bernie.
I can NOT participate in the system and still enjoy what I want. I can tape off the radio, so how is someone who downloads music any different?
Oh that's right, big business controls the airwaves, you don't get any choice in what you hear. We're taking the choice back. If Britney, N'suck, the Backdoor Boys, and their ilk don't like it, tough (although why anyone would download anything of theirs I'll never understand...)
Copying isn't stealing. You still ignore that basic fact. You cannot steal that which has no substance. You might steal the physical CD the music is on, that is stealing, but copying it is not.
I know what I believe to be true, and I don't seem some totally unethical profit-is-god corporate lawyers that control congress and the legal system to tell me what's good for me.
I know what is right in my heart and soul. At least I have a soul unlike all the corporates drones out there...