Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

Harlan Ellison Can Sue AOL Under DMCA 98

Posted by timothy from the one-man-not-to-have-against-you dept.
mbstone writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that sci-fi author Harlan Ellison can go ahead with his DMCA lawsuit against AOL. Seems somebody posted some Ellison stories to Usenet, AOL made 'em available, Ellison complained, and AOL blew him off."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harlan Ellison Can Sue AOL Under DMCA More

Harlan Ellison Can Sue AOL Under DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • This is ridiculous, the document reads "Stephen Robertson posted copies of some of Ellison's copyrighted short stories on a peer-to-peer file sharing network, the USENET.

    Since when is USENET a P2P Filesharing network? Ok, you can find a lot of stuff in it, but it's NOt peer2peer and file-sharing , it's client/server and message-posting! It's a totally different thing.

    • Re:Compliments to whoever wrote the document! (Score:5, Informative)

      by lambent ( 234167 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:40AM (#8248468)
      Ah, my friend, you forget the fact that USENET is indeed made up up many different distributed peers.

      From the servers' points of view, it is P2P. That's why your experience on any one server my be drastically different than another.

      As for file sharing .... go check out the alt.* hierarchy.

      • Re:Compliments to whoever wrote the document! (Score:5, Informative)

        by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:39AM (#8249106)
        From the servers' points of view, it is P2P.

        While it is undoubtedly P2P...

        As for file sharing .... go check out the alt.* hierarchy.

        ...just because people can share files on it, it's not a "filesharing system". People can share files via the World Wide Web, but it's not considered a "filesharing system". Calling USENET a "P2P filesharing system" is limiting at best and gives a potentially pejorative connotation.

        • I never said it was exclusively a file sharing system. And while broad definitions are often damaging, ignoring components of a system is ignorant.

          Do you share files on the system? Yes? Then it is, at least in part, a file sharing system.

          All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
        • People can share files via the World Wide Web, but it's not considered a "filesharing system".

          Actually that is exactly what the web is. I have an HTML file and place it in an open web share. Anyone who clicks a link to my webpage is requesting a download of that shared file. That file is copied to your computer. That file is then "played" to you. If you don't delete those files you can "play" them as often as you like, creating the webpage image and perhaps even audio (music) components of that page.

          Peop

          • Actually that is exactly what the web is. I have an HTML file and place it in an open web share. Anyone who clicks a link to my webpage is requesting a download of that shared file. That file is copied to your computer. That file is then "played" to you. If you don't delete those files you can "play" them as often as you like, creating the webpage image and perhaps even audio (music) components of that page.

            Yes, I understand how HTTP works, but I was talking about perceptions, not technical specificatio

    • Um. No one outside of Techies knows usenet exists. Because of all the RIAA whining, everyone has started to know that P2P is used to share copyrighted materials, and thats about it. I doesn't matter what Techies call their toys; The Lawyers, Lobbists, and Politicans will label it P2P and use that label to limit usenet how they want it limited. Remember, Napster was slammed down because they were a central server. I think someone wants some laws limiting all client/server transfers. Usenet isn't one server,

  • Usenet IS p2p (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Usenet - at the server level - is a peer-to-peer network. End users access the servers as articles on the servers using a client/server protocol (NNRP), but the articles spread from server to server using a peer-to-peer protocol (NNTP).

    If you think there are no files present on Usenet, try looking in the alt.binaries.* hierarchy (which is not carried on GoogleNews). You'll find hundreds of thousands of files of all kinds, especially media.

    • You'll find hundreds of thousands of files of all kinds, especially media.

      True... However, I do have a rather serious problem with this case...

      Usenet servers have a finite article retention time, usually a week, almost never more than a month (considering the volume of traffic that goes over Usenet in a month, even a megacorp like AOL would have to shy away from storing it all for more than a few weeks).

      So, let's think about a hypothetical time frame for these events - Harlan's works get posted. A fe

  • Pray the jury is sensible. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sudog ( 101964 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:45AM (#8248528) Homepage
    If an author can sue every single ISP for damages, everywhere, we enter a nasty realm of "okay time to shut anything that might be infringing down."

    What ISP can afford to filter every newsgroup manually? What ISP can sit there and act on anything but complaints?

    An author deserves protection, but the person responsible for posting it is the one liable--not the ISPs who provide the avenue by which an author's works are distributed.

    What's the matter, Harlan? Not enough money lining your pockets from your successful writing/consulting/speaking career?

    Bah.
    • One would hope he's doing it to show how silly the DMCA is...

    • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by JetScootr ( 319545 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:58AM (#8248668) Journal
      In accordance with the DMCA, Ellison's lawyer sent AOL an email with notification of infringement. AOL ignored the email.
      Actually, Ellison was kinder to AOL than the RIAA has been to file sharers. This is the same thing, only it wasn't music, it was literature.
      The judge ruled that the lower court was wrong to issue summary judgement that infringement did not occur, even though the facts were accepted by both parties that the copyrighted material was posted.

    • Re:Pray the jury is sensible. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:30AM (#8248998) Homepage Journal
      What's the matter, Harlan? Not enough money lining your pockets from your successful writing/consulting/speaking career?

      No, it's just that Harlan is a freaking lunatic. I have been screamed at by the man not once, not twice, but three times in my life (so far). The guy goes into screaming fits regularly. I have also seen him lift a barstool to clock a guy at a bar inside a hotel lobby. He threw a fit because a group of us were making too much noise as he was giving an interview... by the hotel elevators. And then he tried to throw me out of the filk room when it was reserved, as I happened to be the first one there setting up for everybody. Again, another "interview", which was far more important than the use of the room by a dozen people who had reserved it on the schedual months ago.

      The guy is the closest match to the cartoon definition of meglomania I've ever seen. He's a parody of a egotistical jerk. If he wins this case, I would not be surprised if he then proceeded to sue every other ISP that has a usenet server... and be cocksure he should win.

      If you want a longer version of these ancedotes, I've posted about him on Slashdot before. He's an amazing guy. Good writer, but I think if I had to sit next to him in a plane, one or both of us would be stepping outside ten minutes after takeoff, likely with a firm kick to the rear.

      --
      Evan

      • Harlan has always been, to phrase it gently, a rasty,prickley little SOB, but he is most certainly no lunatic.

        Considering the years he's been working in Hollyweird and the number of times he's been forced to resort to 'CORDWAINER BIRD'in order to keep a minimum of self respect, I'd say that he is amazingly mellow and even tempered.
      • It's a shame that, unlike some of his story titles, Harlan has a mouth. A very large one. And yes, he IS a lunatic.

      • Re:Pray the jury is sensible. (Score:5, Funny)

        by utahjazz ( 177190 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @01:08PM (#8250786)
        Good writer

        Really? I haven't seen any of his stuff. Could you post some of it here?

      • I'd believe it (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Unknown Kadath ( 685094 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @04:08PM (#8252954)
        I saw him speak at MIT with Neil Gaiman and Peter David a few years back. Gaiman was delightful, and David didn't make much of an impression on me one way or the other, but Ellison had me squirming in my seat. The man is rude and self-centered, and once each speaker's alloted time was up, he monopolized the stage and shouted down questions from the audience he didn't agree with. He cut David off in the middle of an anecdote because they were running over and "I want to read my story!" Which he did. All of it. Long past the time the program was scheduled to end. Gaiman and David left to go sign autographs, and I left to go sit in the lobby.

        Maybe if he rescued crippled orphans from war zones for a living, I'd put up with that kind of behavior, but the guy's just a writer.

        -Carolyn
      • and sent it to a publisher he was having a dispute with. Neil Gaiman has a highly amusing anecdote about how the mailroom boy who delivered the box to the publisher got fired (that's not the funny part). The mailroom boy met Neil Gaiman years after this and told him what happened, and Neil had heard Harlan Ellison tell about how he took a handgun out to his garden in his bathrobe to shoot the gopher, but nobody would believe him until Neil told the rest.

  • Absurd (Score:2, Interesting)

    by damitbill ( 66375 )
    I guess he plans on suing every NNTP server operator on the web. Watch your backs if you are running one of these. Of course eventually what this means is that ISP's will have to filter all content on the internet besides just terrorist information, child porn, scientology, etc. This is a slippery slope that we've gone down. Personally I quit reading all of Ellison's stuff when he decided to just sue them as his 'business model'. I know he wants to protect his property but why not write material people such

    • It can't be stolen (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I know he wants to protect his property but why not write material people such as myself would pay for (I don't download copyrighted music or books) rather than steal

      There is no theft involved in duplication of files. It does not meet the definition of theft. Copyright infringement is something different.

      Did I steal your car if I created an exact duplicate of it, and drove away (in the duplicate) leaving your car sitting, still untouched, in the driveway? Of course not.
      • If I have copyrighted or patented my car, then yes it would be stealing. Taking ones ideas if you patented or copyrighted them is protected under current law.

        • It still would not be stealing (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If I have copyrighted or patented my car, then yes it would be stealing

          The only difference copyrighting/patenting your car would make is that the situation would now be one of infringement. There STILL would be no theft involved.

          Taking ones ideas if you patented or copyrighted them is protected under current law.

          Certainly, but it still isn't theft. Also, the use of "taking" is misleading, as it does not meet the definition of "take" actually: the original remains, it is not moved.
          • Hypothetical situation.

            I write a novel. It's not a particularly good novel, but I'm proud of it. I have a copyright on the novel which I do not relinquish or alter, and I publish and sell copies of the novel.

            A reader somewhere thinks it's the best novel he's ever read, or at least in his top 100. He scans the book to HTML and uploads it to a filesharing network. He has stolen my right to distribute my work on my terms.

            A user of the filesharing network downloads the scanned copy of my novel. He to

            • That is not stealing (Score:1, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              He scans the book to HTML and uploads it to a filesharing network. He has stolen my right to distribute my work on my terms.

              That is not actually theft. You are intentionally abusing the meaning of the word. It is like if someone posts a VR story on Slashdot before I do I whine that "they STOLE my right to post it first!". In any case, you can still distribute it on your own terms.

              Please put this argument to rest

              I will as soon as people stop using words that do not apply, in order to try to score emoti

            • A user of the filesharing network downloads the scanned copy of my novel. He too has stolen my right to choose the means and scope of my distribution.

              Rights can't be stolen, only infringed. If the government censors you unfairly, they haven't stolen your right to free speech (where'd it go?) they've infringed it. Even Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] defines infringement this way:

              1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

              It's used as a particularly moronic crutch by some avid P2P

            • It is not enough that you lose something for it to become theft; stealing and theft are precise words, with a specific meaning.

              If you are kidnapped, and your freedom to move about is removed, it is not theft.

              If you receive a false invoice, and pay, that is fraud, not theft.

              If your copyright is infringed, it is infringement, not theft.

              Muddling the issue makes nothing clearer. I fail to see how using the words "stealing" and "theft" for actions they are not correctly describing is going to make people bet

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:20AM (#8248895)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Absurd (Score:2, Interesting)

        by damitbill ( 66375 )
        I've run a NNTP server before and with (at that time) 10,000+ newsgroups and there was no way I could know what was in them all. If we have to police them all or respond to everyone who complained about them it would shut them all down. It would be quite impossible to censor that many groups, just note the p0rn types out there under existing laws. He is going after AOL because it's a big target. And I do agree he is within his rights to ask that they be removed, it is his property. But Mr. Ellison has been
      • Does anyone know which newsgroup it was posted to? If it was outside the aol.* heirarchy, then obviously Ellison has no idea how NNTP works. The minute that the message propagated, it was outside AOL's control on any but thier own servers. If the stories were posted on the alt.* heirarchy, we're talking thousands of servers in the first few minutes. AOL could no more remove the posts from those newsgroups than MSN could remove freebsd.org from the web. Being unable to do the impossible is NOT "blowing him
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Does anyone know which newsgroup it was posted to? If it was outside the aol.* heirarchy, then obviously Ellison has no idea how NNTP works. The minute that the message propagated, it was outside AOL's control on any but thier own servers.

          RTFA. alt.binaries.ebook. And it wasn't originally posted via AOL at all.

      • No he doesn't. As the article write-up points out, he asked AOL to remove the (clearly) infringing articles, and AOL blew him off.

        The actual complaint says that the guy who posted the stories did it through his local ISP. AOL came in only as it peered with that. What makes it a bit sleazy is that Ellison made a deal with the uploader, the only person wo deliberately copied his work, if he would give evidence in his case against AOL -- and obviously AOL is the target solely due to having deep pockets.

    • I think Ellison should sue the New York Public Library. After all, they're making his copyrighted works available to the public FOR FREE!

  • All Usenet would be vulnerable... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ioldanach ( 88584 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:58AM (#8248672)
    There are two aspects to this case. First, he contacted two companies running Usenet servers via e-mail. AOL didn't respond, and says they didn't get it, thus they didn't remove the files from their servers. That's what the lawsuit is really about. Personally, I think if the case comes to this point, the testimony will bear out exactly what happened. He may have sent to the wrong e-mail, or it got lost among the spam. If you want something done, legally, send a piece of paper, not an e-mail.

    The larger issue is that each Usenet group is carried, in its majority (not necessarily whole) by hundreds, possibly thousands of companies across the globe. Tens of thousands of messages pass through thousands of groups daily. Any server carrying a large percentage of groups with a standard policy for deletion should be treated as a common carrier. The case here should revolve around whether notice was served and responded too.

    Otherwise, all Usenet would be vulnerable to this kind of attack, and companies might begin to shut down a valuable means for information exchange on the presumption of the guilt of its users. It isn't like this is a single company who can fight using the "substantial noninfringing uses" argument.

    Of course, this doesn't exclude the fact that he contacted 2 of the hundreds or thousands of companies with news feeds. What about the rest? Did he not know how the system worked? He should be taking out potential losses on the hide of the person who posted the material.

    • Re:All Usenet would be vulnerable... (Score:4, Informative)

      by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:30AM (#8248995)
      He may have sent to the wrong e-mail, or it got lost among the spam.

      According to the decision, he sent it to the right email address, but AOL changed their copyright infringement notification email address from "copyright@aol.com" to "aolcopyright@aol.com" and didn't register their changes with the Copyright Office for 6 months or more. It was during this time period that Ellison sent the email. At best, this is negligence on AOL's part.

      Having said that, I doubt AOL will be found vicariously liable. Remember, this decision only says that Ellison is allowed to take AOL to trial. It indicates that the lower court was wrong to summarily decide the case, and it outlines what Ellison will need to prove in order to win (and vice versa for AOL).

  • Obvious? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:04AM (#8248725)
    "I Have No Morals Yet I Must Sue"?

  • In related news (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:06AM (#8248744)
    In related news, every McDonald's in the country has a photo of Harlan posted, with instructions NEVER to serve him hot coffee.

  • Unfair and Unreasonable Legislation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:33AM (#8249032)

    Is it really that surprising that a stupid lawsuit is the direct result of unfair and unreasonable legislation such as the DMCA? Wouldn't it be nice if AOL took the DMCA all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional? Of course, that's unlikely because AOL/TW actually want the DMCA -- they just don't want it to apply to them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Agreed. These kinds of law suits must be made in order to show how ridiculous the DMCA is. It is also good for getting those companies like AOL that originally lobbied for the DMCA to change their mind a start lobbying against it. If this happens enough, either the US will fall into a dark age as the rest of the world surpasses us, or the companies responsible for the DMCA and our politicians will get a clue and fix the situation.
    • In the absence of the DMCA safe harbor provision Ellison would not have had to send a takedown notice. He could have sued AOL for copyright infringement with no notice and won by merely proving that they posted his work. The RIAA would love it. Is that what you want?

      • In the absence of the DMCA safe harbor provision Ellison would not have had to send a takedown notice. He could have sued AOL for copyright infringement with no notice and won by merely proving that they posted his work. The RIAA would love it. Is that what you want?

        Perhaps he would have won, but AOL/TW has a lot more resources than most 12-year-olds and are in a much better position to appeal a losing verdict and get the law struck down. So, yeah, I would want that scenario.

    • Is it really that surprising that a stupid lawsuit is the direct result of unfair and unreasonable legislation such as the DMCA? Wouldn't it be nice if AOL took the DMCA all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional? Of course, that's unlikely because AOL/TW actually want the DMCA -- they just don't want it to apply to them.

      That may well be what Ellison is really up to. I'm not disputing that he's a crazy bastard, but he's a smart one. It would be VERY like him to hoist AOL by

  • A prolificly ironic writer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by no longer myself ( 741142 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:46AM (#8249194)
    "Like the wind crying endlessly through the universe, Time carries away the names and the deeds of conquerors and commoners alike. And all that we are, all that remains, is in the memories of those who cared we came this way for a brief moment."
    Harlan Ellison (1934 - ), "Paladin of the Lost Hour"

    Doesn't that strike any of you as odd? He's effectively using a draconian law that devalues the importance of the human need to share thoughts and ideas, but at the same time it would be a hypocracy for such thoughts not to be shared with others.

    Of course being around 70 years of age, he's probably just getting old and cranky now...

    • Just like he used to be young and cranky? Seriously, look into how this man behaves in public (and has done so for decades), and you'll realize that despite being a brilliant author, he's a complete asshole and this is par for the course.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @11:21AM (#8249530)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • presenting themselves as the legitimate copyright holder (on force of law) asks for something to be taken down because it infringes on their copyright

        Actually they only state under penalty of perjury that that are *A* copyright holder. Any claims of infringment, or that they have a copyright on the posted material, can be entirely bogus.

        I can state that I am the copyright holder of my own post. I can contact Slashdot and demand that they take down YOUR post. Under the DMCA I am free and clear, and it is
        • > Actually they only state under penalty of
          > perjury that that are *A* copyright holder.

          A holder of a copyright on some portion of the subject material.

          > Any claims of infringment, or that they have a
          > copyright on the posted material, can be
          > entirely bogus.

          Making such a fraudulent claim can result in you being prosecuted for perjury.

          > I can state that I am the copyright holder of my
          > own post. I can contact Slashdot and demand that
          > they take down YOUR post. Under the DMCA I am
          • A holder of a copyright on some portion of the subject material.

            False. Try reading the DMCA:

            A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed

            I state under penalty of perjury that I am a copyright holder of my own post. I alledge that your post infringes my rights.

            Making such a fraudulent claim can result in you being prosecuted for
      • Everything in the DMCA is completely Draconic. You want one rule, you get the other. No other way around it. By the way, that part of the DMCA specifies that if someone claiming that you have a copyright infringement on your website (or whatever) asks you to take it down, you have to take it down - regardless of whether you actually infringed on the copyright. That is what I do call Draconian.
      • The case was a bit rediculous. The elements were supposedly taken from "Demon with a Glass Hand" and "Soldier". Demon dealt with a robot going into the past and Soldier dealt with two fighters from the future going into the past. I believe the term "Time Mirror" was used in both "Demon" and "Terminator" and it threw the case his way. I normally side with the original artist but this way insane. No portions of either story were used. He should have lost. "The Truman Show" was one of the most blatant rip-offs

  • Ellison is going after the "deep pockets" - AOL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @11:02AM (#8249337)
    I could *maybe* see some validity to the suit if the original poster had used AOL to post the stories *and* Ellison had sent something more substantial than an email to AOL (say, maybe a cease and desist letter) *and* AOL *then* blew him off, before bringing suit.

    But it seems to me he first acted against the user's ISP to get him bounced and the source articles taken down, then looked around for the deepest pockets he could find so he could get some money.

    So, be careful of gloating about AOL - as much as people love to hate them, it sounds to me like they are an innocent party to this fiasco, and if they go down the rest of the net's ISPs could go with them.

    P.S. - it doesn't seem to me that AOL "blew him off" - as far as I can tell AOL never got the email.

  • It'll get overturned (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @11:06AM (#8249372)
    Too bad he's stuck under the 9th Circuit. It probably won't be too much longer before their decisions get overturned by default.

    • Why do people say that? If you look at the number of cases the 9th circuit has had overturned it looks worse than most other courts, but what that number doesn't tell you is that the 9th is about the busiest court in the nation and, percentage wise, doesn't have a higher percent overturned.

      But neither side on this issue wants to think about it, they just want to attack each other.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @11:07AM (#8249379)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Harlan Ellison should be thrown to the Lions. This is another case, like L. Ron Hubbard, where a Sci-Fi author thinks he has more "power" than he really has as an impotent prose con-artist. Let's review his other communist act: James Cameron and The Terminator. What that suit says, is basically, you can't derive new works from multiple existings works, even if said work has any form of originality in it. It's not like taking one work and changing a few words. This was a case where stupid Ellison sued becaus
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • What original ideas of his where used in the making of Terminator? Having seen it, I didn't see ONE original idea.

          • What original ideas of his where used in the making of Terminator? Having seen it, I didn't see ONE original idea.

            1. Truck-drivin' robot.
            2. Big-haired not-very-good-looking-but-somehow-sexy-anyway bimbo.
            3. Robot kills everyone with the same name as the big-haired not-very-good-looking-but-somehow-sexy-anyway bimbo, but somehow manages to miss killing her.
            4. Robot shoots up police station, and manages to kill everyone but person it was after (the big-haired not-very-good-looking-but-somehow-sexy-anyway bimbo), an
    • I am trully afraid.. his site is called "Webderland"??

      Kill me, kill me now!!!

      • It's a pun. One of his books (an anthology or collection) was called "Ellison Wonderland," a pun or allusion on "Alice in Wonderland." The website "Ellison Webderland" is a logical extension of that. A little klunky? Yeah, sure. But if you realize where it came from, certainly not so gratuitously *wrong* as the word "wedberland" on its own seems if you consider it as just a techno-ignorant neologism.

  • So what could AOL have done? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JuggleGeek ( 665620 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @11:29AM (#8249598)
    Assuming that AOL actually received his email, what would they have done? By then, the usenet posts had been distributed to lots of servers. The RFC's for newsgroups will explain about how you can "cancel" a message. But many servers do not accept/process cancels. This is because too many groups have been attacked by cancel-bots which go through trying to cancel every message (or something similar). Cancels are easy to forge, just like email "from" lines are easy to forge.

    Bottom line, once it's posted to usenet, it gets distributed, and AOL doesn't have much in the way of control. IMO, they should have issued a cancel just to cover their ass, removed the messages from their own usenet servers, and then told Harlan "We did what we could, and it's up to you to locate and contact anyone running another server".

    As it sits, it sounds like Harlan contacted them only by email, and if they simply say "Sorry, didn't get it" I don't see how he can prove anything. We've all seen spam filters and software problems eat email, and I doubt a court is going to accept "I emailed them, so they knew!" as a valid argument.

    • > IMO, they should have issued a cancel just to
      > cover their ass, removed the messages from their
      > own usenet servers...

      The latter would have been quite sufficient to protect them under the DMCA safe harbor provision.

  • He has no talent and he must write (Score:4, Funny)

    by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @12:35PM (#8250333)
    I hope he wins. Anything to limit the availability of Harlan Ellison's crapulous prose will be a boon to humanity.
  • Is he still alive? I can't recall even an anthology under his name for quite a while. The last I read about him, he was living in a tent in protest of something or other at a sci-fi convention. I always enjoyed his stories. The question is, fame or money? If his stories get into public domain, there is a better chance people will be enjoying them long after the last physical book gets remaindered into oblivion.
  • Here is another reason for Ellison to be agressive in his pursuit of the unauthorized copies of his work. Various correspondents here have made unkind comments about Ellison's character, suggesting that his is being greedy and unreasonable, and already has enough royalties.

    Well, when I looked at this recent article on electronic copyrights in the most recent RISKS digest [ncl.ac.uk] I was reminded of the Ellison story.

    The author of this article objected because the stolen version was corrupted, and, in his opinion

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close