Harlan Ellison Can Sue AOL Under DMCA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harlan Ellison Can Sue AOL Under DMCA

Posted by timothy on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:34AM 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."

13 of 98 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Compliments to whoever wrote the document! by Sklivvz · 2004-02-11 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
My Stack Overflow user
1. Re:Compliments to whoever wrote the document! by lambent · 2004-02-11 02:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Compliments to whoever wrote the document! by clonebarkins · 2004-02-11 03:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Vonnegut ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-11 02:40 · Score: 1, Informative

You idiot, the sunscreen speech was really written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
1. Re:Vonnegut ! by evilad · 2004-02-11 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, the speech was _given_ by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It was _written_ by Mary Schmich, a Chicago Tribune columnist.
2. Re:Vonnegut ! by JCMay · 2004-02-11 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Are you sure about that?
3. Re:Vonnegut ! by shrubya · 2004-02-11 03:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  speech was _given_ by Kurt Vonnegut
  No, Vonnegut had absolutely positively nothing to do with the Sunscreen essay. Look it up for yourself.
Usenet IS p2p by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-11 02:41 · Score: 1, Informative

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.
RTFA by JetScootr · 2004-02-11 02:58 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Re:All Usenet would be vulnerable... by clonebarkins · 2004-02-11 03:30 · Score: 3, Informative

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).

--

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Ellison's comments by squiggleslash · 2004-02-11 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's what Harlan Ellison has to say about the appeal.
Looking at it, it does look like he still has to clear several hurdles. So this isn't a sure thing. You can read about Harlan Ellison's general efforts to deal with protecting author's copyrights here.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That is not stealing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-11 06:06 · Score: 1, Informative

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 emotional points. Copying just does not involve theft. This does not mean it is right, moral, or legal.

By registering as Sheetrock, you STOLE my right to register as Sheetrock myself, for example. Give it a rest. Don't us the term stealing/theft for situations where it is not involved. It is moronic.
Re:It still would not be stealing by OWJones · 2004-02-11 10:58 · Score: 2, Informative

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 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 fileswappers [...]

It's also used this way by lawyers and the law, particularly 17 USC Section 501, the part of law that defines exactly what is a violation of the exclusive rights of copyright holder.

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.

Copyright. Violation of a right is infringement, not theft. Repeat early and often. It's the law.

-jdm