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.”
Ðámņëd 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
• 
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 na
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.)
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 šhìŧ. 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 šhìŧ. 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
There are no victims because nothing is stolen.
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 dámņ 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 dámņ 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…